http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Typically at a poker table where there is money involved, you may well be faced with a very aggressive player. This aggressive player makes it known early on that he does not like to be challenged, and so the most common words out of his mouth are . . . “I raise.” If you are “mano-a-mano” in a hand with a one of these super-aggressive players, you can fully expect to be raised and re-raised. The thing to remember if you are in such a situation is just because they raise doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a good hand. 

Last week I woke up in a sweat with a bad dream . . . in fact it was a nightmare. 

I was in a poker game. The thing that made this unlike a regular poker game was that the currency used was “arbitrariness.” In other words, instead of raising $100, the super-aggressive player would have to “out-arbitrary” the other . . . if player A said or did something arbitrary, aggressive player B would do something even more arbitrary – the equivalent of “I raise.” Likewise, if in response to the “I raise” of player B, player A could then do something even more Arbitrary – the equivalent of “I re-raise.” Similar to at the poker table, where a raise or a re-raise did not mean that the raiser necessarily had a good hand, in this “arbitrary stakes game” some outlandish arbitrary statement did not necessarily mean that the raiser knew what he was talking about.

The thing that made this a nightmare rather than just a bad dreamwas that I was at the arbitrary poker table with Gavin Newsom, the “esteemed” governor of California, and Bill de Blasio, the “esteemed” mayor of New York City. 

Newsom started the betting with a purely arbitrary colored tier scheme in reference to the coronavirus. Purple tier, red tier, etc. was based on some purely arbitrary criteria, based on somethings upon which those who lived in a certain county had little or no control. 

How many Covid cases did your county have? 

“Oops, too many!” 

How many tests for the virus were done in your county? 

“Oops, not enough!”

I do not leave my house all week, but want to take my wife out to dinner on Saturday night.

“Tough!”

However audacious Newsom’s arbitrary bet may have been, immediately de Blasio said, “I raise!” He raised with something more arbitrary than Newsom’s initial foray when he announced that he “was forced” to close NYC’s public schools – serving 1.1 million children – after the positivity case rate in the city of New York exceeded a seven-day rolling average of 3%. Wow . . . 3%! That seems like a number grabbed out of thin air. This despite the fact that in NYC, the case positivity rate (based on tens of thousands of tests of school children and school staff) is only a minuscule 0.19%!! 

But it gets worse than just an arbitrary made up number of 3%. Apparently this number was arrived at during negotiations with the NYC’s United Federation of Teachers in exchange for a promise not to strike. 

Wow! Nice bet, Bill. Very audacious – a decision based on a purely arbitrary made-up number of 3%. Especially in view of the fact that  it appears that the school children are, in fact, safer in schools with a case positivity rate in schools of only 0.19%. This combined with the skullduggery of the negotiations with the teachers is going to make his raise hard to beat.

In my dream the crowd around the arbitrary poker table was hushed. Tension was in the air. Certainly Newsom had a re-raise planned. There was a rumor that he planned an arbitrary curfew. Apparently he was in negotiations with the viruses to be more contagious after ten p.m. . . . in exchange for further prolonged closures of the schools. Another rumor was that he was going to patrol the highways and the airports searching for those who had the audacity to travel for Thanksgiving . . . something that he arbitrarily advised against. 

Will Newsom’s next piece of arbitrary decision making be enough to force de Blasio to fold?

On 11/18/20 Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “When Trump Was Right and Many Democrats Wrong.” 

It is interesting that this was printed in the NYT two weeks after the election. Although I do not know Mr. Kristof, I do know how the NYT operates. Could it be that it was “suggested” to Mr. Kristof that perhaps it would not be a good idea to pen this op-ed until the election was over. After all it is close to heresy for the NYT to say anything complimentary of President Trump . . . but before the election . . . No way! 

I would guess that the NYT will maintain that the timing of this op-ed after the election was coincidental . . . just like the announcing of successful vaccines within the two weeks after the election was also coincidental . . . “if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.”

Anyway the op-ed by Mr. Kristof had to do with schools and the wisdom of school closures.

The subtitle read:

“Children have suffered because many mayors and governors were too willing to close public schools.”

