Is Testing a Good Strategy

                                                               The View from the Middle 

If your goal is to keep America in panic mode, then a massive testing effort is a great idea.  If you increase testing by 1,000%, do you know what you are going to get?  You are going to get more positive test results, and according to the CDC about 20% of those results are going to be false positives.  This increase in cases will be captured by the news media and dominate front pages and lead stories on TV because fear sells papers, ratings and clicks around the world.  

What you won’t hear much about on the news is that there has only been one death in the US due to the Omicron variant, and that person died “with” Covid, not “from” Covid.  You will also not hear that hospitalizations are not increasing nearly as much as infections and the main reason for increased hospitalizations is that people are finally getting some of those elective surgeries that they have been postponing for over a year.  This variant is less lethal than the original virus or the Delta variant and, if it follows the same steep increase and almost immediate steep decline seen in other countries, it may be ushering in the end of this pandemic.

It also makes me laugh to watch the coverage of incredibly long lines of people waiting to get a test standing outdoors in the freezing cold and sometimes in the pouring rain, reading books or their phones.  Obviously, these people aren’t experiencing any symptoms, or they would (and should) be at home in bed.  Given these “lack of symptoms” testers, we are getting many asymptomatic infected or false positives.  Now, is it important to find these asymptomatic carriers?  Yes and no.  First, these people are not showing symptoms, so they aren’t out there sneezing and coughing on people.  Can they spread this much milder version of Covid to others.  It is possible, but not likely.  In fact, I can find no data on what percent of transmissions are caused by the asymptomatic.

And how often should we test when a person can be exposed to Covid within minutes of testing negative?  Should we test multiple times a day?  Three times?  Four times?  To test three times a day we would need a BILLION tests per day just here in the US, yet we have only ordered half a billion to be delivered in mid-January.  Can you understand how ludicrous a massive testing effort like this will be?  Finally, if we get the same quick peak and decline experienced by other countries, the tests that Biden is planning to deliver in mid-January will most likely be too late anyway.  

Imagine if we had mandatory tests for the common cold, which is also a coronavirus, every year and then mandated five-day quarantines for everyone who tested positive and everyone who was exposed to them.  And the same for next year’s seasonal flu.  Our economy would never recover.  Our children would be taught remotely every day of every year and they would suffer academically, emotionally and socially for the rest of their lives.  At some point the regression students experience would become irreversible.

When are we going to accept the fact that this virus is in control and we must learn to live with it?  If you look at the pattern of infections, hospitalizations and deaths in the US the virus has exploded during times of economic shutdowns and mask mandates just shrugging off these feeble attempts to kill it.  And Joe Biden’s message of doom and gloom has done nothing to kill the virus or motivate our citizens.

If we want to defeat this virus we must stop the counting, which is a big lie in and of itself.  The infection numbers are full of false positives and double counts.  The deaths are exaggerated by at least 25%, and that is according to Dr. Deborah Birx from the original Covid-19 task force.  The death toll continues to include people who die “with” Covid, but not “from” Covid.  If we had used the same methodology for the great Influenza of 1918, the US would have reported the equivalent of eight million deaths back then. 

There are a few of things, however, that we can do, as citizens, to mitigate the spread of this virus.  First, we need to wash our hands multiple times a day.  In my article “Do Masks Even Work” I point out that some of the Randomized Controlled Trials do show a positive correlation between hand washing and mitigation of virus’.  So, wash your hands.  Second, if you are sick, if you are actually experiencing symptoms, stay home.   Third, consult your doctor and ask if the vaccine is appropriate for you.  Despite the fact that there have been many examples of cross-over infections (people who have been vaccinated but still were infected with Covid), the vaccine has shown evidence of protecting people from infection and of becoming seriously ill if they are.

And there are also a few things that the government should be doing to guide the country out of this pandemic.  First, we need a positive message from the top instead of this “winter of severe illness and death”, which is not only depressing the country, but is also inaccurate.  The Omicron variant actually delivers mild cases and virtually no deaths.  Stop the fearmongering.  Stop the lockdowns.  Stop the mandates, and stop ignoring natural immunity.  Follow the science.  Lockdowns don’t work, but natural immunity does.  Second, the federal government should be executing a “warp speed” version of therapeutics to help people get through the disease quickly and safely once they are infected.  Finally, get our kids back in school (without masks) before it is too late.  They are the least vulnerable and the least likely to spread the virus, but the most likely to suffer the long-term consequences of the current emotional deprivation effort currently in place.

