Americans—Especially Liberals—Getting Important Lessons from the Wuhan Virus

If we are gaining nothing else from this foolish Wuhan virus shutdown, at least we’ve had the benefit of many Americans—especially American liberals—learning some valuable lessons about what their selfish, godless, anti-constitutional, anti-capitalistic politics has wrought. There have been few things to smile about recently, but perhaps the most hilarious moment during this pandemic panic has been to observe liberals getting angry when, to borrow from Red State, “they discover their own gun control laws.”

As Red State’s Kira Davis recently put it,

Not only are many liberals suddenly learning to love their Second Amendment rights, many of them are finding out that the gun control narrative in this country — as repeated loudly and often by Hollywood and the mainstream media — is a complete lie.

So, I contacted my friend’s father to ask about what he is seeing personally at his own range these days. Gregg Bouslog runs On-Target Indoor Shooting Range in Laguna Niguel, CA.

Mr. Bouslog revealed to Ms. Davis that he’s seen huge numbers of first-time guy-buying liberals coming in to purchase firearms in recent weeks. When asked how he knew they were liberals, Mr. Bouslog replied, it’s because “They’re shocked to discover they can’t just walk out of the store with a gun.” Ms. Davis goes on to note,

[T]he most amusing and annoying part for [Bouslog’s] staff has been watching these first-time buyers discover just how stringent gun laws in California really are, including one of our newest laws requiring background checks before buying ammunition. Bouslog says it’s a bridge too far for the people who have been told their whole lives that it’s easier to get a gun than an abortion.

“There are no atheists in foxholes,” goes the old saying. I suppose it follows that there’s no complaining about the Second Amendment during a pandemic. However, this hasn’t stopped little totalitarians such as Virginia’s democrat governor Ralph Northam—and his liberal enablers—from continuing their assault on the Second Amendment.

Of course, there are no “little” totalitarians running China. They have the real thing. I shudder to think how millions of unarmed Chinese fared during this pandemic as their military and their police came looking for the infected or those who might actually tell the truth about what has been going on in Wuhan. As America comes out of our fear-driven, self-imposed shutdown, American liberals would do well to remember—especially at election time—how important is our Second Amendment.

As Americans arm themselves during these troubling times, most are thinking of protecting themselves from criminals and are not thinking about how their own government might turn on them. There’s nothing going on here like what we’ve seen in China, but as John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist recently put it, the Wuhan virus “is exposing little tyrants” all over the United States.

Mr. Davidson rightly concludes,

There’s nothing like a crisis to bring clarity. The response of some mayors and governors to the coronavirus pandemic in recent days has made it clear they think they have unlimited and arbitrary power over their fellow citizens, that they can order them to do or not do just about anything under the guise of protecting public health.

Of course, most—but not all—of these “little tyrants” are elected democrats. We shouldn’t be surprised that those who were already often suspect of, and disappointed in, our Constitution would take the opportunity that a crisis affords to ignore it. In addition, those looking to flex their authoritarianism are exposing themselves as tyrannical technocrats who bow at the altar of scientism.

Thus, during our Wuhan virus outbreak we’ve frequently been subjected to government via computer model. Unsurprisingly, this has been a disaster, but many Americans are just now learning how bad an idea it can be to make policy from computer models. These models—and not the actual numbers we see from the Wuhan virus—have led to the unprecedented shutdown of our nation. Those hoping to keep our nation in shutdown mode—again, almost always democrats—are quick to point to models—that have proven time and again to be wrong—in order to make their case.

My home state of Georgia—led by republican Governor Brian Kemp—provides a recent and great lesson here. As late as Friday, April 17, the media in Georgia was reporting (scroll down until you see “original story”) that Georgia was to hit our “peak” in Wuhan virus deaths on May 3. And yes, this conclusion was reached by a “computer model.” Like politicians across the U.S., Gov. Kemp is making policy based not on real data, but on these models.

When it was announced early in the week last week that Georgia’s Wuhan virus peak was now extended to early May, I immediately was suspicious. According to Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report, for over two weeks now, both Georgia’s daily numbers of Wuhan virus cases and deaths have seen a significant decline. The graphics below show these declines:

From this data, it seemed clear that there was no way that Georgia was going to experience a Wuhan virus “peak” in any way in early May. Anyone without an agenda could clearly see that Georgia has been in a Wuhan virus decline. I vehemently told my wife so on Friday, April 17. Lo-and-behold, on the next day, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported,

A widely cited model [the same one that had Georgia’s peak in early May] from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation updated its projections Friday afternoon and indicates Georgia passed its peak for virus-related deaths on April 7, when 100 deaths in its model projections were attributed to COVID-19. The projections also said Georgia hospitals may have reached their peak use of resources last Wednesday.

