Opinions are like assholes – Targeting COVID19 So far.....

 

Suddenly everyone became an epidemiologist

In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry Callahan) The Dead Pool (1988):

“Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.” I will add ...and most of them stink.

 

The vast majority of people that I interact with on social media and in my life in general can't tell the difference between a Golgi body and a goal post. But I can. I've spent 40 years of my life immersed in academia, studying, then teaching science and biology, a field that requires some knowledge of all three of the major groupings of Science, Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

Even though I’ve retired from teaching and formal academics over 13 years ago, my interest in science and biology has not waned. So if this sounds like I have superior knowledge of things biological compared to the average layman, maybe I do. Read the rest with that in mind, and yes I have opinions too.

Opinions on COVID19 depend on ones point of view. As a septuagenarian with advanced Multiple Myeloma and other co-morbidities, an infection with SARS-CoV-2, for me, is possibly a death sentence. Myeloma already is, thats just a matter of time. To be sure, facing ones own mortality has a way of altering one’s views short term, because the longer term is more uncertain. So you’ll pardon me if I disavow complete objectivity, but I’ll try to be as objective as possible.

We are six months into our COVID19 Pandemic here in North America and some predictions have come and are coming true. First off, many people predicted a major Pandemic...eventually, as you can see here. 

Some predictions about the future were totally off. Like this one in 2015: "Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century."

Here is what British science writer, Matt Ridley said in a recent interview about that prediction.....

 

“......We went into this pandemic hysterically terrified of climate change. What climate change actually means is that by the 2060s and 2070s, the average temperature of the world will be a couple of degrees warmer. That is essentially all we are saying. How did we manage to get to the point where we put that way above all other scares in importance, and neglected the pandemic threat? The World Health Organization (WHO) said in 2015 that the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century is climate change. The WHO is meant to keep us safe from pandemics. This suggests to me that in 2015, the WHO was not doing its day job. We are now seeing the consequences.”

This is what Canadian Public Health thought about the WHO pronouncement in October 2019, just a few months before the Pandemic.

If that doesn't make you wonder about WHO and Canadian Public Health, you are NOT paying attention.

The prediction that a Pandemic was coming is not particularly prescient. Pandemics occur regularly, but this one was treated differently. The virus spread from China to Italy and the rest of Europe at jet-like speed before it arrived in North America. Then came the government enforced lockdowns. Those were not widely predicted. The early affected countries seemed to set the tone for the lockdowns. The first lockdown occurred in China, this was followed by parts of Italy.

Our governments in Canada and the US were unbelievably unprepared, almost surprised by the speed of events. One would have thought that the first SARS outbreak in 2003 would be a teaching tool for this one. Canada's largest city, my home town was ground zero for SARS CoV-1 back then. Lessons (like this one) were written by the main actors during that event. Did our governments pay attention to these? Nope. Look at these snippets from that event in Toronto 17 years before the COVID Pandemic:

“Evidence suggests that SCoV is transmitted via contact and/or droplets ….. and that the use of any mask (surgical or N95) significantly decreases the risk of infection…”

“…epidemiological evidence suggests that transmission does not occur prior to the onset of symptoms or after symptom resolution…” “….underscoring the importance of a rapid, accurate diagnostic test.”

“Atypical presentations of the disease have been described also complicating the diagnosis…”

“….Interestingly, the disease has been rare in children and if present appears to be milder…”

“…More frequent is a mild variant of the disease that includes mild respiratory symptoms with fever….”

“…Advanced age is the most important risk factor for death with patients older than 60 years having a case fatality rate of 45 percent…”

“The infectious agent was spread by respiratory droplets in the great majority of cases, and some patients were more infectious than others….” 

I would say that all of the above and more was useful information for this novel Coronavirus, but similar to one that was already studied. Did they use the information? Did they take precautions? Was there any thinking going on by public health officials? None that could be discerned.

In fact our illustrious Prime Minister was mostly concerned with anti-Chinese racism in early February as case counts began in Ontario and B.C. Young JustinT had barely finished chastising Canadians for the racial stereotyping of the Chinese, when the Chinese virus arrived in his own house carried by his wife. The Chinese Communist Party, which young JustinT “admired,” deserves much of the blame for the entire debacle that followed.

Despite intelligence and plenty of evidence to the contrary, our governments did a piss-poor job of preparing for a Pandemic and compounded that by failing to inform the population at the start.