Biden Takes a Tiny Step Toward Unity

 

During his Covid-19 plan update, President Biden took a baby step towards uniting country he has tried to divide for the last ten months.  He finally gave the Trump administration some credit for developing the Coronavirus vaccine and even (hold your breath here) mentioned Trump’s name as he did so.  To be absolutely honest, this is the second time I have heard the President recognize the Trump administration for its “Warp Speed” effort in developing the vaccine.  The last time, however, Mr. Biden couldn’t bring himself to actually mention Trump’s name. 

Then, as if to prove that miracles actually do happen in today’s world, Donald Trump responded in a positive way.  Between Joe’s recognition and Donald’s response, the administration might convince a few more people to get the vaccine.  

But Joe couldn’t help himself, and later in the speech he had to attack the unvaccinated and suggest that they are unpatriotic.  He has also implied that the unvaccinated are stupid, uninformed rubes who just don’t understand all the benefits of taking the vaccine.  I must add at this point, that the opposite is actually true.  I have found that people who are not taking the vaccine are actually very curious, thoughtful and well-informed people.  They have studied the benefits and risks involved with the vaccine and the benefits of natural immunity and just made a different decision.  In fact, I have found that it is the vaccinated (which includes me) who have not studied the situation and have taken the shot without understanding the risks or the benefits especially for the least vulnerable (anyone under age 65 and especially children).  This is just my observation.

One thing that disappointed me about President Biden’s new Covid-19 plan is his lack of emphasis for therapeutics.  I support the vaccine (I have been vaccinated) and testing, but what happens when someone tests positive?  The current plan seems to be go home and cross your fingers that you have a mild case.  Where is Joe Biden’s “Warp Speed” effort to develop and distribution of the medicines that can treat the disease and minimize its effects?  There are shortages of monoclonal antibodies, which has driven Florida’s low hospitalization and mortality numbers.  Pfizer’s new pill (Paxlovid), which has been shown to cut hospitalization or death by 89% still needs to get approved by the FDA and then a plan for mass distribution is needed.  There are other therapeutics that need approval and distribution, and I’m looking or Biden’s plan to accelerate that process?  If Covid is going to become a part of our lives, like the seasonal flu current is, it is therapeutics that will allow us to cope.

Finally, I have a cure for the current “smash and grab” robberies that have been plaguing our cities.  The answer to this problem is “Mask Prohibitions”.  I have heard all kinds of excuses for this phenomenon including the pandemic, which may indirectly be correct.  What we have now an atmosphere that allows people to walk around with masks on their faces, hiding their identities and enabling casual shoplifting and coordinated smash and grab, felony robberies.  When we accept the fact that masks don’t work (read my August article), and we are allowing professional thieves to walk around obscuring their identities, we may have some high-end stores and even some entire cites PROHIBIT masks.  At least our many, many cameras will capture the identities of these thieves and allow authorities to arrest them – so that they can be released before the end of the day

Psaki v Graham - Who Has the Fake BBB Bill?

The purpose of this article is to clear up any confusion you might have about Joe Biden’s Build Back Better (or Broke) bill.  The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) finally scored the original $1.7 Trillion bill that has already passed The House and is being considered by the Senate right now.  President Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have all said that this bill would cost ZERO, which is actually a ridiculous statement.  The fact is, that version of the bill would cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years.  The “zero cost” statement, that the President, et al, were making was suggesting that all of those costs would be covered by increased revenue (taxes) and none of that spending would add to our country’s debt.

Unfortunately, the CBO scored that bill as it was written and found that it would actually add $367 billion dollars to our debt over that 10-year period.  While some might not find that amount of debt concerning, it still reveals that the “zero cost (debt)” promise was a lie.  Personally, I’m a debt-hater, so I would at least find a way to reduce that bill’s cost to $1.2 Trillion and make good on the zero-debt promise.

Regrettably for the President and Nancy Pelosi and all of the Democrats who voted for this bill before it was scored by the CBO, and without even reading it, Lindsey Graham asked the CBO to score that same bill with all of its provisions extended for the full 10 years of the bill’s life.  You see, what Democrats have been hiding is that while this bill brings in revenue for 10 years, it only applies the costs of many programs for one or two or three years, and so on.  If that was the actual intent of the Democrats for these provisions (to only last one year, etc.) that would be one thing.  However, all of the Democrats have already announced their intention to extend all of those provisions for the full 10-year period.

