http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

During this pandemic, the arbitrary regulations and lockdowns that have forced small businesses to close and kids to remain out of school have had serious consequences. Pandemic-induced depression and suicide is a serious problem that seems to have been overlooked by many of the leaders imposing lockdowns.

From CBS Philadelphia:

Pandemic depression is a new disorder linked to COVID-19 and it’s growing. Research shows people in major metropolitan areas, like Philadelphia, are being hit harder by mental health challenges.

It’s not just physical ailments as emergency departments are also being bombarded with the emotional fallout from the pandemic. Over a six-week period this summer in Montgomery County in Pennsylvania, 400 people went to hospitals because of self-injury or suicidal thoughts.

A new study in Britain shows school lockdowns are having a big impact on children. “We found quite a substantial increase in ratings of depressive symptoms during lockdown,” said Duncan Astle, a developmental psychologist for the University of Cambridge.

The research tracked about 200 elementary students before and after the lockdown and found a 70% chance that depression increased with isolation.

From PJ Media:

Meanwhile, religious worship was deemed nonessential by some leaders during the pandemic. And houses of worship were forced to remain closed, allegedly out of health concerns. According to some “leaders,” you could social distance in a Walmart, a restaurant, or even an airplane, but not a church or a synagogue—so they ordered them closed.

But a recently released Gallup Poll suggests that churches and synagogues should never have been deemed nonessential, and may have been the most essential thing Americans needed to get through the pandemic.

Gallup has been polling Americans annually, as part of its November Health and Healthcare survey, to assess whether their mental health is excellent, good, fair, or poor. While Americans’ mental health overall declined in 2020, frequent churchgoers (weekly) did not experience a mental health decline at all, and were the only group in the U.S. not to experience a decline. In fact, they saw a slight increase, with 46 percent rating their mental health as excellent in 2020, a 4 point increase over 2019. This compared to:

Monthly churchgoers = -12

Seldom or never churchgoers = -13

For comparison, some other groups in the Gallup poll – 2020 vs.2019:

White = -10

Non-white = -8

Married = -8

Non-married =-10

All different age groups = -8 to-10

Democrat =-1   (polled  in November after the election)

Republican =-15    (     “.        “.           “.             “.  )

Independent =-11.  (.  “.       “.      “.             “.        “. )

Jenna Ellis, who is also an attorney for the Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, Calif., which is suing Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for their unconstitutional COVID-19 restrictions, has argued that restricting religious worship has nothing to do with protecting Americans. “Church is essential, and the government has no power to arbitrate whether religious organizations are essential. This is not about health and safety, it is about targeting churches.”

At this moment in time, it appears that the Supreme Court agrees. 

State tuned.

After I recently read some interesting things concerning Covid, vaccines, and herd immunity in a recent Wall Street Journal article, I thought, “What we have here is total confusion!” 

This WSJ article was primarily about vaccinating children for Covid. The gist of this article was that the vaccine that we now have is not meant for children or adolescents, and while a vaccine for adolescents “might” be available by the start of the 2021 school year, there is no foreseeable date for a vaccine for children. According to Roberta DeBiasi, the chief of Infectious Disease at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, the risk of Covid for children and adolescents is very low . . . “In general, children do not get as seriously sick from the new coronavirus at the same rates as adults do.”

In the same context herd immunity was mentioned, and the latest on herd immunity is that 75-80% of the US population needs to be immune to Covid for herd immunity to be achieved. Okay so far, so good. 

Then a Harvard epidemiologist says, “It will be very, very difficult for us to reach herd immunity before vaccines are available to younger individuals.” – but, . . . there is no probable availability for a vaccine meant for children in the near future. Confusion ?

To me from the prior three assertions, there is only one possible conclusion . . . in order to get close to herd immunity, more of a low risk group (namely children and adolescents) have to become immune, and at present and for the near future, the only way for this to happen is for them to catch the virus. So the next logical step is . . . to keep schools closed to in-person learning . . . Huh? Sounds like total confusion. 

Still again from the same WSJ article experts say, “Until herd immunity is reached measures such as social distancing and mask wearing will need to remain in place, even for those who have been vaccinated.” . . . What ? The whole purpose of the vaccine is to protect individuals from catching the virus, and if those vaccinated are protected, then why in the world would they continue to wear masks? Again this sounds like total confusion!

Because my gym is on lockdown again,  I have started walking outside in my neighborhood three or four times per week. Whereas my knees could do fine on the gym’s upright bike every day, practically speaking, they will only tolerate neighborhood walking three times a week.  Because honesty is the best policy, I must confess that I do not wear a mask while neighborhood walking . . . mostly because I forget, but even when I remember, I do not wear one, but rather I put it into my pocket, just in case. Nonetheless, if while walking, I am chastised by a Karen for not wearing a mask, I have two potential responses rehearsed and ready (both white lies . . . err . . . okay, just plain old lies.)

