It was April 15, 2010, and there wasn’t a moment to spare. Reince Priebus had what many considered a politically deadly problem on his hands — thousands of people storming the Wisconsin capitol, many just as angry at the Republican establishment they felt had sold them out as they were at the liberal opposition that was in full control of government, from the White House to the capitol grounds where Priebus, then chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, stood surveying the crowd.
-
No comments on The Battle of (and for) Wisconsin
-
Colleen Huber, N.M.D., via Technocracy:
Print this article and hand it to frightened mask wearers who have believed the alarmist media, politicians and Technocrats in white coats. Masks are proven ineffective against coronavirus and potentially harmful to healthy people and those with pre-existing conditions.My wife and I dined out last night in a very empty restaurant and the young waitress was required to wear a cloth mask. I asked her how she was doing with the mask and if there were any side effects. She related that was consistently short of breath (when away from the table, she lowered the mask below her nose) and that she had actually passed out because of it a few days earlier, taking her straight to the floor. Fortunately, she was not hurt. ⁃ TN Editor
At this writing, there is a recent surge in widespread use by the public of facemasks when in public places, including for extended periods of time, in the United States as well as in other countries. The public has been instructed by media and their governments that one’s use of masks, even if not sick, may prevent others from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent of COVID-19.
A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological. The purpose of this paper is to examine data regarding the effectiveness of facemasks, as well as safety data. The reason that both are examined in one paper is that for the general public as a whole, as well as for every individual, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary to guide decisions on if and when to wear a mask.
Are masks effective at preventing transmission of respiratory pathogens?
In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”
This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2)
Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, “very slightly reduced” odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3)
This 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.” (4)
This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission “may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday.” (5)
A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that “none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” (6) However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage.
Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. (7)
Airflow around masks
Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of “several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards,” and a “potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters.” (8) All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.
For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask. (9)
Penetration through masks
A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while “general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.” The study found that “Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols.” (10)
It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral particles in inhaled or exhaled breath.
In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. (11)
N95 respirators
Honeywell is a manufacturer of N95 respirators. These are made with a 0.3 micron filter. (12) N95 respirators are so named, because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward of the wearer, by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter.
This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections. (13) This study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were fit-tested compared to surgical masks. (14)
This study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. (15)
Surgical masks
This study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza. (16) Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles. (17)
Use of masks in surgery were found to slightly increase incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. (18) The surgeons’ masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.
Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. (19) (20)
This study found that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” (21)
This study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. (22)
Specifically, are surgical masks effective in stopping human transmission of coronaviruses? Both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to “not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.” (23) In that study, they “did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus” as found in exhaled breath.
A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols. (24)
In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested. (25)
Cloth masks
Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26)
Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27)
This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28)
Masks against Covid-19
The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows:
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” (29)
Are masks safe?
During walking or other exercise
Surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers. (30)
Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis. (31)
Risks of N95 respirators
Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8% compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was exhaled. (32) Patients with end-stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. (33) 19% of the patients developed various degrees of hypoxemia while wearing the masks.
Healthcare workers’ N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (34) And 25% of healthcare workers’ facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season. (35)
Risks of surgical masks
Healthcare workers’ surgical masks also were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor for influenza virus. (36)
Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with longer duration of mask use. (37)
Surgical masks were also found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. (38) Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks. Without the protective garb of surgeons, laypeople generally have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks.
Risks of cloth masks
Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39)
The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42)
Weighing risks versus benefits of mask use
In the summer of 2020 the United States is experiencing a surge of popular mask use, which is frequently promoted by the media, political leaders and celebrities. Homemade and store-bought cloth masks and surgical masks or N95 masks are being used by the public especially when entering stores and other publicly accessible buildings. Sometimes bandanas or scarves are used. The use of face masks, whether cloth, surgical or N95, creates a poor obstacle to aerosolized pathogens as we can see from the meta-analyses and other studies in this paper, allowing both transmission of aerosolized pathogens to others in various directions, as well as self-contamination.
It must also be considered that masks impede the necessary volume of air intake required for adequate oxygen exchange, which results in observed physiological effects that may be undesirable. Even 6- minute walks, let alone more strenuous activity, resulted in dyspnea. The volume of unobstructed oxygen in a typical breath is about 100 ml, used for normal physiological processes. 100 ml O2 greatly exceeds the volume of a pathogen required for transmission.