Thus, the model told us what was patently obvious to my eyes. The same, or similar, models have led to widespread foolish and devastating “social distancing” and “shelter in place” orders throughout the U.S. Michael Fumento—who “has been writing about epidemic hysterias for 35 years”—is right: “After Repeated Failures, It’s Time To Permanently Dump Epidemic Models.”

Yet, right now, the models continue their rule. As a result, all across America, schools, churches, and businesses have been closed for weeks now—with no end in sight in many places. All entertainment—concerts, movies, little league sports, professional sports—have ceased. Some states and municipalities—usually where “little tyrants” (i.e. democrats) are most prevalent—have gone so far as to ticket church-goers (even if they don’t leave their vehicles!), handcuff tee-ballers, expel non-mask-wearing bus riders, ban the sale of furniture, arrest solo surfers, mandate one-way sidewalks, and so on.

The economic destruction has been unprecedented and widely felt. I won’t detail all of that here, with one exception: my local newspaper. As most well know, for a couple of decades now, newspapers across America have been on the decline. Newspapers in northeast Georgia have been no exception.

About half of newspaper revenue comes from advertising. Because this shutdown has devastated small businesses, small local newspapers are suffering as well—or at least that’s what they are telling us. Our local paper—The Gainesville Times—has gone so far as to ask for donations to support their journalistic efforts. We got an email with the request that takes you to the last link above.

My heart hurts for these people. I hate what this self-inflicted economic destruction is doing to all areas of our economy—including journalism. However, like newspapers and other such media all over America, I can recall nothing The Gainesville Times has done to at least give voice to those who believe it’s time to END THIS SHUTDOWN!

Where are the stories on local businesses and employees suffering because of the shutdown? Where are the stories on those perhaps on the verge of losing their businesses? Where are the stories on families suffering because parents are unable to work? No doubt those stories exist.

To be fair, we do not take the print edition, so perhaps some of those stories are there. Even if that is the case, they have been far too rare. What’s more, in their latest editorial (Sunday, April 19), The Gainesville Times editorial board continued the fatalist and foolish message that “We have to stay the course, stay home and stay smart if we are to stay healthy and stay alive.” Okay, but if that is the case, American capitalism will remain severely hamstrung, and the advertising revenue you so depend upon will continue to dry up.

The American media could do much to help end this shutdown, but because they have been so focused on hurting—and ultimately getting rid of—President Trump, the shutdown messaging dominates the mainstream media. Thus another great lesson from Wuhan shutdown is revealed: if you kill capitalism in America, the media dies with it (right ESPN?).

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Distancing Drivel, Shelter-Skelter, and Vaccine Voodoo

Have you seen or heard the latest report on social distancing? It seems that six feet just isn’t going to cut it anymore. According to the CDC and the Chinese—no laughing!—the aerosol transmission distance for the Wuhan virus “might be” four meters (a little over 13 feet). According to the study’s conclusions, “[T]he SARS-CoV-2 aerosol distribution characteristics in the GW [general ward] indicate that the transmission distance of SARS-CoV-2 might be 4 m.”

This is according to Zhen-Dong Guo, Zhong-Yi Wang, Shou-Feng Zhang, Xiao Li, Lin Li, Chao Li, Yan Cui, Rui-Bin Fu, Yun-Zhu Dong, Xiang-Yang Chi, Meng-Yao Zhang, Kun Liu, Cheng Cao, Bin Liu, Ke Zhang, Yu-Wei Gao, Bing Lu, and Wei Chen—the study’s authors. Thus, the question we must now ponder is, are we going to change our all-important (hear my sarcasm) “social distancing” guidelines for 330 million Americans based on what 18 Chinese communists now tell us “might be?”

