Panic-Mongering and the Wuhan Virus

Here are some examples of that panic-mongering. They are far from an exhaustive list, but they are illustrative.

New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo estimated that, based on the epidemiological curve at the time, “in 45 days [the state] could have up to an input of people who need 110,000 beds that compares to our current capacity of 53,000 beds, 37,000 ICU units, ventilators, which compares to a capacity currently of 3,000 ventilators.”

Yet,

COVID hospitalizations in the state peaked roughly a month later, coming in at just under 19,000…. Total ICU COVID patients peaked shortly thereafter at 5,225, or at just 13% of the governor’s forecast.

And this one:

Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom estimated that, on top of its existing 75,000 hospital beds, the state would require “an additional 50,000 beds in our system.”
“Our new modeling suggests 50,000 is the new target number[.]”

Yet,

California data show that the state’s current peak in hospitalized patients came in early January of this year and totaled just under 23,000….

And this one:

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington predicted on March 31 of last year that Michigan would see peak COVID-19 hospital usage on April 10, topping out at about 14,000 COVID patients in beds.

Yet,

Data from the COVID Tracking Project shows that on that date hospitalized patients in the state totaled just over 3,800. That number plummeted in the weeks that followed, and though it rose again during the fall/winter spike, its peak on December 2 was still just 4,300, significantly less than IHME’s springtime projection.

And this one:

[From] New Jersey, an analysis out of Rutgers University in mid-March 2020…determined that, with about 23,000 hospital beds statewide, the state might face a peak shortfall of over 300,000 beds in a worst-case model positing minimal action to curb the spread of COVID.

Yet,

Hospital usage…peaked in the state on April 16 at 8,224 before falling sharply. During the fall spike, the COVID hospital census there plateaued around 3,600.

It’s hard to believe that such learned persons could be so far wrong—and not move quickly to correct their errors.

Maybe it’s time to look at their motives for making those projections. Maybe that time has come, especially, against the naked power grab that is the Progressive-Democrats’ American Rescue Plan, which they masqueraded as a Wuhan Virus relief bill, even though less than 10% of that nearly $2 trillion bill has anything even remotely related to the virus.

UK’s Good Faith

…has been slapped down. Great Britain surrendered Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China in 1997 on the PRC’s promise to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy for 50 years, a promise the PRC made within the context of its one country/two systems framework, a promise made in the UK-PRC Joint Declaration.

The PRC began welching on its word when it began, in no particular order (because commitment timelines mean nothing to the PRC) denying duly elected city legislators their seats, arresting peaceful protestors—including provoking violence to create excuses for the arrests—enacting mainland laws allowing Hong Kongers to be “extradited” to the mainland for what passes for trials in PRC courts.

And now the latest step in the PRC’s reneging.

The “patriots governing Hong Kong” is a resolution that will allow a pro-Beijing panel to approve some candidates that it deems sufficiently “patriotic,” according to the BBC. The vote was 2,895-0, with one abstention[.]

And

Thursday’s near-unanimous vote by the National People’s Congress paves the way for China’s top lawmaking body to revamp as soon as next month how the former British colony picks its leader and legislators. The overhaul will give Beijing much greater control over local elections that were meant to be partly democratic—thanks to an effective veto against candidates deemed unpatriotic.

The resolution mandates the creation of a commission in Hong Kong that ensures that prospective officeholders conform with criteria laid down in the city’s miniconstitution and national-security legislation.

Nearly unanimous. Nothing untoward, or the least bit odd, about that. Nosirree, Bob. Well, maybe not so odd, coming from a tyranny as it does.

An Interesting Court Fight

…may be in the offing.

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) signed into law a bill that bans all abortions save when the mother’s life is at risk. Even pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are banned from abortion.

The governor also acknowledged the ban is in contradiction of binding precedents of the US Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law.”

Indeed. Especially since the primary precedent is Roe v Wade, which is, at bottom, a technologically oriented precedent. The Court ruled that States could govern the availability of abortions after the third trimester began—because that was the point at which the fetus became viable outside the womb under the then-extant medical technology.

Today’s medical technology has advanced by orders of magnitude; accordingly, at worst, the Arkansas law provides the Supreme Court the opportunity to adjust its precedent in accordance with modern medical capability, if not to rescind Roe altogether.

Additionally, the ACLU is being its usual cynical self.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas attacked the bill calling it “cruel and unusual[.]”

No, what’s cruel, but sadly entirely too usual, is murdering babies before they’re born.

Censorship

A collection of Letters in Monday’s Wall Street Journal centered on the Kancel Kulture’s penchant for censorship.

A couple of points regarding that penchant. One letter writer asks,

Why do the canceling elite feel they must protect us from anything that might possibly be upsetting?

The answer is because they assume, since they are so terrified of anything remotely or just potentially a little bit upsetting, and they need desperately to be protected from such, that everyone else must be terrified and so need protection, also.

Another letter writer notes, with reference to censoring Seuss, that

To learn to read is to learn to expand one’s mind and enable critical thinking.

As part of that, those depictions of an earlier age also could be used to illustrate how far we’ve come as a nation. The elitists, the Progressive-Democrats, and the Left generally, however, can’t stand for us to see that progress. It would undermine their narrative.

Social Safety Nets

The nearly $2 trillion Wuhan Virus “relief” bill, the American Rescue Plan Act, wending its way through Congress on strictly party lines, is being masqueraded as a safety net for folks badly impacted by the Wuhan Virus situation.

Aside from the plain fact that no such bill is needed anymore—our economy is rapidly recovering, and would continue to do so were it not for the Biden administration’s burgeoning reregulation imperative, explosive spending plans, and its impending tax increases—there’s another aspect of this bill.

I’ve written elsewhere about the 91% of spending in this bill that has absolutely nothing to do with the virus. This is about the “safety net” spending. That spending includes items like these:

  • the largest direct stimulus payments ever provided in legislation at $1,400 per adult who filed tax returns with a Social Security number—which is nearly every working, or was working, person. It includes retirees, who lost no income due to the virus, and so they do not need virus stimulus/replacement money
  • expands the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to the largest amount on record.
    • increases the Child Tax Credit amount to $3,000 per child and $3,600 for children under age six
    • increases the maximum Earned Income Tax Credit in 2021 from $543 to $1,502
  • continues the temporary weekly federal unemployment payments of $300 on top of state jobless benefits
  • recipients will get a tax waiver on $10,200 of unemployment payments. Heretofore, unemployment payments, as income replacement payments, were taxable as ordinary income
  • $86 billion bailout for union-managed multi-employer pension plans and single employer pension plans
  • $27.4 billion for rental and utility payment assistance
  • 15% benefit increase for food stamp recipients
  • reparations—direct payments, to the tune of 120% of outstanding indebtedness, for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
  • “aid”—bailouts—for State and local governments—every bit as much handout to these political entities as are the above to individuals

All of these are handouts paid to folks who aren’t working and encourage, however weakly, those folks to continue not working and collecting the handouts. They’re not hands up paid to folks who are looking for work, are working temporarily reduced hours, and especially there are no criteria tying the payments to actively seeking work or increased work.

A legitimate social safety net would be a program that offers limited hands up to folks who’ve had a run of bad luck, or who have exercised bad judgment and learned their lesson, or who have misbehaved and mended their ways. Those hands up also would be tied to measurable efforts to find work or increased hours of work.

Giving handouts—especially broadly targeted or altogether untargeted handouts—making them repeatably renewable or outright permanent, and not keying them to working is no safety net. It’s