http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

In March Congressman Devin Nunes (R,CA) said the following, “Look, the schools were just canceled out here in California, which is way overkill. It’s possible kids could have went back to school in two weeks to four weeks, but they just canceled the rest of the schools.”

Our governor’s response:

“I don’t want to give him much air,” Newsom said during a remote appearance on The View. “I’ve not sourced him for advice on pretty much any issue . . . “

Looking through a  retro-spectroscope, what Nunes’s advice back in March had been followed? Would there have been more Covid infections in California? Yes, probably, but Covid is entirely different in children. Only rarely do get significant symptoms, and the mortality rate in kids is as near to zero as one can get.

But! . . . We wouldn’t be in the mess that we are in now about children going back to school, err . . . or of not going back to school, or when? . . . or how? . . . or where? . . . or how many days a week? . . . etcetera!

The latest info about the plans for the upcoming school year are  . . . the best way to answer that is a visual. Imagine a group of frenzied people with electric-shocked looking hair, hands raised above their heads, running aimlessly in circles, screaming!!

Does that image exude confidence that they will come up with a workable plan? What is the governor’s plan? Perhaps now he could seek the counsel of Devin Nunes!?

Shame on me for being so harsh with those who are going to make these education decisions! However, when I look at some of the their names, I get weak. One has a hybrid last name (Konigar-Macklin), and I have strong doubts, in general, about the thought processes of those who have hybrid last names.( Maybe a topic for another day.) Another person involved as a county schools spokeswoman has a first name of “Music” . . . you can’t make this stuff up!  OMG!

I wonder if “hyphenated-last-name” and Music will be asking Congressman Nunes for advice? Duh!

At this point it seems that we definitely know that the mortality rate of Covid  is much higher in nursing homes. This is true not only in the U.S, but also in Europe. What I haven’t been able to find is how many nursing home residents have this virus, but are asymptomatic. In the real, non-nursing home world, as the number of people being tested goes up, the number of asymptomatic people who have this infection is also going up. (As I mentioned in a letter to the editor months ago, the best way to get a handle on the overall status of Covid in a designated community would be to randomly test for infections in that community. That would be the only way to detect the actual percent of asymptomatic individuals in a community.) 

In a more practical sense for those of us not in a nursing home, “what is our individual risk with Covid-19?“ How many asymptomatic Covid-19 people are out there? Is that number of any practical importance? “Yes,” that number is very important especially when we are talking about the man on the street and the “panic-scale” which seems to be driving a lot of decisions that have already been made as well as those that are continuing to be made.

Here we need a detour – a definition detour. We need to understand the difference between two terms that turn out to be of critical importance in terms of the “panic-scale.”

CFR = Case Fatality Rate. The number of deaths (fatalities) among those who are known to be infected by the virus. To help our understanding, let’s say person ‘A’ feels ill, goes to the doctor, gets tested, and is found to have the virus. If there are 100 of ‘A’ and 2 die, the CFR is 2%. If there are 1000 ‘A’ and 4 die, the CFR is 0.4% (At present the accepted CFR across the board for Covid-19 is 0.4% . . . 4 deaths per 1000 people with a known Covid infection.)

To me, 0.4% is pretty damn good odds! 

And the odds are even better when one looks at CFR for specific younger age groups as follows:

>65 years;  CFR=1.3% ( 13 deaths per 1000 people infected.) -[not as great the older one gets, but still good odds]

50-65 years;  CFR=0.2% ( 2 deaths per 1000 people infected.) – [very good odds]

<50 years;  CFR=0.05% (0.5 deaths per 1000 people infected!) – [outstanding odds]

What these numbers say, in essence, is that for all those < 65 years old, the odds of beating this virus (surviving), are better than very good.

So why the panic ?

The other term is IFR.
IFR = Infected Fatality Rate. The number of deaths among all who have the virus, including those who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, and under ordinary circumstances would never get tested. Some recent studies have suggested that perhaps up to 35% of infections are asymptomatic. If this is indeed the situation, then the IFR drops to 0.2-0.3% (2-3 deaths per 1000 people in the general population.) Even better odds, when compared to a CFR  of 0.4%!

So I ask . . . “Why the panic?”