I would be suspicious of any “study” that purported to tell me what “might” happen, especially when it comes to healthcare. However, if we’ve learned nothing else from the Wuhan virus, it’s that we can’t trust any numbers coming out of China related to the current worldwide pandemic. Whether or not it was done with malicious intent (don’t be shocked or surprised if it all was—we know some of it was), in the whole history of communism—whether China or the Soviet Union or Cuba or any other such regime—it could be argued that no greater damage has been done to the United States in such a short period of time by a communist regime than what the Wuhan virus has wrought these last three months.

There are countless reports—from The Washington Post, the Washington Examiner, USA Today, Breitbart, Bloomberg, the New York Post, and so on—that reveal that the Chinese long lied about what was happening in Wuhan and about how serious it was. No one—and I mean no one—with two brain cells to rub together should be surprised that godless communists would lie about anything. Of course, not all Chinese are liars, but because they stand against the Author of truth, it’s in the communist DNA—that is their worldview—to lie.

What’s more, the godless Chinese communists got their stooges at the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide cover for their lies. Worse still, as well-chronicled by The Federalist, the American media also gave cover to the lying communists. Because most of the American media is also rooted in godlessness, this as well should come as little surprise. Thus, there’s no way we should make public policy out of anything that comes from these misguided souls. But we have.

In the middle of March, it was widely reported that the Trump administration’s messaging on the Wuhan virus changed after a report on the virus, published on March 16 from the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. As most paying attention well know, it was this report that estimated 2.2 million U.S. deaths would result from the Wuhan virus unless drastic measures—“social distancing” and “sheltering in place,” which means closing schools, businesses, churches, and the like—took place.

The numbers for the report relied on a “transmission model” that is described in the report. What many probably don’t realize is that this modeling again relied on numbers from the Chinese. On March 30, 2020, the Imperial College of London published an article that described the “model based analysis” used to estimate “the severity of the coronavirus disease.” Time and again the article references how numbers were obtained from the Chinese.

For example, the “Methods” section of the article declares, “We identified information on the characteristics of 48 patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei [Wuhan is the capital of Hubei], reported by the National Health Commission and the Hubei Province Health Commission website up to Feb 8, 2020.” Later, the article reveals, “Data on 70,117 PCR-confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases by date of onset in Wuhan and elsewhere in China from Jan 1 to Feb 11, 2020, were extracted from the WHO–China Joint Mission report.”

At the end of the article, in the “Results” section, it states, “However, given that the epidemic in China has since declined, our posterior estimate of the mean time from onset to death, informed by the analysis of aggregated data from China, is more precise.” How did they know that the “epidemic in China has since declined?” What led to this conclusion? I think it’s safe to presume such a conclusion was based on what the deceptive communist officials in China were (and are still) saying.

The Imperial College report resulted in particularly devastating “shelter in place” orders across the vast majority of the U.S. Because of these orders, schools, churches, and businesses have been closed, all entertainment—concerts, movies, little league sports, professional sports—have ceased. Some states and municipalities have gone so far as to ticket church-goers (even if they don’t leave their vehicles!), handcuff tee-ballers, expel non-mask-wearing bus riders, ban the sale of furniture, arrest solo surfers, mandate one-way sidewalks, and so on.

All of this because we’ve been led to believe that staying home “saves lives.” As I and others have more and more started to note, this is not the case. We are staying home to “flatten the curve,” but as Rush Limbaugh, himself, recently noted, “we didn’t flatten the curve to save lives.” We flattened the curve so as to not overwhelm the hospitals, the ICU rooms, and the like. However, as John Hinderaker at Powerline recently revealed, it seems this wasn’t even necessary.

In a post entitled, “We Never Needed to Flatten the Curve,” Hinderaker rightly concludes,

The theory behind curve-flattening is not that the virus will mysteriously disappear while we are all hunkered down, and we will emerge when it is safe to come out. That won’t happen…

We know now, however, that the COVID-19 virus was grossly overestimated, at least with respect to the demand its victims would place on hospitals…

…America’s hospitals have not been overwhelmed by the number of Wuhan flu sufferers, not even in New York City. The number of COVID-19 hospitalizations falls well within the natural variability in flu hospitalizations that we always see from year to year.

Once again, government officials are making decisions with catastrophic effects on many millions of lives, on the basis of models that have proved to be wrong. The shutdowns should end tomorrow.