When the Graham score came in, it shocked the likes of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and should at least startle the rest of us.  The CBO found that the total cost of this bill would be $5.0 Trillion and it would add $3.0 Trillion to our debt.  That is almost three times the total cost originally advertised by the President and over eight times the debt of the bill that passed in the House.  This is a far cry from “zero”.

Just yesterday, Jen Psaki suggested that the Graham score was a “fake” score on a “fake” bill.  Is she right?  That depends on how you define the word “fake”.  It is true that what Lindsey Graham asked the CBO to score is NOT the bill that was passed by the House and is being considered by the Senate now.  In that sense, Jen Psaki is telling the truth.

However, if the bill that Lindsey Graham had scored better reflects the intent of Democrats in Congress, then Jen Psaki is being duplicitous in her claims and the bill that has already passed the House is the fake bill.  I will let my readers decide for themselves, however, you need to be aware of both scenarios being offered by the two sides.

There is one more aspect of the BBB bill that is inconsistent with the President’s promise not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.  There is a provision in this $5.0 Trillion monstrosity to spend $80 billion to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, which would more than double the ranks of this most hated government agency.    These 87,000 new agents will be performing 600,000 more audits (doubling the number they do today) and half of those new audits will be performed on people making less than $75,000 per year.   I would expect that virtually all of these new audits would be done on people making less than $400,000 per year.  The Treasury Department estimated that these audits will generate $40 billion in new taxes (revenues) every year.  That means that LOTS of people making less than $400,000 per year will be put through the horrifying experience of an audit, and will also be paying higher taxes as a result.

So, you can decide which bill is fake.  The one that is actually being debated right now but hides critical facts, like how long these programs will last, and where the revenues will come from.  Or, the one that Lindsey Graham had the CBO score which is not in front of Congress, but offers a much more realistic understanding of the true costs and debt burden we will all experience.

Bob Dole and Fam - A Blessing to the End

 

 

In my opinion, most of the funerals for political leaders end up being a pathetic series of speeches by living, narcissistic, delusional politicians re-writing history.  They always say how much they loved the deceased and were best of buds behind the political scenes, while in real life they were too busy assassinating their character and stabbing them in the back.

And there was some of that at Dole’s funeral, but the last two speakers not only saved the day, but sent a message that I think everyone in America should hear.  Dole’s daughter, Robin, gave a wonderful tribute to her father that I can only hope that someone could eventually say about me.  Her love for her father was so genuine, I could literally feel her sadness and sense of loss.  She talked about his desire to help others, his lover for animals, especially his two dogs (Blazer and Leader) and finally his faith in God.  It was this faith that allowed him not to fear for he knew, “God will be walking with (him).”  She finished by saying how much she would miss him and that she would talk to him every night.  The final notes of this sweet daughter’s song were, “I love you, Dad.  You will never walk alone.” 

At this point I could feel my heart swelling and tears forming in my eyes.  She had done a tremendous job honoring her father and the absolute silence was actually awkward.  Someone in that Cathedral should have had the guts to begin the applause that would have inspired the standing ovation her speech deserved.  She was great and I hope you all take the time to listen to it.

And then Mr. Dole’s chief of staff, Sheila Burke, read “The Dash Poem” written by Linda Ellis, which Bob had recited often throughout his career.  This poem talks about trying to understand how other people feel.  Ms. Ellis suggests that we should all be slow to anger, appreciate each other more and treat each other with respect.  This is a message that we should all hear and embrace today in this country.  Here is that poem in its entirety.  

 

The Dash Poem (By Linda Ellis)

I read of a man who stood to speak
At the funeral of a friend
He referred to the dates on the tombstone
From the beginning...to the end

He noted that first came the date of birth
And spoke the following date with tears, 
But he said what mattered most of all
Was the dash between those years

For that dash represents all the time
That they spent alive on earth.
And now only those who loved them
Know what that little line is worth

For it matters not, how much we own, 
The cars...the house...the cash.
What matters is how we live and love
And how we spend our dash.

So, think about this long and hard.
Are there things you'd like to change?
For you never know how much time is left
That can still be rearranged.

If we could just slow down enough
To consider what's true and real
And always try to understand
The way other people feel.

And be less quick to anger
And show appreciation more
And love the people in our lives
Like we've never loved before.

If we treat each other with respect
And more often wear a smile,
Remembering this special dash
Might only last a little while

So, when your eulogy is being read
With your life's actions to rehash...
Would you be proud of the things they say
About how you spent YOUR dash?

 

May God bless you all and I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

Is it Woe for Roe?