Last week my wife pointed out to me an article that stated that the “Swedish experiment” didn’t work. Sweden’s chief epidemiologist said last week that Sweden should have enacted more stringent restrictions as its death rate per million people was significantly higher than its neighbors. Without question, he is undoubtedly receiving heat from the Johnny-come-lately second guessers, who are reacting to the fact that the Swedish death rate is indeed higher than that of its Nordic neighbors, especially for those in nursing homes.

However, I do not think that Sweden’s approach was primarily intended to minimize their death rate, but rather it was a trade-off. The Swedish hope was that their coronavirus related deaths could be limited commensurate with limiting the damage to their economy. The most recent economic stats in comparison to their neighbor, Denmark, seem to be showing that the Swedish approach is benefiting their economy. According to a recent WSJ article: 

-Newly unemployed from March 11 through May, was less in Sweden – 2.9% of the labor force in Sweden compared to 4.2% in Denmark.

-The drop in retail sales – 4.4% in Denmark and 1.3% in Sweden.

-Projected drop in private consumption this year – 6% in Denmark versus 1% in Sweden.

In Sweden, it was and continues to be all about trade-offs.

As it has been all along with Covid-19, the restrictions/no restrictions or the less restrictions/more restrictions has always been about trade-offs. If a country paralyzes it economy by imposing extremely strict restrictions or lockdowns, then of course one would expect to have less Covid-19 cases and visa-vi, less deaths due to Covid-19.  To me that is just common sense. 

It is important to recall that these severe lockdowns, notably in the U.S, were initiated in order to “flatten the curve” and thus prevent our hospitals and their ICUs from being inundated with Covid-19 cases. In that respect, it appears that it may have worked.( Interesting that in Sweden with only a very minimal sort of lockdown, there was no shortage of either hospital beds or I.C.U. beds.) 

Also in the health realm, these lockdowns also brought an unforeseen, or at least not talked about, trade-off . . . the cancelling and indefinite postponement of elective surgery, and, of course, if there was not going to be any elective surgery in the foreseeable future, obviously why do any testing to see if elective surgery was indicated. Without question, when these lockdowns are eased, these test postponements will then lead to a deluge of testing and subsequently the “no-longer elective” surgeries will be backlogged from here to Peoria . . . for some, this will come too late! (These patients fortunately will not have died because of Covid, but unfortunately will have died because of Covid restrictions.) Trade-offs!

However commensurate with the perceived and the potential I.C.U./hospital benefits, these severe lockdown strategies brought with them significant economic bedfellows. Yes, as the curve was flattened, unemployment rates were expected to rise, and indeed they did. In the U.S the overall unemployment rate rose to a historic 14.7 % in April. While it improved somewhat in May. It was still bad at 13.3%. However, Black unemployment which had been at record lows before the lockdowns surged to well above 16% in April, and rose even higher to 16.8% in May. I haven’t been able to find the numbers for the unemployment rates for youths, either black or white. However, watching the protests/riots on T.V., I think I can assume that they both must be extraordinarily high, as the young protesters/rioters are obviously not worrying about getting up the next morning to go to work. Not unexpected, as I guess that youth unemployment rates are always higher than the overall rates. 

Unfortunately the death of George Floyd was the accelerant that led to the present conflagration in the streets of America, but it was a dramatic rise in youth unemployment that provided more than just the kindling. How is that lockdown vs. economy trade-off looking now!?

There have been other social consequences to these lockdowns. Child abuse – up. Spousal abuse – up. Depression – up. Suicides – up. Unfortunately the unintended consequences of prohibiting children from going to school will be with us for years to come! Why they are not all back to school now is in my mind . . . beyond astounding! Let me go on the record now . . . the so-called “hybrid education plan” will not work, and will only do more damage to the psyches of our school children. Another potential disastrous trade-off in the making ?

The coronavirus pandemic and the resultant lockdowns have inflamed tempers in a lot of people . . . this is not unexpected.

The video of the killing of George Floyd has inflamed a lot of people . . . this is not unexpected.

This morning I read about two recent situations in which the reactions were inappropriate. One situation had to do with Covid-19 imposed restrictions, and the other had to do with the killing of George Floyd.

In Orange County, the Healthcare Officer. Dr. Nicole Quick, was forced to resign as she was receiving increased threats and protests at her home due to her mandates concerning the mandatory wearing of face masks in public. Many in Orange County did not agree with Dr. Quick, and basically threatened violence to her and her family. Whether or not I agree with Dr. Quick here is incidental.