The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should also be considered in medical settings.
-
How can two songs be the number one song in the country today in 1956? Do a Google search for the words “B side”:
(Those songs, by the way, were the first Elvis recorded with his fantastic backup singers, the Jordanaires.)
Today in 1962, the Beatles made their debut with their new drummer, Ringo Starr, following a two-hour rehearsal.
-
James Wigderson on the waste of time that is the Democratic “National” “Convention” in Milwaukee:
President Donald Trump will be in Oshkosh on Monday. Eric Trump will visit the Milwaukee Police Association on Tuesday. Vice President Mike Pence will be in Darien on Wednesday.
Former Vice President Joe Biden will do his Max Headroom impression from Delaware on Thursday while his own party’s convention will be virtually meeting in Milwaukee. The only Democrats that will be here are the computer techs and television staff to run the convention that never was.
It’s to the point where, instead of sending reporters from the national networks to Milwaukee, the networks are probably contacting their sports departments looking for footage of Wisconsin that doesn’t have cows. “What’s that orange construction thing? Is that supposed to be art?”
Wisconsin will miss all of the revenue that the Democrats would have brought, as well as the unpaid bills and anarchist protesters smashing storefronts downtown. But since Milwaukee decided against using tear gas to control riots and fired the police chief, it’s probably a good thing that Biden remains in Delaware. It’s one thing to wear a small cloth mask with a campaign logo. But who wants to see a presidential candidate in a gas mask being escorted into a convention hall as rocks and bottles fly by?Well, actually, I would, to demonstrate the urban failure that is Milwaukee and the empty suits that are Gov. Tony Evers and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.
Charlie Sykes presents some history:
“There is something about a national convention,” H. L. Mencken wrote in 1924, “that makes it as fascinating as a revival or a hanging.”
“It is vulgar, it is ugly, it is stupid, it is tedious, it is hard upon both the higher cerebral centers and the gluteus maximus, and yet it is somehow charming. One sits through long sessions wishing all the delegates and alternates were dead and in hell — and then suddenly there comes a show so gaudy and hilarious, so melodramatic and obscene, so unimaginably exhilarating and preposterous that one lives a gorgeous year in an hour.”
No one will describe the Democratic convention that opens today in Milwaukee that way. Instead, we get a “ghost convention.”
It’s odd, really, that the convention will be held in my hometown and that I won’t be going. But then, pretty much no one else will either. And, I have to say, that’s kind of sad. Milwaukee would have put on a pretty good party. Instead, there will be no beer-soaked parties, no funny hats, and I’ll probably spend the week at home, watching snippets on my laptop.
Frankly, I have no idea what it’s going to look like, or if anyone will pay attention to anything but the major speeches.
Of course, it’s been heading this way for years. The conventions have devolved from the gaudy show of Mencken’s experience to made-for-television pep rallies, to tightly scripted infomercials. So, this seems likely the inevitable outcome: a virtual convention that barely exists outside of its live stream.
The non-conventions of 2020 may mark the final dissolution of the anachronistic political burlesque shows, and the conventional wisdom will be that its about damn time. Which is too bad, because they used to be something.
The 1924 Democratic convention that Mencken sweated through took 103 ballots and 16 days to pick John W. Davis; the 1940 Republican convention improbably propelled Wendell Willkie to the presidential nomination; and there was the shambolic 1972 Democratic convention that left nominee George McGovern delivering his acceptance speech in the middle of the night. The 1980 Republican convention that nominated Ronald Reagan was convulsed by speculation that he might name former president Gerald Ford as his running mate (he chose George H.W. Bush instead). Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic convention made him a national figure.
And, of course, there was the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, complete with a police riot, which I remember particularly well, because I was there.
My father was a delegate. I was a page. And I stole the Wisconsin delegation’s banner.
My father had been Eugene McCarthy’s Wisconsin campaign director in 1968. A newspaper reporter once described him as having a “Runyonesque quality,” a description that obviously delighted him. “Short, dark browed, puckish faced, he looks like the sort who might let you in confidentially through billing cigar smoke, on a sure winner in the fifth race.
“The real Jay Sykes is a tough-minded idealist, who took his share of gambles in McCarthy’s Wisconsin Odyssey but knew what the odds were from the beginning. ‘That’s why I went into it,’ he says with his wry grin. ‘I liked the odds. They were so prohibitive.’”Here’s a picture from the floor of the convention. From left in the foreground are Wisconsin delegation chairman Donald Peterson, Louis Hansen and my dad.