 

The View from the Middle

 

Let me admit right up front that it is very difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will do, especially on politically polarized issues.  My first attempt to follow the arguments was back in 2015 when the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act was being challenged and the proceedings were being broadcast.  It was a fascinating experience, but in the end, I got it wrong.  I was sure that the court would throw out the individual mandate thus gutting the entire law, and I did predict a 5-4 vote, which turned out to be correct.  However, I had Chief Justice Roberts on the wrong side of the ledger and the Supreme Court supported the ACA.

So, even though I have an 0-1 record, I made the investment to listen to the entirety of the oral arguments on the Mississippi abortion law and I’m going to make a prediction.  First, however, let me give you some insight into what I think were the key questions asked on both sides by the Justices which should give us all an idea of how they might vote.

Maybe the easiest Justice to figure out was Justice Clarence Thomas.  He asked the first question and went right to the heart of the issue.  He wanted to know what right was being protected by the Roe v Wade decision.  It was a simple question that goes to the heart of the issue of the constitutionality of the Roe decision.  His point was that Roe was wrongly decided in 1973 and so it is still misguided today.  

This immediately attacked the government’s main argument that the court should consider stare decisis (precedence) when deciding this case.  Justice Kavanaugh made the best assault on this strategy by pointing out the many times the court has correctly overrode precedent.  His most powerful example was when the court nullified Plessy v Ferguson through its decision in Brown v the Board of Education.  Plessy established a concept known as “separate but equal” which Brown found to be unconstitutional.  Brown argued that “separate”, especially in education, was inherently unequal.  Plessy had been the law of the land for almost 60 years when it was overruled by Brown in 1954.  This example also attacked the idea that Roe should be considered a “super” precedence because it has been the law since 1973.  Kavanaugh was insinuating that Roe was wrong when it was originally decided as was Plessy and should be corrected, no matter how long ago the error occurred.

Kavanaugh also suggested that there are two conflicting interests involved in any abortion, the interest of the woman or mother and the interest of the fetus or unborn child.  He argued that the government should not be involved in choosing one interest over the other.  He actually said that the government should be “scrupulously neutral” in this area.  His questioning brought the interests of the unborn, which was ignored in Roe, into the discussion, and rightfully so.  The states would then decide where to draw that line.

On the other side of the argument, both Justice Sotomayor and Breyer argued that overturning Roe would politicize the court.  Sotomayor actually asked if the court could withstand the “stench” of a reversal.  To me this sounded like a political argument to keep Roe, not a judicial one.  In effect she was suggesting that the court needed to act politically now to avoid appearing political in supporting Mississippi’s position.  Wow.  I wonder if anyone is falling for that?

Justice Sotomayor also made a couple of totally insensitive suggestions.  For example, the Mississippi Attorney General argued that science has now proven that a fetus can feel pain as early as 15 weeks into a pregnancy, because it has been shown that an unborn child reacts to stimulus in the womb at that age.  Sotomayor then suggested that dead people and people who are brain dead, also respond to stimulus.  My question is, how long after death does a body continue to react to stimulus.  One hour?  One day?  15 weeks?  I doubt it.  This the first time, to my knowledge, that a Supreme Court Justice has compared a thriving unborn child to a dead person.  I found this comparison a sad attempt to dehumanize the unborn.

All this considered, I predict that the liberal Justices (Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan) will stick together and vote against the Mississippi position.  I also predict that the Mississippi law will be upheld with a 5-4 or 6-3 vote.  I’m still not sure of Chief Justice Roberts.   

And finally, do not fall for the lie that if the Court finds in favor of the state of Mississippi that abortion will become illegal in this country and women will be dying in back alleys as a result.  It just means that laws protecting abortion will be decided in the states as is dictated by the 10^th amendment to the Constitution.  That amendment states clearly that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the states respectively.  This was Justice Thomas’ point from the very beginning.  California could pass a law that allows partial birth abortion and Mississippi can limit abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.  Even in Mississippi, however, this should not create a hardship.  Today, for example, 90% of abortions already occur within the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.  With a little extra thought and planning on the mother’s part and with some exceptions built in for women who don’t recognize their condition in time, the Mississippi law can accommodate virtually everyone.

Roe will be overturned or, at a minimum, be severely altered.  The left will claim a mass slaughter of women, which will never happen, and they will make it a huge issue in the mid-term elections.  After that, the states will do their jobs at creating laws that walk that fine line between protecting women’s rights and the rights of the unborn (Kavanaugh’s point).  And if adoptions increased in America as result, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.