So let me get this right, a physician with a specialty in Public Health makes a judgement. Not all agree with her judgement and she is forced to resign because of threats. 

Is this right? . . . No!

Sounds like like mob rule to me!

In Los Angeles, a longtime UCLA professor has been placed on leave after facing backlash over his response to a student’s email request to postpone a final exam for African American students, considering the impact of George Floyd’s death. 

The class was an online class where the students could not be identified by race, so essentially the email request would have to involve all students. Would this be fair to students who had worked hard and studied hard for the final exam on that date? My answer to that is, “No, it would not be fair.” As far as I know, the student making the request could well have been severely emotionally traumatized by the death of George Floyd. However, just as likely for whatever reason, the one that requested the postponement may not have worked hard or studied hard for the entire quarter, and the postponement of the final was a chance for he/she to make up for lost time. For the sake of completion, the sole course grade was from the final only, and postponing the final for some but not others could only possibly lead to skullduggery.

The professor was following institutional policies when he refused to alter final, but apparently this did not matter to UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, which stated that Professor Klein, who has taught there since 1981, was put on leave for three weeks, and his classes have been assigned to other faculty. 

So let me get this straight, a professor follows the rules of the school, but some students did not agree with what he, and so the professor, in essence, gets suspended. 

Is this right . . . No!

Sounds like mob-rule to me! 

I have repeatedly noticed that some of the coronavirus infections are often referred to as “super-spreader events” (SSEV). These events seem to have not only a high number of resultant infected individuals, but also a higher mortality rate.

Why is that?

In my mind the main question is whether SSEV are due to a “super-spreader,” individual (SS) who, for whatever reason, has the potential to infect a large number of people. Perhaps this SS imparts an increased “viral load” to others. On the other hand could the venue be the main reason for a SSEV? Is it a combination of both?

At this point, some feel that a “super-spreader” (SS), doesn’t necessarily indicate that a person is more contagious than others, or that they’re shedding more viral particles, but rather they think that it is the circumstances rather than the person that cause a SSEV. However others surmise that a SS could be someone with relatively weak immune systems or those in the early stages of their illness. In both of these situations, the viral load is elevated, which suggests they may be more contagious. The so-called “R-naught” (R0) is the average number of individuals that a single infected individual spreads the virus to. The R0 is only an average, and could it be possible that a SS could infect 8 -10 other individuals . . . for whatever reason.

Who knows?

Perhaps, like I mentioned above, could it be the venue rather than the individual that is the main culprit in these SSEV? Perhaps a venue that has a greater number of people in a confined space facilitates a SSEV.

Most super-spreader events are similar: The infected person attends an indoor gathering with lots of people in close contact, like a religious service, choir practice, or birthday party. Okay I get that, a lot of people in a relatively compressed space, but what I don’t get is why those infected at a SSEV seem to have a higher mortality. It almost seems that in these situations we are dealing with a Covid Superman.

For instance : (infected/total exposed – deaths)

A choir practice in Washington = 53/61 – 2

Church in Arkansas – 35/65 – 2

Chicago religious service then birthday party ; 16/ – 3 died

In the same vein, roughly 10% of COVID-19 cases appear to have caused around 80% of new infections. Why is it that the other 90% of Covid-19 cases are responsible for only 20% of new cases? Is it the individual or the venue, whether that be a crowded church, a business convention, or crowded living conditions.

Speaking of crowded living conditions, according to an article that I just read on the WSJ there is an interesting relationship between the virus’s spread and it’s relationship to crowded homes. In NYC the areas hardest hit were not those with the densest population, but rather those with the greatest household crowding. “Crowded homes’” are defined by the census as having more than one occupant per room. (Nursing homes are pretty much “crowded homes” as the majority of the rooms are doubles, and this is without counting the people that work there.) 

The Navajo Nation is made up of about 175,000 people mainly in northeastern Arizona and adjacent northwestern New Mexico. Here 14% of the homes are classified as crowded, and 18% of homes have five or more people. In the Navajo Nation, in general, there is a strong correlation between the percentage of crowded households and the Covid cases per 100,000 population. The Navajo Nation’s death rate from Covid-19 recently topped the death rate in New York state! 