Afterward, he described the apocalyptic confrontation in Chicago as “akin to a Rotary club luncheon in the middle of World War I.”
“It wasn’t even disillusioning,” he says, “just disgusting and demeaning.” With the outcome preordained, he said, “it was just a matter of going through a symbolic act, the playing out of a drama.” He’d really had enough of conventions. In his papers, I found this clipping:
“In its Thursday caucus, the delegation tabled a resolution offered by Milwaukeean Jay Sykes to recommend abolition of the national convention as means of nominating presidential and vice presidential candidates….”Going through these old pictures and clippings is an odd experience. The convention was 52 years ago, and I was there as a teenager. But as I look at the pictures I find that I can run my finger along the faces of the Wisconsin delegation and name one after another. It’s strange how much in your life you can forget, and what things stick with you. For me, 1968 has always felt the central story in the plot, and everything else has been gloss.
Here you can see the Wisconsin banner in the background. On the last day of the convention, I ran across the floor and grabbed it, managing not merely to snag it, but to somehow get it all the way back home. For years it sat in our garage as a personal piece of history. One by one the letters fell off and the cardboard sign disintegrated. It’s too late to regret the carelessness on my youth.

Imagine a four-day Zoom meeting in which the likes of John Kasich, Michael Bloomberg, and Nancy Pelosi warn us for the fifty through sixty millionth times about the “existential threat” of Donald Trump, and one comes close to envisioning both hell on earth and what we’re all in for this week with the Democratic Party’s Biden/Harris virtual coronation.
The alternative is to start drinking early.
The 2020 DNC represents the culmination of one of the most exhausting, repetitive, and depressing primary races America has seen. It was extreme both by number of candidates – the official count seems to be 29 – and by sheer quantity of identical-sounding rhetoric. The race from the start was itself like a giant drinking game, in which candidates were rewarded in polls for delivering the most pleasing versions of oft-repeated terms like “kids in cages,” “fascist,” “white supremacy,” and “this is not who we are.”
The stretch run of the primary, a clash between centrist Joe Biden and reform-minded Bernie Sanders that ostensibly represented a serious ideological split within the party, essentially came down to a battle of talking points, i.e. “this president” versus “corporations.”
“This president” ended up winning, and the upcoming DNC will reflect the relentless Trump-centric strategy of the victors (the same strategy the party deployed four years ago). It will be light on policy and heavy on market-tested barbs about Trumpian perfidy. A year ago, we’d have been drinking most to terms like “Ukraine” or “rule of law”; this year, it’ll be “post office” and “birtherism” (take two shots for creative variations like “neo-birtherism” or “birtherism redux”).
One point makes me nervous. This convention could obliterate the boozing public with a single word, previewed in about a thousand headlines when Kamala Harris was named Biden’s running mate last week:
Trump re-election complicated by historic VP pick
Why Kamala Harris is a historic VP pick for Joe Biden
My favorite:
Reese Witherspoon shares heartfelt story in wake of Kamala Harris’ historic VP selection
Turn on your TV to CNN or MSNBC right now. The odds aren’t bad – I’d put them at 7-2 – that the word “historic” is in the chryon. You will hear this word five thousand times, at minimum, per day of convention coverage. Out of respect for human life, you’ll therefore be asked to drink to “history” or “historic” only when uttered by actual convention speakers. I hope readers understand, without it being included on the list, that any mention of “Malarkey” is an automatic drink. …
Without further ado, drink EVERY TIME to:
- “Post office,” or any variation thereof (i.e. “postal service” or “mailbox”).
- “George Floyd.”
- “Soul of America.”
- “History” or “Historic.” Drink only when uttered by a convention speaker.
- “Existential threat.”
- “This president.”
- “Let me be clear.” Double shot if what comes after is not clear.
- “Access,” as in “access to affordable health care” or “access to a good education.” You may drink twice if this comes in conjunction with an argument about “opportunity.”
- “Systemic,” “systematic,” “structural,” “fundamental,” or “fundamentally.” Double-shot if the words are uttered by someone who has never voted for or supported a systemic reform.
- Someone speaks positively of a Clinton (h/t to @percandidate).
- “This is not who we are.”