The stable genius in the United States at first denied the seriousness of COVID19, even though he was advised of the opposite. Apparently, he didn't want to start a panic, but was OK with a disaster.

 

The general population knew better. News media were reporting shortages of toilet paper and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. People were preparing. The WHO finally declared the Pandemic on March 11, 2020, the next day my wife and I forayed out on one last shopping binge looking for masks, gloves, and wipes, but only found gloves. We bought more toilet paper, and canned foods all the while thinking that we may have to hunker down for a few weeks. Schools were just closing for the March break and we thought they may have to shut for several weeks following. We did not imagine 6 months.

The next day sports leagues began cancelling games. Everything seemed very spontaneous and without direction, very ad-hoc and ultimately surreal.

Back in late February and early March, Washington State had outbreaks in a retirement homes - that should have been a big red flag for public health everywhere. But of course it was mostly ignored. 

Here is what happened in another Washington event: “....an outbreak occurred following attendance of a symptomatic index case at a regular weekly rehearsal on 10 March of the Skagit Valley Chorale (SVC). After that rehearsal, 53 members of the SVC among 61 in attendance were confirmed or strongly suspected to have contracted COVID-19 and two died. Transmission by the airborne route is likely.” See this link. This above was a demonstration of just how contagious the virus was from a sick contagious individual, and how it was spread, possibly as an aerosol (that is disputed) but likely by droplets when he coughed and sneezed in a closed space (that is not disputed). Again, that was mostly ignored.

Skagit Valley Chorale outbreak

The news from Europe, especially Italy was very disturbing.

 

I could only imagine hastily called meetings going on here at home in workplaces, businesses, in local and regional government offices about next steps. It began to dawn on many of us that this might take a while and to be safe, some changes must be made.

Our government leaders were caught with their pants and skirts down, and suddenly realized that our medical facilities were finite and largely unprepared. In fact they were unprepared in normal times with long wait times, and for many who needed urgent care, this was about to become a disaster.

 

We were soon inundated with TV and radio ads from government urging everyone to wash their hands often and stay home so as not to overwhelm the already inadequate healthcare system. We were all urged to “flatten the curve” for the sake of the health care system. Hospitals postponed “elective” surgeries and physicians discovered that video and telephone “consults” worked. Worsening outcomes for cancer, cardiac patients and everybody on a waitlist were about to become collateral damage.

Turns out that the hand washing advisories were probably over done. The evidence now shows that touching contaminated surfaces (fomites) was a MINOR method of transmission. The virus is transmitted by droplets primarily, as you would expect with a respiratory virus, and of course the government and public health officials poo-pooed wearing masks (even though it was recommended with SARS-1) but made a very big deal of washing hands.

In fact our chief public health people actually discouraged masks at first, then reversed that advice. The entire mask issue became a debacle as I've already discussed here.

Businesses of all sorts produced radio and TV commercials that were incredibly alike and eerily resembled this cartoon.

 

News stories from the New York City region served to terrify because public health there could not keep up with the surge in cases and deaths.

 

By this time everyone that could, went online, and suddenly everyone became an epidemiologist.

 

Many of us stuck at home with literally no where to go, discovered “Zoom.” That did not help and in many ways things became worse. There was also a sudden uptick in the sharing of idiotic memes and jokes by email. That lasted for weeks.

 

Traffic jams had disappeared overnight. Businesses and entertainment had shut down. There was no where to go, and it became eerily quiet especially in urban areas without traffic noise and air travel. Delivery vans (delivering food etc.) soon became the major traffic in many neighbourhoods.

Soon the conspiracists came out online. The most idiotic ones called what was happening a “PLANdemic” that was planned and started by the likes of Bill Gates or George Soros, or some scheming media and government leaders to subjugate humanity. Or, the whole thing is a hoax - never mind all the deaths in China, Italy, New York etc. Or, the virus was engineered in a Chinese lab in Wuhan. Or, COVID19 is no worse than the flu (it isn't) Many unsubstantiated claims were circulated. Most were hilarious to me anyway, but the conspiracists were serious.

Some folks even doubted the nature of the disease. Was it really a virus or was COVID caused by “5G networks?” Such a ridiculous idea it is just unworthy of further comment.

 

All the talk about protecting the health care system seemed to work because it was never overwhelmed here, unlike Italy or New York City or other places in the States later on.

 

What quickly became obvious was that the health care system failed to protect the elderly in long term care across the country. Local outbreaks raged through those operations and its there that the majority of COVID deaths occurred in the early days of the Canadian outbreak. Things were so bad in some elder-care homes, that the military was called in to rescue survivors. It was the proverbial “shit-show” in these long term care facilities, a black mark against government controlled healthcare and a disaster for many families across Canada.