Is the crowded housing situation in the Navajo Nation and their high death rate from Covid-19 due to the venue (the crowded houses) or does it have something to do with individuals who are super-spreaders?

We might get a clue to our answer, if we look at California where the three counties with the highest Covid rates – Kings County, Imperial County, and Los Angeles County – are majority Latino and Black and have some of the highest rates of household crowding in the country.

At this stage, one thing is clear . . . not much is really known yet about the spread of this Wuhan virus, but to my way of thinking the concentration of the virus that one is exposed to in conjunction with the length of the exposure must be related to the severity of the infection.

It’s mid-June and the school year here in California is soon about to start. 

Does anybody in charge know what, when, or how this is going to happen? (Please excuse my guffaw!)

Where is the leadership? . . . Apparently still in lockdown?

California’s Dept. of Education has just come out with a 55 page manual that has multiple suggestions/recommendations apparently for the “how?” I can only imagine how much gobble-gook is in those 55 pages. Some of the brilliant, yet implausible plans involve the possible rotating days when students are in class or at home, or rotating weeks in school or at home, and am/pm rotations. Has anybody at the Dept of Ed. thought about how these schedules would impact working parents?

Likewise the Dept. of Public Health has come out with 14 pages which involves plans to supply every school and child care center with no-touch thermometers, hand sanitizer, face shields for teachers, cloth coverings for staff and students, and N95 masks for health care professionals in schools. Keep in mind that there are about 6.2 million school students in California. Are all of these implements going to be reused? How often will they be replaced? Where is the money for all of this to come from?

The entire budget for the state will be in such a hole so deep, that the bottom of the hole will not be visible for years to come, so I guess they think, “why not spend whatever it takes to ‘open’ schools!”

Why is California reinventing the wheel? 

Children are back to school in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc. How did they do it? What has been the outcome ?Elementary schools in Sweden were never closed. How have those children done?

I agree with congressman Devin Nunes (R,Ca) who in late March said, “The schools were just canceled out here in California, which is way overkill. It’s possible kids could have gone back to school in two weeks, four weeks.”

Note that this was reported in the L.A. Times on 4/1/20 . . . If only we had followed his advice back then!

My suggestion?

Start the kids back to school a.s.a.p while the weather is warm. No restrictions. No masks. No spacing, Normal sized classrooms, recesses,and lunches, etc. … back to the normal, usual, typical school. 

For those parents that do not want to do this . . . set up homeschool co-ops, go to private schools, or have their children take an authorized year off. For those teachers who do not want or cannot go back into a normal classroom, take an unpaid furlough or retire.

This blog will be a keeper. One that you will want to look at a year or two from now, so bookmark it for easy reference. (Be advised that this is written with 20/20 hindsight!)

Dear President Trump:

This may be the first time that I will lead with a criticism of you. Here I am referring to your handling of the Wuhan virus epidemic in the U.S.A. I will need to preface this by saying that if this were not an election year (2020), and the Democrats were not crazy anti-Trump, perhaps rational thinking and cooperation might have prevailed. Nonetheless, as Harry Truman once said, ”The buck stops here!” . . . with you.

Your initial mistake was to apparently place all of your trust in the tea leaves of Dr. Fauci, who I am sure is a nice old guy, but who has been way off on a lot of his forecasts. From the very beginning this should have required critical input from both esteemed physicians as well as esteemed economists. Now I am sure that you did seek advice from economists, but to the best of my knowledge, you did not emphasize the economic importance of what was going to occur. . . . Big mistake, as once you put on the Fauci galoshes, there was no way to get gracefully out of them without stepping in puddles. From the beginning, I think that you put too much reliance on the medical side of the coin – the coin on which no one could predict the outcome. Was this coronavirus different from past viral illnesses. No one knew! Dr. Fauci obviously did not know!

At some point should you, President Trump, have stepped up and given Fauci the boot? I say, “Yes,” but I remember that this is an election year.

From then on the blame was spread out to many, as in governors, who have relied on the ouija boards of numerous directors of “public health” in their respective states. These various M.P.H.s either apparently did not understand or just plain ignored not only the economic consequences of their decisions, but also the social consequences of their isolation lockdown diktats (suicides, spousal abuse, child abuse, etc.)! 

Speaking of children . . . can anybody tell me why they are not back to school? Children are back to school in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc, but not in the U.S. !