- “Above the law.”
- (Something something) Mitch McConnell, (something something) is a human right.
- “Trump is (rehearsed witticism).” Also, “golf.”
- Russia.
- Birther.
- (Attempts to speak Spanish)
- Unity/civility.
- “Uncharted waters.” Drunk rum if you have it here, and yell “Aargh” like a pirate (h/t to @C00LDad77).
- “Democracy itself.”
Drink ONCE PER HOUR to:
- “Racist,” or “Black Lives.”
- “Lies.”
BONUS RULE: Drink every time someone blames Trump for coronavirus deaths. Make your own group judgment as to whether or not the blame is deserved.
WOKE MAD LIBS EXCEPTION: If an MSNBC commentator or a speaker uses any of the following terms, you may stop drinking for an hour to “reclaim” your sobriety: performative, white-adjacent, Latinx, decolonize, invisibilize, interrogate, normalize, privilege (as a verb), dismantle, erase, lived experience, heteronormative, habitus, cultural appropriation, essentialist, or trigger.
Genderfuck or melanated ends the game.
For Bingo players:
I’ll tune in for the first and last nights of the convention only, and make MSNBC the official medium, updating with slightly tweaked rules for the Biden speech.
See you in hell.
-
Daniel Pipes:
If I don’t say so myself, my #NeverTrump bona fides are pretty impressive.
I watched in dismay as I helped the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, seeing Republican primary voters select Donald Trump out of a field of 16 viable candidates and make him president-elect. I signed an open letter committing to “working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted” to the presidency and wrote many articles lambasting Trump. I left the Republican Party on his nomination and voted for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson in the general election. After the election, I hoped for Trump’s impeachment and President Mike Pence.
In 2016, two matters primarily worried me about Donald Trump: his character and his policies.
The character issue included unethical business practices (Trump University), egotism (“I’m really rich”), litigiousness (3,500 lawsuits, or one every four days), bigotry (against Judge Curiel) and vulgarity (“Grab ’em by the p**sy”). His policies worried me even more: I saw unbridled impulsiveness and worried about neo-fascist tendencies (thus my nickname for him, Trumpolini). His 2004 statement, “I probably identify more as Democrat,” suggested he would triangulate between Democrats and Republicans, going off in his own populist direction.
Nearly four years later, Trump’s character still troubles and repels me. If anything, his egotism, disloyalty and bombast exceed those vices when he was a mere candidate.
But, to my unending surprise, he has governed as a resolute conservative. His policies in the areas of education, taxes, deregulation and the environment have been bolder than Ronald Reagan’s. His judicial appointments are the best of the past century (thank you, Leonard Leo). His unprecedented assault on the administrative state proceeds apace, ignoring predictable howls from the Washington establishment. Even his foreign policy has been conservative: demanding that allies contribute their fair share, confronting China and Iran and singularly supporting Israel. Ironically, as David Harsanyi notes, a potential character flaw actually works to our advantage: “Trump’s obstinacy seems to have made him less susceptible to the pressures that traditionally induce GOP presidents to capitulate.”
(Economic performance drives many voters to support or oppose a sitting president, but not me: partly, because the president has only limited control, and partly, because it’s a transient issue that matters much less than long-term policies.)
Of course, I also disagree with Trump: protectionism, his indifference to public debt, his hostility toward allies, his soft spot for Turkish strongman Erdoğan and his dangerous meetings with Kim Jong-un. His unrestrained behavior interferes with proper government functioning. The tweets are a protracted liability.
But, of course, we all disagree with some of what every president does. More surprisingly, I agree with about 80 percent of Trump’s actions—a higher percentage than any of his predecessors, going back to Lyndon Johnson.
I have come to understand the wisdom in Salena Zito’s September 2016 witticism about Trump that “the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Or, as Daniel Larison notes, “We need to judge Trump by his actions and not his words.” I also agree with James Woolsey that Trump would be a much better prime minister than president.
Slowly but inexorably over the past three years, my approval of the policies has outbalanced my distaste for the person. Finally, knowing that Joe Biden will represent the radicalized Democrats in November, I conclude that I will do my small part to help Trump get re-elected by writing, giving and voting.
I reached this conclusion reluctantly but unhesitatingly. Emotionally, esthetically and intellectually, I would prefer to keep my distance from Trump and inhabit a neutral space between the parties, as in 2016. But I will vote for him as the politician who represents my conservative views. I urge other reluctant conservatives to do the same.