Then came the drug therapy advocates with their own conspiracy theories. Based on the unfounded claims of the idiot in the White House and some random medical mavens who claimed this drug or that miraculously cured COVID. None were shown to be really effective let alone a cure, and only a few showed any real clinical effects that could be proven in a double blind study. So far the only drugs that have been proven to have any effect are steroids like dexamethasone and an antiviral remdesovir.

Then came the contrarians, claiming the lockdowns were unnecessary (probably), or we should have followed the Swedes (maybe), or that masks are totally useless or even dangerous (unlikely), or the Pandemic is over (also unlikely), lets all go back to the way things were (not going to happen).

 

People with higher paying jobs could work from home during a lockdown. People with lower paying jobs generally cannot if they have jobs at all. Many had lost their jobs and income because of the government’s lockdown over reaction. Almost as penance government began shovelling money almost indiscriminately out to the people negatively affected. This added enormous debt to governments everywhere, an effect that will certainly outlast the effects of the virus.

 

Early on some folks predicted social unrest as a result of the forced lockdown. Of course no one predicted what form the social unrest would take though it was easy to predict who would be affected.

 

The pandemic became the perfect storm for the resurgence of the civil rights movement as a result of a few very unfortunate police actions. The continued presence of apparently racist police officers combined with smouldering frustration in Black and Indigenous communities after years of endless discrimination, sparked worldwide demonstrations, riots, and vandalism. The latter two have probably caused considerable resentment in the broader community, as I’ll point out later. Unfortunately this gave undeserved prominence to groups like ANTIFA and “Black Lives Matter” that advocated completely irrational demands such as defunding the police. Libertarians would be happier if police were de-tasked of certain functions, but that's a longer story.

Throughout most of the very warm summer (in these parts) businesses were allowed to reopen in stages. Case counts dropped, deaths dropped, many people, especially the younger population became complacent. Strangely, even as the Pandemic seemed to wane several governments instituted mask mandates, finally acknowledging how the virus was primarily spread. Perhaps public health officials were anticipating and attempting to ward off a second wave, we’ll see.

In August, most sports leagues restarted competition, but without audiences, just on TV - very weird (especially the cardboard cutouts in the stands), but at least it offered many an escape and live entertainment. Each of the Leagues pandered to the current civil rights unrest, by highlighting the dubious importance of the political group “Black Lives Matter” and so-called racial justice. Did the fans really care? We got a hint when the first NFL game (in Missouri) was held in front of a small physically distanced crowd that booed when the players at pregame linked arms in a salute to “racial unity.”

I suspect there will be much resentment at the political shenanigans of the sports leagues. How that will manifest itself later on is anyone’s guess. But pandering to intersectionality and racial unity does not mix with sports entertainment IMHO.

The mask mandates just triggered more civil unrest, and more so-called “expert” opinions (see top) and discussions on their effectiveness especially online.

As case numbers ticked up in early September schools reopened with much parental consternation and considerable variation across the country.

 

We’re 6 months in, and winter is coming. Will there be a second wave? No doubt, its just a matter of how big. Its well known that schools drive pandemics, will it happen this time?

Media Bias - from objective to plain objectionable.

My personal view of Canadian Media bias.

 In August 2020, CBC Newsworld covered the Pandemic versions of the Democratic then Republican National Conventions (DNC & RNC) each evening during their run.

I watched bits of both occasionally. One evening (August 26th) I watched part of the RNC coverage. After one of the speeches the host and the CBC Washington correspondent introduced two American commentators. One was a Democratic strategist, the other a Republican strategist. I thought, good we were going to be offered two different viewpoints on the speech just presented. Boy was I wrong. Turned out, both commentators were very much anti-Trump as were the host and the Washington correspondent. There was not even the pretence of objective analysis. Not surprised, I thought how typical of CBC.

 

As a youngster I had an obsession with the NEWS, learned from my father probably because of his peacetime and wartime experiences in Poland. He was an avid NEWS watcher and listener.

 

Growing up in Toronto, with just a few TV and radio stations, it never crossed my mind that the NEWS would be biased based on the station reporting it. That was probably true of most of my generation in the 1950’s and most of the ‘60’s. For me the NEWS was the truth, why would I doubt it? I was also fortunate, like all my neighbours, to get NEWS from American and Canadian sources because of our proximity to the USA. 