My first possible response is, “I am sure you are aware that my mask wearing is mainly to protect you from me. Well you are fortunate as I just got my Covid test back . . . I am negative.”

However my second potential response is better as it will probably elicit sympathy from a Karen. “I had Covid in May. Since my recovery, my antigen test is now negative and my antibody test is positive. Good news for you, and better news for me.”

What if my second response was actually true? What if I did already have Covid? Would I be “required” to still wear a mask? Could I eat at a restaurant or go to a gym? While these are somewhat reasonable questions even today, practically speaking gyms and restaurants today could not to be opened to take care of only those few individuals who have recovered from Covid, as there are not enough of them. But what will happen as the vaccine gets rolled out beyond those who are health care workers and those in nursing homes? 

As I see it, practically speaking this will soon be a major issue. If I have taken the albeit small risk of being vaccinated for Covid, why should I then continue to be subjected to lockdowns and mask wearing? Will some restaurants, etc. be opened to serve only vaccinated individuals and those who have already recovered from Covid? Will there be gyms, bars, and churches open, but restricted to those same individuals? 

Similarly, are those recovered Covid positive college students being treated any differently now that they are no longer potentially infectious? . . . The short answer is “no.” But why not? It would certainly seem that these students should not be limited as to partying, gathering, going to in-person classes, etc. Perhaps frat houses should be able to have Covid-positive parties! You laugh, but as time goes on, more and more people will question why their liberty is being restricted even though they cannot spread Covid.

Thus far I have not heard of any plan as to how to deal with this issue in the future, just as I have not heard of any reasonable way to deal with the close to 2000 already positive students at SDSU. Just today I read a rant from the Alabama basketball coach concerning why he has to wear a mask when he has already had and recovered from the coronavirus. Mark my words – this will only be the first of many, many rants.

Practically speaking, there are only two possible explanations for this apparent void of using common sense. Either “those in the know” have no idea how to deal with this issue, or . . . more likely, they don’t care.

However, do not worry, as Joe “everybody needs to wear a mask even in their own private bathroom” Biden will undoubtedly have the answer!

What if some of those things which are supposed to make things better,   are in fact be making things worse? Here I am speaking about the coronavirus, and what the general populace is being told to do . . . “No questions. Just do it!”

Albert Einstein had many interesting quotes. For instance:

• “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
• “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

These two particular quotes came to mind this morning when I read an article in the newspaper this morning about one of my recurring subjects . . . the use of face masks to combat the spread of Covid. After reading this particular article, I asked myself, “What if the ubiquitous recommendations to wear face-masks, and the robot-like obedience to these recommendations is making the coronavirus spread worse? What if ?”

Here in California we are having the “surge of all surges,” and yet I am finding it difficult to find anybody who is maskless. People walking alone in parks, driving alone in cars, and sitting alone on their porches . . . all have face-masks on, despite the fact that they are alone. I had thought that the face-mask recommendations were initially for situations where social distancing was not possible . . . not when alone. Does anyone think that these solitary, alone face-mask wearers put on a fresh, clean, unused face-masks when they go from the porch, their car, or the park to Walmart or Costco, where social distancing is more fantasy than reality.

Now if all of the face-masks were of the tight fitting N95 variety, I would think differently, but now days “face-masks” come in all shapes and forms. More than 100,000 varieties of face-masks are presently for sale. They are made from a variety of different fabrics, cotton, silk, and various synthetics. Some are actually not wearing a face-mask but rather bandannas, gaiters, and even handkerchiefs, all masquerading as face-masks. What if a lot of these “face-masks” and face-coverings are in reality similar to a chain-link fence trying to keep out mosquitoes? 

Moreover, despite the dictums by “those that know best” to always wear face-masks (some even advocate wearing them indoors), what all of these face-masks and pseudo face-masks have in common is that none of them have any sort of evaluation as to their effectiveness or non-effectiveness in filtering our viruses or viral particles. Why not? Sunblocks all have a number that signifies how effective they are at blocking the potentially harmful sun rays from getting to our skin . . . but face-masks, nada. Now apparently this type of evaluation of the actual effectiveness of various face-masks will be coming soon according to the article I read today. Think about that for a second . . . Everyone should be wearing face-masks . . . err . . . but we do not actually know if some types of face coverings actually work at all.

Which leads me back to my original question:

“What if some of those things which are supposed to make things better,   are in fact be making things worse?”