Should you have searched for and found someone with some clout, who would say, “the kids need to back to school?” “Yes, but I remember that this is an election year!

When the virus comes back for its encore this winter, there will be no vaccine and no semblance of any herd immunity, as it is almost impossible to get from lockdown into the herd! Hopefully Dr. Fauci will be just a distant memory, and the nation can allow the virus to run its course. No more “flattening the curve,” and most importantly, the November, 2020 election will be over, and You, Sir, can start to think for yourself.

Sincerely,

The California Contrarian

P.S. ( to President Trump):

Don’t screw it up! You should have the 2020 election in the bag, especially after this complete chaos with the riots that the various Democratic mayors and governors seemingly cannot control. Do not intervene until they come crawling, otherwise the Dems will find a way to vilify anything that you do. I would never advise you to stop tweeting, but I would suggest that you keep them toned down. At this time is no reason to further inflame the situation. Let them hang themselves.

Remember . . . this is an election year!

Let say for the sake of discussion that someone was writing a fictional book. Now as anyone who has tried writing fiction knows that for a story to be successful, it has to be carefully set up. Things do not just happen. The characters do not just do X without the writer carefully and often subtly allowing the reader to learn about the character’s background. When set up skillfully, the reader will have no trouble believing what happens towards the end of the book.

If, for the sake of discussion, the book was to be about a society engulfed in anarchy. How would the writer set up the background, so that the reader would say, “I agree, that’s very possible.” The anarchy would not just occur out of the blue, but would need certain things to occur. 

First, those that would be involved this anarchistic movement would be unemployed and so, with no earning potential, they would be somewhat desperate. This unemployment would be more traumatic if it occurred suddenly, as in “yesterday I had a job, and today, nothing, and worse, there is no telling when I will have a job again.” So a good author would invent some scenario that could cause sudden unemployment … perhaps, a pandemic?

Second, those young people who were going to school would now have chaos as far the pandemic and school. “Will school be restarting? If so, when?” If the answer to both of these is “I dunno!”, then these previously busy students are now left in a lurch with nothing to do. “Should we go down the protest? . . .”Might as well, as we’ve got nothing else to do.” A good author will blend these idealistic now ex-students in with the now unemployed as both groups are young and now bored.

Third, set up an emotional situation that can serve as a spark – a spark to torch the bonfires of anarchy. Perhaps some tragedy that is obviously racist, as who, in this age, can do anything but condemn racism? With the proper writing technique, the author could take advantage of the liberal press in his set-up. and use the politics of the day to inflame the situation even though politics actually has little to do with what happened. Whether politics has anything to do with anything, a skillful writer can easily concoct a story that suckers in those in the general population who are uninformed.

Fourth, make up a reason that makes it okay to wear masks, and in fact encourages the wearing of masks. Here that above mentioned pandemic that the author used to lead to all of the unemployment, etc. will serve nicely. The masks will serve nicely to disguise most of those that incite the riots, and encourage various lawless acts during the supposed peaceful protests.

Fifth, and granted this may be quite a stretch, a good author will be able to convince the reader that there is some good reason for some mayors and governors to let the anarchy continue, and to not step in and use the necessary force to subdue any violence. In addition some of these same states consider looting anything that is worth less than $950 is only a misdemeanor, and thus the looters, if arrested, cannot be held in jail. So consequently they are back on the street the following night, as what’s the worst that can happen to them? . . . not much! Granted the author will need to be quite gifted to sell this part, as this may stretch the credibility envelope too far, but who knows?

In fact, I know an experienced author who wrote such a book with all of the above elements. 

However, his publisher rejected it about a year ago. The publisher stated that the scenario the author set up was so far out, that no reader would be able to believe that such a thing could happen!

The Headlines read:

“Elderly Man Shoved to the Ground by Police during Protest.”

“75 Year Old Man Injured, and Hospitalized Following Police Assault”

These were the headlines on 6/6/20 after a video taken by an NPR affiliate in Buffalo on 6/4/20 documented the “assault.” I have learned that headlines, especially in our local paper can turnout to be misleading, all the while not being a total lie. Because of my Doubting Thomas nature, before I formed an opinion, I viewed the video. In fact I viewed it multiple times. Was the “gentleman” shoved? . . . Yes, he was. 