 

In reality, I was growing up during a rare blip in journalism and media. Commercial sponsors that wanted the broadest media appeal possible to market their products funded print journalism as well as TV and radio broadcasting. Journalists and their editors were encouraged to aim at the mushy political middle in their reporting to attract the largest possible audience. But throughout the history of media, that was not always the case.

 

Before radio and TV, political parties often funded Canadian and American print media. So what appeared in their stories and reports were typically very partisan, and not that different from today. 

 

Eventually the expense of publishing newspapers became difficult for political parties to finance, and sponsorships moved to business and industry. Those folks wanted broad appeal and NEWS reporting became more objective and less partisan by necessity. We were in a Cold War with the Soviets and political parties themselves were also ideologically similar back then, as were the readers and later listeners and watchers. 

 

Of course the media do not officially support political parties these days, print media will endorse parties and candidates prior to elections. However, in practice day-to-day most mainstream media outlets have adopted the prevailing cultural norms and today have a definite leftish tone (see above graphic). Certainly that’s true across Canada. Many Canadians lament the bias of mainstream media, but history shows bias was the normal condition.

 

As the culture continues to shift left, so has much of the mainstream media.

In Canada, smaller NEWS outlets (mostly online) are funded by donations. Many of these are on the right end of the political spectrum. Since the culture is largely left-wing, the larger privately funded media sources (the print media, CTV, etc.) have attempted the pretence of objectivity just to keep a broad based audience but actually most lean left because it is politically acceptable. Publicly funded (government) media sources like the CBC and TVO, have moved hard core left, because they do not depend as much on broad private sponsorship. They get government funding regardless of the crap they produce.

 

The graphic at the top (adapted from here) is my non-scientific impression of some selected Canadian media outlets. Most of the mainstream media are on the left. The right side is populated by small \, relatively new organizations.

Here is an American version of my graphic thats available online:

American media bias.

 Of course, just like in Canada, American media is owned by just a few companies, all of which come with their own biases.

 

The only way to avoid media bias these days is to read, listen to, and watch a variety of legitimate media outlets. The key is how to discern what is legitimate. My graphic (above) makes an attempt at demonstrating this. Thats according to my opinion at least. We may disagree.

 

While dispassionate objectivity is still taught in journalism schools, most practicing journalists shed that constraint, very quickly as they settle in with a like-minded employer.

 

Today the cultural shift left has gone so far as to invite gross censorship and censure-ship of journalists who stray from supposed cultural norms. Publishers and other media owners do not want to risk offending anyone because they fear losing sponsorships. Maybe they don't realize it but that fear is itself very offensive. Diverse opinions are scorned by editors and publishers to the point where today, many journalists are in revolt. (See The new Mcarthyism - Cancel Culture) That's a good sign, in my opinion, push back even from the lefty journalists who realize that diverse opinions are what makes our Western civilization work.

 

Anti-mask mania...yes it is!

Really, its a question? Mask UP!

During the first few months of the COVID Pandemic lockdown, politicians, health officials, and hospitals agonized over the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for front line health care workers. It was headline news.


PPE consists of masks, face shields, gowns and gloves - all disposable, and all essential in protecting doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc. from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID19. 

Think about that, the PPE protects the healthcare worker and is essential for them to do their job. That was clearly understood by virtually everyone at the start. At the same time, the general population was told by experts and idiot politicians that masks are ineffective and should not be used and anyway masks do not protect you, they protect others from you. Of course, that contradicts the “personal” part of PPE. Worse still, the idiot politicians supported that or in the American case denied what seemed obvious, and the issue of masks became a political football.
 Eventually the idiot politicians and public health officials changed their collective little minds and suggested that masks be worn to protect “others.” That ‘suggestion’ became a legal requirement in many jurisdictions locally and regionally, ordered by governments and backed by public health officials around the world.

So apparently front line healthcare workers and public health officials almost everywhere are convinced that masks provide some degree of protection if used properly. Sure, there are a few exceptions, and I choose to ignore them, because the front line workers are the real experts. They wear masks and there is nothing theoretical about it. 

Is there any evidence that wearing masks can reduce virus transmission in the general population? Fortunately there is. Hong Kong has experienced several epidemic outbreaks over the years because of its location. There, its a cultural norm to wear masks in public. During an outbreak its almost universal as this quote suggests:

 

“Not wearing masks in Hong Kong is like not wearing pants nowadays,” Alex Lam, a Hong Kong lawyer, told the Wall Street Journal in April.”

