I have to say I am disappointed in a number of my fellow Granite Staters, with them buying into the “We need to destroy ourselves in order to save ourselves” bulls**t. Some of them cite the ‘surge’ in new cases of Covid-19 as a reason to keep our economy shut down, choosing to ignore the reason for that surge: a lot more testing. What I’d like them to do is to look at the number of people tested for antibodies and compare them to the number of positive cases. As time goes forward, I think they’ll find the ratio of positive cases to those testing positive for antibodies is going to show a similar ratio as that seen in the San Francisco Bay area, approximately one positive Covid-19 case for every eighty-five people showing positive for antibodies.
I have decided to get tested for antibodies as I am curious to see how widespread the presence of this coronavirus may be. It will not be a surprise if I test positive. I will let you know once I find out.
Imperial College model used to justify UK and U.S. lockdowns deemed ‘buggy mess’ & ‘total unreliable’ by experts.
As the tagline in the above linked post states, “One expert’s damning assessment: “In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust.””
I would be fired from my job if I used a circuit simulation model as defective as this one, and rightfully so. No one, including me, would be able to trust anything coming out of it. If we did, there would be no confidence the circuit would work. Would we ‘bet the farm’ developing a product based upon such a defective model? No. So why would governments decide pandemic policy based upon a model as defective as the Imperial College model?
By way of Maggie’s Farm comes these two quotes that may apply to the above.
" If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."I’ll now add one that I have used more than once that is within the same vein as those by Feynman:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
-Richard P. Feynman
It doesn’t matter if 10,000 scientists agree with me. All it takes is one to prove me wrong.
More than a few people have commented that the our present crisis should not be used as an excuse to bail out those spendthrift states who now find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. They are not in this financial state because of Covid-19, but because they were already on the financial brink before the pandemic ‘panic’ is pushing them over the edge.
A group of Wisconsin lawmakers have asked their state’s congressional delegation “asking them not to support any coronavirus relief bill that gives money to Illinois and other states with a history of “reckless budgeting.”” If these states receive a bailout it is highly unlikely they will reform their profligate spending, making financial promises they have neither the wherewithal or the intention to keep. It would be throwing good money after bad.
In New Hampshire, Greg Moore, the New Hampshire state director of Americans For Prosperity is voicing a similar opinion.
With our nation expecting to borrow $3 trillion in this quarter alone, pushing our overall debt over $25 trillion, some states want to compound this economic harm by asking federal taxpayers to bail them out from decades of bad choices.New Hampshire hit some financial difficulties as part of the Great Recession that started in 2008-2009, taking measures that returned the state to financial health. State spending was reduced by up to 18% in 2011 and follow-on state spending held in check until the economy recovered. The state did what it needed to do to return New Hampshire government to financial health. It appears states like Illinois, California, Connecticut, New Jersey are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to return to financial health. They want someone else to pay their bills and bail out their pensions systems.
It is time for some true leaders to step up and say “no.”
Illinois legislative leadership requested a $44 billion bailout, with $10 billion going directly to plug holes in their pension fund, which has been chronically mismanaged for decades. Illinois’ budget for the current fiscal year is $40 billion, making that state’s bailout request $4 billion more than they planned to spend for the whole year.
In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom joined other Western governors to ask the federal government for $1 trillion. That state has had huge financial problems for years, and getting the federal government to bail it out would stall needed changes that must happen and should have taken place already.
This phenomenon also happens at a lower level, as we’ve seen here in New Hampshire, though more on a theoretical level. At one point a reporter working for one of our local newspapers expressed the opinion that the wealthier towns should be giving money to towns that were struggling to make ends meet. Skip Murphy, he of the famous GraniteGrok blog, put him in his place.
His real goal? No one town keeps ANY of its revenue – the same with any local control which goes to a central location. How do I know this? Like Niel Young, I fell off Kitch’s list a long time ago after a knock down, drag out over this exact topic.Some of the ‘property poor’ towns are property poor because of decisions made by town officials or the townsfolk themselves at town meeting. Yet towns that did the right things and made the right decisions are somehow obligated to help the towns that consistently make the wrong financial decisions?
My argument – [our town works] HARD at keeping expenses low and taxes low. We manage our town well – sure, my hamlet provides more than the limited government that I would prefer, but rather within a loose range of "ok".
His take? We should tax more, and then send it to towns and cities that need it. Made no difference if they had been careful stewards of the taxpayer monies. Made no different if they had kept their expenditures lower than possible. Made no difference if they had just spent their taxpayers into the ground recklessly.
If they need it, and if we had "extra capacity", we were simply cold-hearted by not taking it from OUR taxpayers and sending it to those that had, admittedly, mis-managed their finances. We were stingy and just plain rotten, for there were citizens in need (regardless that their elected officials were just plain unmitigated disasters) that needed our money. The small little fact of "then why do those needy citizens keep re-electing those fiascos" fell of deaf ears – it was OUR problem because WE had the money – and they didn’t.
This is insanity, be it at state or local level.
Moonbattery has its own take on the crippling looting spree planned by the Democrats (see above).
The ChiCom virus has been seized upon as a pretext for a radical expansion of Big Government. If Democrats have their way, the extravagant wasteful spending is only just beginning.Yet another step the Democrats are taking to build their socialist ‘utopia’.
Already, the federal government paying people not to work is making it impossible to reopen businesses. Imagine the situation when a family of five is paid $120,000 per year for doing nothing.
Flinging around hundreds of $billions every month with ever fewer people generating wealth for that money to represent will quickly produce Zimbabwe levels of inflation. Before long, $120,000 will not be enough to put food on the table.
And that’s the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where the weather is getting better (slowly), summer season businesses are opening...cautiously, and where my boat is finally in the water and tied up at its summer home.