Was he your protypicitcal frail elderly senior? No, far from it, as he appeared to be somewhat thin, but a head taller than either of the policemen involved. 

The article implies that this innocent senior was minding his own business during a protest . . . let’s be clear he was clearly the initial aggressor, walking directly up to the advancing police officers, shortly after the local curfew was being enforced.

The “elderly” man was Martin Gugino, a 75-year-old long-time activist, known by many in the community. (info “conveniently” not included in the entirety of the headline story.) “Inadvertently” also left out of the WaPo story was the fact that Gugino is a member of the Latin American Solidarity Committee. Also “accidentally” left out of the story is the fact that Gugino has been arrested at rallies four times in the past. The arrests were in Orange County in 2009, at the White House in 2012 and 2013, and in 2016 at the U.S. Capitol. A spokesman said that with these prior arrests, he was not convicted.

It was initially reported the Mr. Gugino tripped, lost his balance, and fell backward, hitting his head. Again after viewing the video multiple times, to me, it appears that Mr. Gugino did lose his balance after he was shoved. (Coincidentally, I am the same age as Mr. Gugino, and perhaps much to the surprise of those presumably young WaPo writers, one’s balance at 75 is not so good.) It would not take much of a shove to cause me to lose my balance, and possibly go down. However, at my age, I no longer put myself in situations, where I could potentially get shoved, lose my balance, and go down.

Which brings me to the question: 

“Was this a set-up?”

Was it just serendipity that an NPR camera just happened to be at the perfect angle to capture this “assault?” Why was the camera focused on the known activist? Why did Mr Gugino walk directly up the officers, just after the eight o’clock curfew time? Why was he out at curfew? Why was the camera already focused on Mr. Gugino as he “innocently” approached the officers? I am usually not a conspiracy enthusiast, but this entire episode is just too ‘oh, bye-the-way’ convenient, especially at a sparsely attested protest.

Think about it!

In addition, I think that there should be some sort of insurance offered for seniors who insist on attending protests, as the chance of some injury has got to be higher than for those much younger protesters. Perhaps antifa could offer such a policy to “elderly” protest attendees. Until such a policy is offered, I do not think that I will be attending any of these protest rallies!

Another episode in the “mask, no mask” story is evolving under our very noses (or perhaps when discussing masks, we should rather say, “over our very noses!”). As background we have been told by “those in the know” that the wearing of face masks is very important from a public health perspective, as this is the way to prevent further spread of Covid-19. Last week, before the rioting (for those more P.C. . . . protesting), the headlines and the news were all about Covid-19. One preaching letter to the editor went so far as to castigate anyone not wearing a mask while outside; as that should be viewed as acting detrimental to the good of society. (As it was only a letter, without an accompanying picture, I could not see how high her pulpit was! Perhaps she was the son, or rather the daughter of a preacher man!)

Now the leading news story is the protests throughout the country. BTW: I have no problem with peaceful protests. I would go so far as to encourage  peaceful protests, with the exception of those protests that block traffic, especially those that block highways. (“You have a right and are free to protest as long as you do not restrict my freedom.” – I just made that up! . . . sounds pretty good, heh?)

As far as protesting and masks, I have no trouble agreeing with the silent protestors not wearing masks, as with no speaking, the potential virus cannot travel very far. However, the shouting protestors without masks should be a big no-no, because, as we all should now be aware, shouting significantly expels more virus and for a longer distance. . . . e.g. meatpacking plants.   [BTW: I have been looking for a letter from “Mrs. Preacher” concerning protesters not wearing masks … but I have yet to anything from her or anybody else for that manner. Perhaps, these letters are coming in to the paper in droves, but it is just not printing them!?]

In today’s paper, the region’s public health officer. Dr. Wilma Wooten,  commented that there is no public health crystal ball that shows a clear picture of whether or not protests will cause a Covid surge. 

Really, Wilma! Would it not have been better to say something like, “although we have no studies on the effects of loud protests and the spread of Covid, it is highly likely that we will see an increase in Covid cases over the next few weeks. From a public health standpoint, I would strongly suggest that all protesters wear masks.”

If we do not see an increase, then perhaps Dr. Wooten could suggest that based on this “protest experiment,” my public health crystal ball suggests that all businesses should open up, and no further masks should be required when outside.”