The first reason you vote for a presidential candidate is because of that person’s positions. As far as I can determine, other than his Corvette ownership, there is nothing Biden supports that I can support. (Biden’s party believes you shouldn’t own cars, let alone Corvettes.) The second reason you vote for a presidential candidate is because of his or her party, which means the people who will be appointed to executive-branch positions and the federal judiciary. The Republican Party has a lot of flaws, but the Democratic Party is nothing but flaws.
-
What becomes of government credibility in the post-lockdown period? There are thousands of politicians in this country for whom this is a chilling question, even a taboo topic.
The reputation of government was already at postwar lows before the lockdowns, with only 17% of the American public saying that they trusted government to do the right thing. That was before the federal government and 43 state governors decided to turn a virus into a pretext for totalitarian closures, lockdowns, travel restrictions, and home quarantines of most people.
The lockdowns and random policy impositions by government will surely contribute to take the confidence number down to rock bottom. Already, loss of confidence has devastated consumer sentiment. No matter how many headlines blame the virus for all the carnage, the reality is all around us: it’s the government’s response that bears the responsibility.
In 2006, the great epidemiologist Donald Henderson warned that if government pursued coercive measures to control a virus, the result would be a “loss of confidence in government to manage the crisis.” The reason is that the measures do not work. Further, the attempt to make them work turns a manageable crisis into a catastrophe.
Prophetic.
So much so, in fact, that this might account for why “14 Days to Flatten the Curve” has stretched to five months in which the Bill of Rights has been a dead letter, many are still locked out of their gyms, we can’t go to the movies, and we are forced to dance around each other in public spaces as if every person might be carrying a deadly pathogen.
No society can function this way, not if it desires prosperity and peace.
Why do the lockdowns and restrictions still last? Governments around the country never had an exit strategy. They locked down with no sense of what would be next, either for the policy or for the virus. If infections go down, they credit the lockdowns, in which case they cannot unlock. If infections are still high, that’s also a case for locking down. If the virus isn’t there, that’s yet another case for locking down.
If coercive stringency is the way to control and finally suppress the virus (impossible), there is no exit strategy except for the arrival of a vaccine, which itself doesn’t promise lasting immunity, if we even get a safe one.
We are besotted with these public health authorities and government officials who made a terrible, life-wrecking error. They can’t admit it because the devastation has been so complete. It’s no easier to dial that back than it was for the US government to admit their terrible mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They keep having to do the stupid thing – whether keeping troops in for 20 years or maintaining travel restrictions and mask mandates in the present case – in order to pretend as if they were right all along.
It took almost 20 years after the Iraq invasion for the conventional wisdom to emerge that it was a mistake. Surely it will not take that long for people to realize what a disaster governments have made this time around.
So where does the public stand now on lockdowns? It’s not easy to find reliable polls. We do know that 3 in 4 Americans are willing to tell pollsters that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In addition, one poll records about half the public rating the federal government as poor in its response, while state governments don’t do much better, with half the public calling the response fair to poor.
Still, these polls rarely ask the right question. What we want to know is how people feel about having their rights violated. I took a Twitter poll regarding people’s opinions on lockdown skepticism. What percentage of Americans no longer believe in coercive measures of disease suppression? The results were equally divided: 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80%.
We know anecdotally that ever more people are ignoring the limits on gatherings and forced separation measures. The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley went so far as to say that the whole country has become a Speakeasy, with brazen disobedience wherever it is possible.
Meanwhile, I can find no politician in America who backed the lockdown has had the spine to stand up and say: “I was completely wrong. I panicked. I violated your rights. I’m tremendously sorry. I do not deserve to stay in office even one more day. I resign.”
In the long run, governments need to seek the consent of the governed. They can rule through police powers only in the event of panic. It works for a while. But when people start thinking normally again, the scale of what has happened will dawn on people. Then there could be hell to pay.
If the lockdowns really had lasted 14 days only, it would have gone down in American history as a legendary disaster. But five full months of this nonsense? What does that mean for the future? The blowback will be the dominant issue in American life for many years to come. If we ever do get a new crop of leaders who are firmly committed against lockdowns, brought in by a new anti-lockdown movement, they could start serious investigations and hearings. They will be commissions and reports on precisely how all this came to be and why it all lasted so long.