And in the same context two other Einstein quote came to mind:

• Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
• “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

By May of 2020 President Donald Trump had suggested multiple times that a coronavirus vaccine could come within months, an accelerated timeline that prominent health experts and veteran vaccine developers said was unlikely absent a miracle.

“We’re looking to get it by the end of the year if we can, maybe before,” Trump said in May during in a Rose Garden event.

From NBC News back in May: ”Experts” said that the development, testing and production of a vaccine for the public was still at least 12 to 18 months off, and that anything less would be a medical miracle.

“I think it’s possible you could see a vaccine in people’s arms next year — by the middle or end of 2021. But this is unprecedented, so it’s hard to predict,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Walter Orenstein, a professor at Emory University and the associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center, said a vaccine in less than a year would be “miracle.”While technically possible,” he added, “it is unlikely.”

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, credited with inventing the rubella vaccine in 1964 said, “In the best of circumstances, we should have a vaccine — or let’s say vaccines — between 12 and 18 months,” he said. “Whether those circumstances will be the best or not, we don’t know.”

In May Trump’s own top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told the “Today” show that January 2021 is the earliest a vaccine could be ready, but cautioned that that timeline is “aspirational” and depends on companies producing a vaccine before researchers are sure it will work.

More yet: 

“A lot of optimism is swirling around a 12- to 18-month timeframe, if everything goes perfectly. We’ve never seen everything go perfectly,” Rick Bright, ex assistant secretary of health, said. “I still think 12-18 months is an aggressive schedule, and I think it’s going to take longer than that to do so.”

Now granted I may have missed it, but after the vaccine was rolled out on 12/14/20, where are the experts now? I have not heard any retractions or apologies from the experts.Mr. Bright, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Pltkin, Dr Ornstein, and Dr. Offit . . . where are you now? Nor have I heard of any praise from any of the other main stream media experts. In fact I have not heard any praise for the work and effort that President Trump put into Operation Warp Speed. 

Getting the vaccine well ahead of its anticipated arrival date may go down as another one of President Trump’s great accomplishments  . . . getting the vaccine in December,2020 instead of well into 2021 will save how many thousands of lives?? 

Where are the experts now?

It’s right to give credit where credit is due.

At this point the country should be saying, “Thank you, President Trump.”

“Me! Me! Me!”

“Me first . . . please, please, please!”

Young children at a daycare setting championing to be first on the swing?

Possible quiz show contestants in the audience of The Price Is Right ?

Good guesses, but this is the repeated “mantra” of multiple groups as to where they should be in the prioritization of who should go to head of the vaccine line.

I have written about this before and now my prediction is coming to fruition. As would be expected each individual group has a “reason” why they should go up towards the top of the priority list. Think about it for a second – if someone who represents group A did not argue for the individuals of group A to get the vaccine first, and someone in group A died after getting the virus . . . bad news not only for the person who succumbed, but also bad news for that group A rep . . . err, for that group A ex-rep.

Months ago when I brought this potential quandary to attention, one of my sons-in-law suggested that there should be a Covid-vaccine lottery. My board of directors like the lottery idea, and said that perhaps the fairest way to prioritize who gets the vaccine first would be by a random selection based perhaps on the last number of one’s Social Security Number. Since everybody has a SSN everyone would have an equal chance 1 in 10 chance at being in the first group. 

At that time another of my consultant board of directors suggested that birthdates be used to prioritize in what order everyone should get the vaccine. This would be similar to the draft lottery back in the 60s. To a purely objective observer this sounds fair, but OMG the fallout would be over the top, because this would mean that a young child would have an equal chance compared to an eighty year old. A healthcare worker would have the same chance as a college student. And finally someone who was illegal and didn’t have a verifiable SSN or birth certificate would not be eligible for the lottery.

Today I read an article about the different groups who are saying, “Me first, me first.” Now granted all, or at least most, of these groups have their own reasons for prioritization . . . meat-packers, airline stewards and stewardesses, Uber/Lift drivers, garbage collectors, teachers, bus drivers, dentists, bank tellers, grocery store workers, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

I agree that healthcare workers should be first, but after that, for me prioritization becomes difficult. Fasten your seatbelts, as what I am going to say here is not P.C. . . . while I agree that those who work in these nursing homes should probably at the top of the healthcare priority list, why should the nursing home residents have priority? I realize that this group has a high mortality rate, but with a limited supply of the vaccine should an eighty-five year old with Alzheimer’s be vaccinated before a sixty year old obese diabetic who drives a bus?