Despite the fact that it is a NYT op-ed, it is actually pretty good. Here are some excerpt from that op-ed:

• Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right. Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.
• “I have taught at the same low-income school for the last 25 years, and, truly, I can attest that remote schooling is failing our children,” said LaShondra Taylor, an English teacher in Broward County, Fla. Some students don’t have a computer or don’t have Wi-Fi, Taylor said. Kids regularly miss classes because they have to babysit, or run errands, or earn money for their struggling families.
• Adeola Whitney, chief executive of Reading Partners, an outstanding early literacy program, referred to the traditional “summer slide” in which low-income students lose ground during the summer months and told me: “The ‘summer slide’ is now being dwarfed by ‘Covid slide’ projections.”
• I’ve been writing since May about the importance of keeping schools open, and initially the debate wasn’t so politicized. But after Trump, trying to project normalcy, blustered in July about schools needing to open, Republicans backed him and too many Democrats instinctively lined up on the other side. Joe Biden echoedtheir extreme caution, as did many Democratic mayors and governors.
• So Democrats helped preside over school closures that have devastated millions of families and damaged children’s futures. Cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., have closed schools while allowing restaurants to operate.
• In both Europe and the United States, schools have not been linked to substantial transmission, and teachers and family members have not been shown to be at extra risk (this is more clear of elementary schools than of high schools). Meanwhile, the evidence has mounted of the human cost of school closures.
• Children learn best when physically present in the classroom,” notes the American Academy of Pediatrics. “But children get much more than academics at school. They also learn social and emotional skills at school, get healthy meals and exercise, mental health support and other services that cannot be easily replicated online.”

Kristof’s op-ed continues for many more paragraphs, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop here. The message continues to be the same, namely that the closure of schools appears to have been a mistake. (BTW: With the risk of sounding conceited I would say to both Mr. Kristof and the NYT . . . “Check many of my prior blogs about schools, etc. . . . I told you so!”)

Similarly, the way the “know-it-alls” have handled the return, or perhaps better said, “the non-return” of students to colleges across the country, has been inept to say the least. Would it have been better if colleges had followed the regimen as outlined in my book, now on Amazon, “The Keneally Chronicles?”

Perhaps now that the election is over, Mr. Kristof should next be writing an op-ed on that topic.

In answer to whether or not there are any good studies about masks, I will refer you to the Annals of Internal Medicine from this November, a summary of which is to follow.

Again I need to reemphasize that for a Karen or a Ken . . . “Caution!”

The following is taken from Townhall:

Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.

The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.

Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.

At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.

About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant. 

Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at Telemark Hospital in Norway and the Harvard School of Public Health, was persuaded. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.

[…]

Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, described the previous evidence that masks protect wearers as weak. “These studies cannot differentiate between source control and personal protection of the mask wearer,” she said.

Dr. Laine said the new study underscored the need for adherence to other precautions, like social distancing. Masks “are not a magic bullet,” she said. “There are people who say, ‘I’m fine, I’m wearing a mask.’ They need to realize they are not invulnerable to infection.”

My take on this study from the Annals of Internal Medicine (which by the way is not politically biased as is The Lancet) is the following:

Do masks actually protect the wearer of the mask? – Apparently no.

Is it possible that the ubiquitous wearing of masks could actually encourage lackadaisical attention to social distancing? Very possibly.

Will there be any reevaluation of this present over the top recommendations on masks by those who know best? Not likely, as it is much easier to blame the general populace when “those in the know” do not know what to do next.

Caution! If you are a self-identified Karen or Ken, perhaps you may not want to continue reading this. Likewise if you have a Karen/Ken as a friend, you may not want to discuss what follows with him/her.

Just about every day I see comments from “those who know best” that the reason that we are having an increasing number of coronavirus cases is because we, the general populace, are not doing what they have told us to do. In other words the reason that the virus is spreading is our fault. We, the naughty men and women of California, need to shape up. We are not social distancing well enough. We are not washing our hands often enough. We are not wearing masks as obsessively as we have been told to do. If we would only force ourselves to do better, everything would be okay. We need to comply with what they tell us to do. We are BAD!