Even so, it could be a generation or two before the credibility of government and public health authority returns. And as Harvard infectious disease professor Martin Kulldorf warns, “When the fog clears, one of the consequences of the pandemic will be public distrust in science and scientists.”
And rightly so. Professor Kulldorf has distinguished himself for his brave anti-lockdown stance. The same cannot be said of many others. Many in his position have weighed in for coercive measures without the slightest concern for what this could mean for regular people and with zero actual knowledge as to whether their recommended plans had any hope for actually working. This is the height of intellectual irresponsibility.
Still, even if ignorant medicine men like Anthony Fauci and his friends spout off for shutting down society, in the end it is governments that bear responsibility for carrying out their recommendations. It is they, and not the scientists, that deserve the brunt of public anger that will be unleashed in the days, months, and years ahead.
In the very early days of the pandemic, Henry Kissinger obliquely warned of this in an article for the Wall Street Journal. “When the Covid-19 pandemic is over,” he wrote on April 3, “many countries’ institutions will be perceived as having failed. Whether this judgment is objectively fair is irrelevant. The reality is the world will never be the same after the coronavirus.”
Let us hope the lesson is imparted. No matter the crisis, government action is destined to make it worse.
Of course it does. Observe Donald Trump’s erratic response(s). Observe Gov. Tony Evers’ channeling his inner fascist (Safer at Home I and II, statewide mask order) and the widespread belief he’s going to order school buildings shut down before classes are supposed to start in September. Joe Biden wants a nationwide mask order. -
The Beatles were never known for having wild concerts. (Other than their fans, that is.)
Today in 1960, the Beatles played their first of 48 appearances at the Indra Club in Hamburg, West Germany. The Indra Club’s owner asked the Beatles to put on a “mach shau.” The Beatles responded by reportedly screaming, shouting, leaping around the stage, and playing lying on the floor of the club. John Lennon reportedly made a stage appearance wearing only his underwear, and also wore a toilet seat around his neck on stage. As they say, Sei vorsichtig mit deinen Wünschen.
Four years later, the council of Glasgow, Scotland, required that men who had Beatles haircuts would have to wear swimming caps in city pools, because men’s hair was clogging the pool filters.
Today in 1968, the Doors had their only number one album, “Waiting for the Sun”:
-
Today in 1962, the Beatles replaced drummer Pete Best with Ringo Starr. Despite those who claim Starr is the worst Beatle musically, the change worked out reasonably well for the group.
Today in 1970 was the second day of Woodstock:
-
We begin with an interesting non-musical anniversary: Today in 1945, Major League Baseball sold the advertising rights for the World Series to Gillette for $150,000. Gillette for years afterward got to decide who the announcers for the World Series (typically one per World Series team in the days before color commentators) would be on first radio and then TV.
-
Sports Illustrated asked a number of prominent sports announcers for their opinions of the greatest sports calls announced by someone other than themselves.
The number one call is not surprising.
Followed by …
(I have heard six calls of Gibson’s home run, including Vin Scully on NBC, Jack Buck on CBS radio, Don Drysdale for the Dodgers, Bill King for the Athletics, and this Spanish radio call. There is no bad call of this moment.)
Al Michaels, of “Do you believe in miracles?” fame, said that just popped into his head as the moment took place. He said he has never preplanned a call because then it will sound canned. That included the Miracle on Ice because before the broadcast, Team USA’s presence in that game was so improbable that, Michaels wrote, he and analyst Ken Dryden just hoped the game would be close.
I have a strange mental exercise before big games. I always write out my opens so I get in what I want to without the, uh, you know, kind of verbal wandering that, um, can happen. On the opposite end of the broadcast, I sort of plan what I will say — not a clever catchphrase, but the mechanics of it — if the team I am covering loses, as in “(insert win here) beats (insert loser here) (insert score here); the (winners) go to state, and the (losers’) season ends at (number of) wins and (number of) losses.”
I have a psychological rationale I figured out some years ago. George S. Will once said that pessimists are the happiest people because either something happens and they were correct, or they are pleased to be proven wrong. I am not a fan of announcers who lose their, uh, stuff when the wrong team wins:
I got to do one of those kinds of games earlier this season — a girls basketball team that had gotten to the sectional level three previous seasons without getting to state. The sectional final was the last and best chance to get to state for the undefeated team.