 

This article makes the point of comparing Hong Kong to New York City:
 “New York City, with a population of about 8.4 million, has had over 28,000 coronavirus deaths as of May 18. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has officially recorded only four Covid-19 deaths, despite having 7.5 million residents.”

Masks are just part of Hong Kong’s story, but there is little doubt they play a role. 

I am, of course opposed to the official mandates that require masks to be worn. Certainly property owners and businesses have the right to demand masks be worn inside their building. Why would anyone refuse? (Only CovIDIOTS would) My view is simple, if wearing a mask can protect against virus transmission, even partially, then everyone should, as a matter of courtesy and self defence.


But of course courtesy is not a universally accepted trait and I’m constantly reminded of the number of stupid people that somehow exist. An anti-mask backlash ensued in social media, on the street, and in the news. Much of it was against mandates, I get that. But a good chunk of the online protests were just against the very idea of wearing masks. People trotted out “experts,” “peer-reviewed studies,” wacky YouTube videos, all sorts protestations exhorting people not to wear masks. I was frankly dismayed and annoyed. What motive could these people have? Why are they so determined to deny what reality seems to confirm every time a health care worker steps into a room with a COVID patient?

 

Its common for libertarian thinkers to be contrarian, so I’m not totally surprised at the social media reaction to masks. I just have trouble with their motive.

Maybe the official science does not totally support masks, but neither does it totally deny their effectiveness. The practice of wearing masks seems to have an effect. If nothing else it reminds people to take care. Enough people have died to prove this is a nasty, nasty and unpredictable bug. For me ALL LIVES MATTER! 

 

We’re going to have a second wave of COVID soon, I expect it to be worse, maybe far worse than the first. Most professional healthcare workers and virologists believe droplet and aerosol transmission is the main method the virus is transmitted. If wearing masks in any way lessens the impact of a second wave, then why not mask up? 

 

 

The new McCarthyism

In early July of 2020, in the midst of the COVID19 Pandemic, a letter appeared in Harper’s Magazine dealing with what was called “Justice and Open Debate.” Over 150 people signed the letter, most with ties to the literary world, writers, editors, commentators etc. Without mentioning the term, it complained about the creeping “cancel culture” in the press and media. Something I have written about before. I’m happy to see others consider it a danger too.

 

Later on in July, Bari Weiss, a writer, editor and former columnist for the New York Times, resigned with this letter to her employer. Both letters dealt with the “chill” that writers face when they write something that strays from the common consensus. This quote from the Weiss letter:

“..... standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.” BW 

What is this new McCarthyism, this cancel culture?

According to Dictionary.com, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (cancelling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. [It's] generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.” Similar terms are “doxxing” and “deplatforming” Deplatforming conservative and right wing speakers at universities have been a common occurrence for a number of years now. One just has to listen and look at the drivel that comes out of most universities to understand why.

 

Of course it goes beyond just shaming for those shamed and one does not need to be famous to be affected. It damages careers, jobs, and ultimately its character assassination often unjustly and inappropriately delivered.

 

There is nothing wrong with publicly castigating the comments and the commentator for something said or written. But harmful comments need to be evaluated on their harm and degree of offence. Some comments do not rise to the level of public shaming, some do. Some are not offensive at all, but simply innocuous opinions that don’t really require a response. Of course there are evil people with evil and dangerous intent that need to be outed and ultimately marginalized. That makes it important to discover intent. Trying to be objective when evaluating speech and written work is all-important. But in many cases intent is ignored and the response of the evaluators is excessively harsh. Why?

 

In late July, while being grilled at a ridiculous anti-trust hearing, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, (Bezos testimony - this is great) commented that social media is a 'nuance-destruction machine' when asked about his views on 'cancel culture.' In other words, comments on Facebook, Twitter and the like, can be easily misinterpreted. Nuance disappears in the new world of triggering and micro-aggression. 

 

That’s part of the problem and the rest almost entirely involves identity politics. With that, civil discourse is stifled on all sides of the spectrum and that further polarizes individuals and groups.