Hmmm. 

Contrary to what some may think, one of my duties in life to occasionally think in a somewhat out of the box fashion. Could it possibly be that the Wuhan virus cases are increasing not despite, but rather because of, what those in the know are telling us to do? Social distancing and hand washing both seem like common sense. However, I do question the obsessive wearing of masks over our faces.

Granted I am not usually hanging out in crowded places . . . other than at Costco, but other than the occasional street biker, runner, or walker, I do not see the mask-less throngs that are being alluded to by those in the know. In fact I am observing the opposite. I am seeing yo-yo’s wearing masks while driving alone in a car. Also I am seeing two individuals in a car both wearing masks . . . if they don’t know each other, then I suppose that  makes sense, but perhaps the driver should not be picking up hitchhikers.

Now right off the top for all of the Kens and Karens reading this, “Caution,” I am not advocating mass mask rebellion. However, could it be that this mask situation actually fits as an example of Einstein’s definition of insanity . . . “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” (Despite almost ubiquitous mask wearing Covid cases are increasing, so . . . of course, the logical thing to do is to advocate for more mask wearing, for example wearing masks constantly when in your own home. Oy-vey!)

Social distancing – for example, in Costco is an oxymoron. Months ago, there was a line to get into that store, but no longer. The aisle in front of the roasted chickens is almost as crowded as the floor of the New York Stock Exchange used to be. It is almost as if the mindset is “there is no need for social distancing, because my mask is protecting me.” (100% of people in Costco are wearing masks, albeit not all are wearing them correctly.) Picture a situation in which mask-wearing was not an absolute necessity, and you would then have a picture of real social distancing, not the present day “social distancing while wearing a mask.”

Yesterday while shopping in a relatively crowded grocery store, I felt a sneeze coming on. What to do? Reflexively I sneezed into my elbow, just like we now teach our grandkids to do. No droplets were propelled into the air as in the sneeze-videos that we have all seen . . . but the inside of my mask, well I will leave that to your imagination. What to do? Since I did not have an extra mask or two or three, there was nothing to do, but to continue up and down the aisles albeit with my now damp and virtually useless mask.

Now I do not have Covid – at least I didn’t when I got my Covid test two weeks ago, but if I did, would my now damp mask be a help or a hindrance to the spread of the virus?

Caution, again . . . but are there any studies that document that masks help? Unfortunately, no. Are there any studies about masks, in general?

I am happy that you asked.

To be continued:

Right up front let’s be clear about opening schools The major reason to open schools is to educate children.

Let’s again be clear . . . Children need the socialization of in-person interactions with other children

Furthermore, let’s be clear once again . . .  When schools reopen a number of children are going to get the coronavirus.

The prior three statements are not something that we need the experts to tell us. As these three statements are very common-sensical, why all the hub-bub about the “surges” in coronavirus cases as schools reopen. Should these school related cases not be expected?

Last week I read a headline: “Europe Schools Upend Virus Plans.” (WSJ):

Basically this article bemoans the fact that there are thousands of cases in schools in some of Europe’s coronavirus hot spots. For example, in the U.K.more than one-third of coronavirus outbreaks (at least two cases) occurred in educational settings.

In France, 35% of 1070 outbreaks were in schools or universities. (Almost 50% occurred in mid/high schools, but the average size of these outbreaks was much higher in colleges . . . where they have parties.)

Spain reported cases in 4.5% of schools.

Get the picture? When kids,through college, go back to school, there are going to be an increased number of cases.

In San Diego there are four major colleges and so logically I would expect an increased number of cases associated with these colleges just like what has occurred in Europe. That is exactly what is happening . . . Duh! (As of last week, PLNU ~50 confirmed cases, UCSD – 150 confirmed cases, SDSU – 1200+ confirmed cases, USD -?)

At some point, the el/hi students here in California are going to be reintegrated back into their classrooms. The headlines will then read: Cases Surge As Schools Upend Virus Plans . . . and I will then respond, “Let’s be clear; What did you expect?”

[FYI: In my recent book, The Keneally Chronicles, a college as well as an entire town has a unique way to approach their expected surge of coronavirus cases. (BTW, it is available on Amazon.)]