The answer to this conundrum perhaps should involve a different prioritization protocol. Should the prioritization be based at all on economics? With a limited vaccine supply should prioritization be based more on economic recovery as opposed to mortality stats? Indeed an ethical enigma.

Another thing that I have not heard about: Should proof that an individual has not already had the virus be required before vaccination? After all if a significant number of individuals are asymptomatic when they have the infection, does it make any sense to vaccinate them? To me obviously not, but I have not heard this mentioned. Hmmm

Thus far the Supreme Court has deftly and almost defiantly excused itself in perhaps the most critical decision as of the yet early 21st century. The question is whether or not this past presidential election was fraudulent. Personally, I believe that it was stolen, but “I do not have standing!” (In this situation, a convenient SCOTUS avoidance technique.)

I understand the practical dilemma which is, (again as I understand it) if the electoral college does not demonstrate a clear winner by a certain date, then according to the Constitution, the election goes to the House of Representatives. One might think that this would be of benefit to the Dems as they hold a clear majority in the House, but in this situation each state gets the same vote as every other state … in other words, for example, Wyoming would get the same say as California. The problem for the Dems here is that there are more states that are Republican in the U.S., and since each state has the same number of votes as every other state, the likelihood is that the Republican nominee would win.

Well can you imagine the whoopla if that were to occur. As I see it, it would not really matter if SCOTUS took up the case and decided that the election was on the up-and-up, because the drop-dead due date for the Electoral College would have passed.

Ergo, in this situation,one might think that the Supreme Court is forced to turn a blind eye to a potential stolen and unlawful election. . . . But if the Supreme Court cannot judge whether a presidential election was fraudulent, then what good is it? 

In essence what this chicken-sh** move by SCOTUS means is that it is okay to cheat and make up rules in just about anything. To me this has John Roberts’ (it’s a tax . . . it’s not a tax!) fingerprints all over it.

When my wife read this title,she said, “So what else is new?” 

Granted I am confused about a lot of things, but here I am specifically confused about stuff related to Covid testing. In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial I read that there has been 186 million Covid tests done since it ostensibly came from Chinato the US this past winter. Of these 186 million tests the US has had 12.7 million cases, i.e. 12.7 million positive tests out of 186 million. Now I agree that 12.7 million is a lot of anything, however my question involves all of the negative tests. If only 12.7 million tests were positive, it means that 173.3 million tests were negative. Now 173.3 is a lot of anything, but “wow” . . . that is a lot of negative tests! Who is getting all of these negative tests? 

If the majority or even a lot of these 173.3 million negative tests are the result of contact tracing, is it reasonable to say that contact tracing is not as effective as advertised? Where I live, testing for Covid is ubiquitous and yet we are in the midst of a “surge” of cases. If contact tracing and the subsequent testing that occurs as a result of contact tracing was an effective way to stop the spread of the virus, then why are we surging in the face of increased testing? A quandary? A dilemma? 

I’m confused!

Actually the answer is quite simple. We are in the midst of a pandemic caused by a very infectious virus, and more importantly the present estimate is that 40% of the positive cases are asymptomatic. Of those that have symptoms (the other 60%), the present estimate is that 80% of those with symptoms have mild symptoms. When combining the number of asymptomatic (40%) and mildly symptomatic [(100% – 40%) x 0.8 = 48%], it means that 88% (40%+48%) of positive cases do not realize that they have the virus. 

If upwards of 80+% do not appreciate that they could well have the virus, then they most likely have no incentive to get tested. That sounds reasonable, however who are those that comprise the 173.3 million negative tests? Okay, foreign and many interstate travelers are often required to have a negative test. Certain occupations require periodic negative tests, as do those who care for the most vulnerable. However, these groups do not add up to 173.7 million negative tests, and probably do not even add up to 100 million. This still leaves a whole bunch of negative tests unaccounted for. Can the Karens and the Kens be getting continued repeated and repeated again tests every time they sniffle once or go to the grocery store? Even if these are the Kens and the Karens that are wearing masks when alone in a car or when taking out the garbage . . . 70 million tests?

I’m still confused!

The other dilemma with this deluge of testing is the incidence of false positive tests.

Just last month the FDA put out an alert about false-positive rapid antigen COVID-19 tests. The probability of false-positive tests goes up as the prevalence of the disease goes down.

According to data from the FDA, if an antigen test has 98% specificity, and 10% of the population has the disease, 20 out of 100 people who test positive will not have the virus. This already seems high but check out what happens if the disease prevalence drops to 1%: 70 out of 100 people who get a positive result, will get a false positive.”