 

Here is a troubling example. A former colleague and friend, who worked as a teacher for the largest school board in Canada, made what I consider an innocent post on Facebook. He commented that there was a “distinction between peaceful protestors in a just cause and violent rioters who undermine that cause.” This was related to the violent anti-racism protests occurring in the States at the time. After reading this, some irate and unknown to him, social justice warriors lodged a formal complaint against my friend to his employer. The employer instantly suspended him for possible “human rights violations,” banned him from school property, accused him of “discrediting the teaching profession,” put a formal reprimand on his record, and even threatened further investigation including possible termination of his contract. Naturally he was pissed to say the least, and fortunate to be close to retirement. And that’s exactly what he did, thankful to distance himself from those idiots.

I have studied and taught biology for over 40 years and have never encountered such low level life forms as those bits of slime that forced a career to end so undeservedly. Of course the idiot Board admins were no shining example of fairness and good judgment. These are the folks responsible for the education of our children and grandchildren, and that is what is most distressing.

This video puts forth a libertarian view of cancel culture:

 This is also a good link: https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-cancel-culture-checklist-c63

Political Party Package Deals & Principles

Casting a ballot during an election is often a problem for libertarians and classical liberals. They would be the first to say its rare to find acceptable candidates advocating for the right mix of socially tolerant ideas as well as fiscal responsibility in government. Unless there is the rare appearance of a true Libertarian or libertarian-like candidate, the aforementioned voters would have to mark their ballots while holding their collective noses or abstain from voting entirely. It's a dilemma.

This problem is almost always because political parties offer package deals. What are “package deals?” They’re party platforms that are often a hodgepodge of inconsistent positions. Rarely do political parties hold principles consistent with strict social tolerance and fiscal responsibility, both important to libertarians. Parties cater to groups of people that have been influenced by prevailing social and cultural norms and popular economic beliefs. They also get labelled as being right-wing conservative or left-wing liberal in modern parlance.

As an aside I would challenge the common meaning of these terms “right-wing and left-wing.” For example, its common in the mainstream media to call communists and socialists left-wing, and fascists right-wing. But fascism is as authoritarian as communism in practice. Recall that the NAZI Party, the prototypical fascist party, were national socialists! How is that different from regular socialists? Really, its not.

So my preference, for the North American situation, is to define left-wing as authoritarian with huge government interference in all matters, and right-wing as the opposite, classically liberal and with little government interference in all matters.

But that’s not how it works in real politics. For example, many so-called right-wing conservative parties claim to be fiscally responsible (and rarely are), and advocate rights, but also would deny women access to abortion, and deny everyone access to recreational drugs. At the same time so-called left-wing liberal parties would tax and spend to support dubious social programs yet allow women the freedom to choose and also not penalize the recreational use of drugs. Of course libertarians and classical liberals share traits that tend to straddle both these supposed left and right positions as well as other issues. How does a libertarian choose?

Thats why it’s important to support libertarian parties, candidates and ideas. It's the ideas that eventually change the culture, and voicing the ideas in an election campaign and giving people the option to vote for them is often the only way people are exposed to them. Like this from the USLP:

USLP Presidential Candidate 2020

In Canada many ideas that had origins in Libertarian Party platforms and thought have already been adopted, even though Libertarians rarely make a dent in election results. Ideas like allowing Sunday shopping, equal rights for gay relationships, allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, and legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, have all been part of past Libertarian platforms, and now in Ontario, and much of Canada they are par-for-the-course.

Yes, its true that in practice these ideas are not precisely in line with libertarian preferences, but thats the way politics works. Good libertarian ideas start off as a whisper that gets louder as the culture changes. Eventually the ideas are ripe enough for implementation when the time is right and then some unprincipled mainstream party runs with them and wins. This gradual shift in political discussion is the concept of the Overton Window, which I have used to create policy for the Ontario Libertarian Party.

Having said all that, the only way to influence people in our system, especially voters, unfortunately, is to get involved in politics and help construct those package deals.

Why am I wearing a mask, and why you should?

When I posted that picture on my Facebook, most of the reaction was the simple Facebook ‘like.” One fellow sarcastically commented “Libertarian, lol.” Of course what he meant was that libertarians don’t wear masks. Wearing a mask implies submitting to government edict in his mind, and libertarians are contrarian by nature according to popular myth.
That guy did not seem to remember that governments here and around the world eschewed mask wearing at first; in fact most government officials claimed masks were somehow dangerous. Maybe if that idiotic advice had stuck, wearing a mask would have been the contrarian and therefore the correct libertarian thing to do.
 But as it happens government officials changed their collective minds, mostly.