How do we fight infections? 

We are not born with resistance to infection, but rather acquire some resistance to common infections as we age. Newborns basically have the ability to fend off a lot of early infections due to the immunity that is acquired from the mother. It is well known to anyone who has, or has had, kids in pre-school or kindergarten, that these youngsters get colds easily and often when they start to interact and mingle with other young children. These early colds are a part of growing up and developing their own sort of immunity. Both pre-school and early grade elementary school teachers will often relate that they were “seemingly always sick” in the early days of their careers, but as time went on they were sick much less. Why? . . . Because due to repeated exposure to viruses, they developed immunity to a varying degree. The same thing applies to pediatricians who are constantly exposed to kids with coughs, fevers, and mucous coming out of a lot of different orifices. Who would ever choose to be a pediatrician if all they could look forward to was forty years of almost constant sickness? Again pediatricians develop their own brand of immunity that in essence precludes them from being sick all the time, despite their constant exposure and  re-exposure.

How does one’s body fight off infections? Basically there are two types of mechanisms to fight infection . . . B-cells, which produce antibodies and a second equally important defense against infections provided by T-cells. One function of T-cells is to stimulate B-cells to produce antibodies. But T-cells can also fight off a virus by directly attacking and killing infected cells.

At this point, let’s switch gears to COVID-19, which is supposedly a new virus dating to the latter part of 2019. However, there appears to be a few discrepancies about the lack of immunity to this new virus, Covid 19.

From James Todaro M.D.:

In a study of 23 people who survived SARS in 2003, every single one had memory T cells that recognized the SARS virus 17 years later. (Nature)

Moreover, blood samples from all 23 individuals showed “robust cross-reactivity” against SARS-CoV-2.

This can be called crossover immunity. Crossover immunity is not limited to just people who were infected with SARS years ago though.

In the same study, in 37 persons with no history of SARS or COVID-19 (negative serology and/or samples taken before COVID-19), over 50% had SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells.

This is not surprising because there are at least 4 strains of coronaviruses that cause the “common cold”.

The above study is not the only one to show this level of cross-reactivity.

 In a study from April 2020, in 68 healthy donors never exposed to COVID-19, 34% had T cells that reacted to SARS-CoV-2.

This finding was confirmed in yet another study published in Cell in June 2020 showing that 40-60% of unexposed individuals had T cell recognition of SARS-CoV-2. The authors hypothesized that crossover immunity came from “common cold” coronaviruses.

Whoa! This information allows us to look at SARS-CoV-2 in a different light, and may explain why the elderly and immuno-compromised are more seriously affected (less T cells). Likewise, crossover immunity may explain why so many young and middle-aged individuals are asymptomatic even when testing positive for coronavirus.

Furthermore, although this T cell recognition and crossover immunity seem to be unrecognized by the esteemed Dr. Fauci, they could be valuable clues with regard to herd immunity.

On election night I went to bed thinking the President Trump had won re-election. However, when I checked in the morning the situation had dramatically and apparently somewhat suddenly changed, especially in certain critical states. Later it was revealed that in only four US cities did Biden outpoll Hillary’s 2016 vote tally. These cities were Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. Gee, what a coincidence that these four cities were cities in the key major critical states. 

Like many of you are aware, I am a big DJT fan . . . not because of what he says or tweets, but because of the things he has done over the last four years.

It was hard for me to believe that Trump reportedly lost Pennsylvania. He had huge crowds at multiple different rallies in the state of Pennsylvania, including an estimated crowd of 57,000 at a late October rally in western Pa. near Pittsburg. The enthusiasm for DJT was over the top in Pennsylvania, while the enthusiasm for Biden was close to subterranean.

I was very disappointed when the election returns indicated the Basement Joe had won by a lot. He supposedly had won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. At that point and for the next ten days, I was depressed. I could not believe that the voters had chosen Biden/Harris. However over the last few days I have begun to hear more and more about fraud and deceit in multiple states.

Today, I read something amazing and potentially uplifting:

Trump lawyer and former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell has promised the American people that she will not stop until “staggering” evidence of fraud is completely exposed.