OMG! I wonder how many of the millions being tested are re-tests? (e.g. “I can’t believe that my test was positive. I feel fine. I doubt that I have the virus. I am going to get retested, and if negative, I’ll get a third test . . . just to break the tie, and the a fourth . . . just to be absolutely sure.”)

Most of us are familiar with the 1970s song, California Dreamin,’ by the Mamas and the Papas. It is about someone living in the East or the Midwest dreaming of being in California as winter approaches.

“I’d be safe and warm (I’d be safe and warm)

If I was in L.A. (If I was in L.A.)

California dreamin’ (California dreamin’)

On such a winter’s day”

How things have changed! Who in their right mind would want to come to LA now? In 2020, California dreaming is neither alive nor well. Many of us who live in California pine for the good old days when there was logical thinking and not just dreaming by the politicians. I realize that some will think that I am exaggerating, but try to get a U-Haul out of California . . .  “Good luck, Charlie!” Whereas they will practically pay to have someone bring a U-Haul into the “Golden State,” but going out of California – “Keep dreaming!”

While California is in the midst of its third wave of Covid, just today I read a statement from our august (at least in his own mind) Governor who said, “We don’t anticipate a fourth. Vaccines are on the way.” 

This from the clueless George, err rather the clueless Gavin, who has been California dreamin’ for months with his thus-far yo-yo Covid management strategy (lockdown-no lockdown-lockdown-no lockdown-etc.) As a result many Californians are now even more dizzy than they usually are!

What percent of Californians does he think wii be lined up to get the vaccine? In many other places, the commitment to getting the vaccine has been tepid, at best. Public anxiety over the safety of the vaccine is appreciable. For example across seven European countries, 40% are hesitant or unwilling to get the vaccine. An October poll found that about 30% of Japanese and almost 50% of the French respondents said that they would not get the coronavirus vaccine. I looked for, but could not find any information concerning what percent of Californians are willing to get the vaccine. The last time I did a small informal survey, 50% of the seniors I surveyed said that they would not get the vaccine . . . 50% said they would, and a mere 50% vaccine rate is not going to prevent a fourth Covid wave despite what Gavin the dreamer says.

While vaccinating those in nursing homes might decrease their hospitalizations,and subsequently the death rate from Covid, I doubt that it will slowdown the community spread of this virus. Keep in mind that at this point no one has any idea how many infected and vaccinated individuals it will take to achieve a population with herd immunity.

Personally, I doubt that the vaccine will be the panacea that Gavin, the dreamin’ G-man, is projecting that it will be. 

Who is California dreamin’ . . . him or me?

Some teachers are saying that they will not fail a student during the pandemic. Ignoring what an individual student has learned or has not learned during this pandemic school year, but passing him/her anyway is doing a favor to whom? Who benefits? If anyone were to answer, “it’s a favor to the student,” my response would be, “if it really doesn’t matter if a student learns anything or not in non-pandemic years why not just always pass all students on to the next grade level, irrespective of how he/she actually does or how much he/she learns? Although I suspect that even in ordinary non-pandemic years, this is often done, the same question . . . “Who benefits?”

One of the reasons given for not giving any students a failing grade this year is that “they are having enough trouble as is without piling on a failing grade.” Are many students having a tough time during this pandemic? Undoubtedly. However, those students who come from lower income families are having more than just a tough time. It’s nearly impossible for them to learn from +/- adequate Zoom. Those students in whose home a language other than English is primarily spoken, are also having more than just a tough time. It’s nearly impossible for them also.

So what’s the answer? The best answer is to get all students back in the classroom, back to in-person learning ASAP. By doing this who would benefit the most? Those who are more disadvantaged would benefit the most. Will this happen here in California any time soon ? Not likely, for a variety of different reasons.

So what is plan B? 

As best I can tell there is no plan B. If this pandemic extends into the beginning of the next school year, is there a plan for public education? If there is a plan, to be charitable, it is being remarkably well hidden. If, despite a vaccine, or perhaps because of a vaccine, chaos continues as far as schools are concerned, now is the time to firm up a plan for the following school year. 

This is my Plan B:

The various school districts need to get commitments from teachers to be physically present in their classrooms. If they choose not to teach in-person, in the classroom, then so be it. No hard feelings. It’s their choice, but they will no longer be paid as Zoom will no longer be necessary. If more teachers are going to be needed, sign them up by April 1, 2021. There will be plenty of new graduates willing and able to go to work in the classrooms. Furthermore, I would advocate beginning the 2021 school year in July, at least for most school districts. The students have basically been on semi-vacation for more than a year, so why not get a head start back in the classroom?

Am I advocating a lot of out-of-the-box ideas? Absolutely, as the usual in-the-box strategy has not worked very well, has it?