In late February and early March 2020, when I realized SARS-CoV-2 was a respiratory virus likely spread by close contact, and inhaling virus, I began searching for masks online and in local stores. They were no longer in the stores or very hard to find, and online they had very high prices and far off delivery dates. My brother ordered some masks for me in early March (like the one I'm wearing) as a birthday present. They finally arrived May 26th.

 

Masks plus distance = very effective.


I’ve always known that masks were not completely effective but were worn to protect others as well as yourself. Better than nothing in my opinion. Medical professionals have used face masks for over 120 years, so when SARS-CoV-2 came to Ontario, I knew a face mask would afford me some protection, and I would need it.

Both the meme on the right and the video below from this site, illustrates that masks are at least partially effective. Together with adequate distancing (~2 m) they are very useful in preventing spread in enclosed spaces, and in my personal case, I really needed it.

My situation has made me extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of the virus. I have Multiple Myeloma, a blood cancer of the frontline cells of my immune system, the ones that produce antibodies that would fight an infection. I can produce antibodies, and in large quantities, but they are useless and so I’m an easy target for any type of infection. For me and others like me COVID19 has a case fatality rate of between 39 and 54%. I’m in my 70’s, male with type "A" blood, three more knocks. So needless to say I’ve been avoiding people including family since mid-March 2020.

So if wearing a mask or having those around me wearing a mask is even slightly effective, then why not? Of course I believe that wearing a mask should be strictly a voluntary choice, I also believe that it's a good choice, and a considerate choice. Since "do no harm" is the number one rule of libertarianism, then wearing a mask is the obvious choice. Most sensible libertarians will agree, and you can see the evidence here, and here. But, more and more governments are mandating the use of masks. While I don't agree with that, I certainly understand it. Private businesses and government have the right to require individuals to wear masks when entering their establishments. No mask, no admission, thats what I believe. Your freedom to be irresponsible ends when you step into someone's property. That is simply a property rights issue, whether you believe masks are useful or not.

More and more people and organizations are understanding that droplet transmission (and possibly aerosol transmission) is the primary method of spread of SARS-CoV-2. The early instructions in Ontario were to wash hands and stay home. Not a word about masks. Clearly we have learned that information was just plain inadequate. Listen to this physician speaking on "This Week in Virology" (TWIV) saying that masks work (@ 26 minutes, 28 seconds) and should be used in closed spaces. Listen to the entire podcast if you're wondering about that. In fact listen to TWIV if you're interested in viruses/pandemics/science etc. and want to understand from a reputable source whats really going on right now.

Even Trump wears a mask with the POTUS seal!

Several of my 'friends' on social media (Facebook etc.) insist on downplaying the effectiveness of masks sighting scientific studies that prove(?) masks are ineffective. Some even post lengthy exhortations about how useless masks are, how innocuous the virus is, and how we should not be that concerned. Frankly I don't understand their motivation. It makes no sense to refuse to abide by the simple precautionary principle which is just reasonable when unknowns abound. They will argue that they are against mandating masks and forcing people to stay home and on and on. Certainly governments have overreacted by shutting down the economy and possibly creating much more harm than the Pandemic. I understand and I agree. But there is also the idea of personal responsibility, respect for your neighbours, common courtesy, and the chance that you might help protect susceptible people (like me). It boggles my mind but I guess these folks don't really care that all lives matter, else why argue? 

Many of these folks point to the observation (and their own conclusion) that the pandemic seems to be over, the emergency has ended, so why are masks being mandated now? Thats a reasonable question, but the fact is that a second wave is very likely when the weather turns cooler. Masks could mitigate a second wave until an effective vaccine is found and distributed. Masks could allow semi-normal interactions which would help the economy and get people back to work. The second wave may be far worse than the Pandemic has been so far, especially in Canada because of our relatively low infection rate. Just look at infection rates in the US now in July 2020. There, politics has so contaminated good information from physicians and public health authorities, that Americans have not respected the serious implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ease of its transmission. Americans may be inadvertently heading for herd immunity, what Sweden has been doing on purpose. Both countries may (emphasis on MAY), have a milder second wave compared to places  like Canada. Wearing masks in Canada will have to be the next normal for the foreseeable future. 

This will make Greta mad.....

Angry Greta!

Good news! Big cracks are beginning to form in the climate alarmist environmental  movement. Even the true believers are asking media to cool it. Why? It may be because 2019 was a truly outrageous year even for the climate catastrophists. At the start of the year politicians and others, amplified by media, made claims that we had only 12 years before the world as we know it ends if we don’t buckle-down and address climate change now. The mainstream media gleefully reported that global climate catastrophe was imminent. Great fires, floods, storms, record heat, all those things were happening (they imagined) and were attributed to human caused climate change. The end was near unless there was some kind of massive intervention.