When asked if she concurs with the idea that this is a concerted effort by the Left to overthrow a duly elected president, Powell responded she absolutely agrees and is going to “release the Kraken” on the alleged fraud very soon.

During the segment with Fox News’ Lou Dobbs on 11/13/20, Powell addressed the grave threat Dominion Voting Systems and foreign interference poses to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

“We’ve got statistical evidence of just hundreds of thousands of votes just being put in and replicated,” she said could ultimately, “affect millions of voters and elections.”

Nevertheless, while discussing her team’s legal efforts, Powell exuded confidence in the gravity of their evidence, reaffirming that “President Trump won in a landslide. It’s going to be irrefutable.”

While I am still not sure that I completely understand “release the Kracken,” . . . but I can hardly wait!

We now have almost daily statistics on the Wuhan coronavirus. We know a lot about the frequency and the mortality of the disease. These statistics can easily be found for countries, states, and individual counties within each state. We can also see the mortality rates for different age groups, basically confirming what we have known for many months . . . Covid is bad for older individuals, especially those with underlying conditions. Yes, Covid can kill people of all ages, but even in the >70 years old age groups, the chance of surviving Covid is more than 90+%. A recent study stated the the flu is significantly more deadly for younger people than is Covid.

What is now starting to come out are the deleterious effects of implementing lockdowns which are being touted to be approaching to a cure. We are now realizing that these lockdowns have increasingly more common detrimental consequences. 

For some reason these adverse consequences of lockdowns are not well publicized and so what follows here is a partial list (from the Daily Caller):

Employment rates fell by 5 percentage points between January to April of this year; this is more than the drop during and after the Great Recession.

In addition, 44 percent of the population experienced a decline in earnings and 54 percent experienced a decrease in savings.

A Pew Research Center survey released in September found that one-in-four Americans had trouble paying their bills since the pandemic started, a third dipped into savings or retirement accounts to make ends meet. Nearly one-in-six reported borrowing money from friends or family or gotten food from a food bank. Overall, 25% of U.S. adults also reported saying they or someone in their household lost their job because of the pandemic.

Thousands of businesses also closed across the U.S., many unable to stay afloat after being deemed non-essential during lockdowns. Yelp’s Economic Impact Report in September revealed that 60% of businesses that closed won’t be reopening, according to CNBC. As of Aug, 31, 163,735 businesses indicated on Yelp that they have closed, a decrease from the 180,000 that closed at the very beginning of the pandemic. However, it actually shows a 23% increase in the number of closures since mid-July.

Stay-at-home orders and other physical distancing measures were not only economically and socially disruptive, but also contributed to adverse psychological health issues. 

A study published in September found that nearly a quarter of people in the United States are experiencing symptoms of depression, which is about three times the number before the pandemic. Another study showed that social isolation and loneliness among U.S. adults in the earliest months of the pandemic was also elevated.

In April 2020, 13.6% of US adults reported symptoms of serious psychological distress, relative to 3.9% in 2018, the study found. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study released in August found that a startling 25% percent of young adults, aged 18-24, say they’ve thought of committing suicide in the last month due to coronavirus conditions.

Doctors at California’s John Muir Medical Center said in May that deaths by suicide were outstripping those by the coronavirus, noting that they had seen a “year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

The sad aspects as a direct result of “the cure,” are not limited to just these psychological and economic  mal-consequences. Drug overdoses have escalated. Overall, suspected overdoses rose about 18% after states began mandating lockdowns in March compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to data from the Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program, The WSJ reported.

In San Francisco, four times more people have died due to drug overdoses than from coronavirus in 2020, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

And of course, these deleterious effects of lockdowns are not limited to what I have noted above. A myriad of delayed medical procedures, skipped cancer screenings, and postponed immunizations will have consequences for years to come.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

Unfortunately, from my point of view, the answer is “yes!”

“Don’t go playing out in the alley. It’s too dangerous.” That was back in 1950, and since I was five years old, I did what I was told.

“Don’t go playing at that construction site. It’s too dangerous.” That was circa 1956, and since I was a kid and my parents fed me, I did what I was told. (BTW, they were right, as Teddy Leahy fell at broke his arm at that same construction site the following day.)

“Don’t go south on the Dan Ryan Expressway. It’s too dangerous.” That was back in 1962 when I got my driver’s license. (To this day I still avoid the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago, as if you have to get off for any reason, you’ll be taking your life in your hands.)

When I turned twenty-one I figured that I could make my own decisions. I was now an adult. In 1967 I basically “sang” the 1959 Lloyd Price song,

I’m Gonna Get Married . . .which went like this:

“(Johnny, you’re too young)

But I’m gonna get married

(You’re so young)

My name she’ll carry

(You’re too young)

(And Johnny you’re so smart)

But not smart enough to hide

An aching heart”

(For those of you not old enough to recognize this song, this should help from Google:

“I’m Gonna Get Married” is a 1959 R&B/pop hit written by Harold Logan and Lloyd Price and recorded by Lloyd Price. The single was his follow-up to “Personality” and, like that entry, “I’m Gonna Get Married” went to number one on the Billboard R&B chart, where it stayed for three consecutive weeks.)

I was right back then 1967. I made the right choice. I was a big boy, and this was America. Back then in America, everyone could make and then be responsible for their own decisions. What happened to that America? 

Now it seems that even though I am considerably older that I was in 1967, I am not being allowed to make my own decisions. For example, “You can go to a strip club or a casino, but you cannot go to church.” 

Me: “Why not?”

Just like my parents years back, those who know best answer, “It’s too dangerous. And furthermore you cannot go to a restaurant or to your gym, as they also are too dangerous.”

Me: “Why am I not allowed to make these decisions for myself? I am a big boy, and the last time I checked, this was still America. If I want to go to a restaurant, I should be able to do it. I should be able to access the risk, and then decide for myself. If I want to go to my gym, I should be able to do it. This is still America. 

From my perspective, if restaurant A is the source of a Covid outbreak (defined as three or more cases not from the same family), then do the logical thing, and shut down restaurant A. Why is God’s name would any rational person close down all of the restaurants in a county?! I thought that this was still America.

Likewise, if gym B is the source of an Covid outbreak, then quarantine  gym B for a period of time. Again with the risk of being redundant … I thought that this was still America.

Oops . . . my mistake, it’s California.

First from the Daily Caller:

After ordering a lockdown for her city, the black Democratic Chicago Mayor, Lori Lightfoot defended her attendance at a mass celebration for President-elect Joe Biden, saying people “need to have relief.”

Lightfoot announced on 11/12 that Chicago residents should “cancel traditional Thanksgiving plans” in the interests of social distancing and public safety as the coronavirus continues to surge in her city and across the U.S.

“With this new surge in cases, we have just got to step up and do the right thing. And I think people understand that. We know a lot more … than what we knew back in the spring. We’ve got a lot more data. We understand better on how this virus spreads,” Lightfoot said.

Lightfoot stated that right now “the biggest risk that we’re seeing in our city is in these private spaces and gatherings” such as a Thanksgiving dinner gathering. 

Meanwhile, while the governor asks Californians to forgo large gatherings this year, Newsom was spotted at a large birthday celebration in Napa Valley last week.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The dinner the night of Nov. 6 at the famed French Laundry in Yountville in Napa County brought together at least 12 people to celebrate the 50th birthday of Jason Kinney, a longtime friend and political adviser to Newsom who is also a partner at the lobbying firm Axiom Advisors. In addition to the governor, his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, was in attendance.

State guidelines limit gatherings, defined as “social situations that bring together people from different households at the same time in a single space or place,” to no more than three households. Representatives for Kinney and Newsom declined to specify how many households the diners represented, but did not dispute that it was more than three.

So again we have a situation here in California that is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s haircut  “do as I say, not as I do,” fiasco a few months back. I have been told Ms. Pelosi and Gavin the G.are somehow related, so perhaps they share the “I am better than you commoners” gene. 

So the obvious question remains . . .  Are Gavin Newsom and Lori Lightfoot related?