 

By the close of the year Greta Thunberg, the autistic, troubled teenage wunderkind, was proclaimed TIME magazine's person of the year (see this). She was recognized despite not yet finishing high school, but still credited with enough scientific credibility to be a world renowned self-proclaimed spokesperson against catastrophic climate change. Just remarkable, wouldn’t you say? What a world we live in! Greta, of course, will not like this blog post.

In the midst of the daily climate warnings by the media and almost on queue, the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic swept away the ridiculous notion that catastrophic climate change was the worst thing that could happen to humanity. Of course that did not stop the bleating from the apocalyptic hordes just so we didn't forget them during the lockdown. In fact they pointed out that CO2 levels continued to rise despite reduced human activity during the worldwide Pandemic lockdown. 

Maybe as result of all the outragiously scary stuff that appeared in 2019 an article was posted in Nature magazine, which in my opinion began the catastrophists retreat. The article admonished catastrophists to tone down their rhetoric without retreating from their alarmist position: 

“We must all — from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers — stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable.”

They pointed out that the worst case scenario envisioned by the IPCC was unlikely to happen and should not be used to terrify the general public, rather we were on track to a far lessor disaster (but still a disaster) unless we switch to so-called cleaner energy sources like “renewables” - wind, solar etc., and proceed with other mitigation strategies. Apparently when media reports on the future of climate change, they have a tendency to use the worst case scenario to make the case. Journalists have become climate activists, long ago tossing out objectivity. The Nature article suggested that the worst case was also the MOST UNLIKELY. Rather, the article suggested using more realistic scenarios to make policy and report to the public. Mostly the article was ignored, especially by media.

Every year the National Post features a week in June called Junk Science Week. Understandably climate change stories have been at the forefront of that week every year. This year the column written by University of Guelph Prof. Ross McKitrick highlighted the article above from Nature. That was the only press I saw commenting on it.

The onset of the COVID19 Pandemic pulled the world's attention from the fake but widely believed existential crisis of climate change, to a very real existential crisis for humanity. 

It was during the height of the North American Pandemic lockdown in April that a more dramatic and widely publicized event occurred. Film maker Michael Moore released a film onto YouTube for free called Planet of the Humans. It was the story of “green energy,” wind, solar and biomass, written and narrated by a climate catastrophist and friend of Moore's. Yet it was a critical condemnation of low carbon emitting "renewables” or rather “unreliables” as I prefer to call them. The film  exposed the false hope that these alternative energy sources provide, and the lies and corruption that has characterized Green energy advocacy. The fact that Nuclear Plants have no carbon emissions was totally ignored by the film.  But, the film made waves. It was roundly criticized by the environmental left, and eventually removed from YouTube due to protests and for very flimsy reasons. Nevertheless, reposted, the film can be seen here, and it is well worth a view.

But the biggest story so far this year in my opinion was the book and apology by Michael Shellenberger. I first became aware of it by reading a column by John Robson in the National Post, himself a climate change skeptic. Shellenberger is a frequent contributor to Forbes Magazine. His most recent contribution, an apology for the climate change scare, was posted then removed, censored by Forbes, and that was the reason for Robson's column. The apology will warm the cockles of your heart if you are a climate change skeptic. I have no doubt catastrophists will lose their lunch over it. Shellenberger reposted his apology here, on his website. Its a great read! He did an interview with Alex Epstein about the apology here:

Shellenberger has a history of criticizing the environmental movement. For example this TED Talk where he denounces so-called renewables and promotes nuclear power, which is a no-no among lefty environmentalists:

The book Shellenberger wrote is called Apocalypse Never:Why Environmental Alarmism hurts us all, is only available in electronic form, Kindle or Kobo so far (early July 2020) in Canada. It just got published in the States (June 30, 2020). The book is reviewed here by Alex Epstein. It's been well received and is popular and I'm hoping it will begin a retreat from the current anti-human man-made climate change hysteria to a more moderate humanistic form of environmentalism. If the book is widely read and taken seriously, it could change government policies.  

Can governments get off the climate change bandwagon? Events during the Pandemic prove governments can be wrong and change their approach quickly. For example the official view on masks for the general public has gone from they are ineffective and possibly even harmful, to they are now mandatory. Quite a switch, and climate change policies can and should change equally as fast. I hope so.