Now we are being told that, even though we’ve flattened the curve, even though the vast majority of hospitals are not overwhelmed, and some are near-empty, we still need to “shelter in place”—for many more months, according to some. Ezekiel Emanuel, the architect of Obamacare, recently insisted that we have “no choice” but to continue with our nation-wide shutdown. He added, “We cannot return to normal until there’s a vaccine. Conferences, concerts, sporting events, religious services, dinner in a restaurant, none of that will resume until we find a vaccine, a treatment, or a cure.” This will take, “realistically,” according to Emanuel, another “18 months or more.”

That foolish message seems to be resonating with some. A recent headline by ESPN declared, “Poll: Sports fans won’t attend games without coronavirus vaccine.” The poll referenced was conducted by Seton Hall University’s Stillman School of Business. According to the poll, of those who identified as sports fans (I’m not sure how that was determined.), 61% said they would not go to a game without a vaccine.

This comes on the heels of Kirk Herbstreit stating that, because we are “12 to 18 months from a vaccine,” he’ll “be shocked if we have NFL football this fall, if we have college football. I’ll be so surprised if that happens.” According to the New York Post, “Herbstreit added that if he was NFL commissioner Roger Goodell or the NCAA, he would shut down their upcoming football seasons.”

For a virus that is rarely worse than the flu for the vast majority who contract it, this is, of course, absurd thinking. According to the CDC, the overall hospitalization rate for the Wuhan virus is .0046%. For those 18-49 years old (the age range of virtually every college athlete), the hospitalization rate is only .0025%, and it is even lower for those younger. What’s more, assuming a Wuhan virus vaccine is about as effective as your typical flu vaccine, the effectiveness is likely to be quite poor.

The Wuhan virus lies and the foolish fearmongering must stop—or at least we must stop paying attention to them. It’s time for America to get back to church, work, school, and play!

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Wuhan Virus Reminds Us: Beware Scientism and the Technocrats

It was not unusual in ancient times for individuals to sell themselves into servitude—as “bondservants”—which was often described as a form of slavery. Usually this was due to excessive debt, but sometimes it was done simply to have a roof over one’s head and food in one’s belly. In other words, for millennia, in order to satisfy their most basic needs, human beings have often been willing to suffer under many a heavy yoke. As C.S. Lewis put it, “A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.”

In today’s Wuhan virus-driven hysteria, a corollary to Lewis’s above quote would be, “One living in a pandemic thinks about remaining healthy, not about freedom.” Writing about the “great issues” of his day, Lewis wrote in 1940, “Lord! How I loathe great issues…Could one start a Stagnation Party— which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?”

Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, John G. West, writes that, “According to stepson David Gresham, Lewis was skeptical of politicians and not really interested in current events. His concern was not policy but principle; political problems of the day were interesting to him only insofar as they involved matters that endured.”

Nevertheless, West adds that Lewis did indeed have a “great deal” to say about politics, writing about such things as crime, obscenity, capital punishment, communism, fascism, socialism, war, the welfare state, and so on. Lewis’s political efforts resulted in “enduring political standards for all time.”

Nowhere is this clearer, West states, than in Lewis’s writings on tyranny and morality. According to West, Lewis was particularly concerned with the tyranny that could result from the union of modern science and the modern state. With the Wuhan virus pandemic, we are currently living a lesson in this.

Lewis disputed the notion that we must exclusively rely on the counsel of scientists because only they have the answers to today’s complicated problems. He did not dispute their knowledge, but he concluded that most of it was irrelevant. In West’s words, “Political problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are not equipped to function as moralists.” Lewis added that,

I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value.

What such “specialists in power” often do is give a Big Government, which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis. Few things illustrate this better than our current “crisis” that is the Wuhan virus pandemic. “What things are worth having at what price” is currently a question of great concern to Americans and all freedom-loving people the world over, and such a question should never be answered by relying only on the knowledge of scientists. Sadly, in such times many of us are far too eager to become what Lewis called in 1958 “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.”

Typically, in order for any oligarchy effectively to rise and rule, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the tyrants that they are? Were not Stalin and Hitler first seen as saviors and deliverers?

Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, Lewis wrote that

The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance…Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?

To “fix” our problems (whether real or perceived) and to exert the power and influence necessary, today’s ruling class often tells us that we must more and more rely on the “experts,” and also on their computer models. This means that the politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become “merely the scientists’ puppets.”

Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: “only science can save us now” or “science is the way out” of our Wuhan virus crisis. Whether it is a global pandemic, global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality and marriage, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats claim to have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

In other words, in times of crisis, many of our politicians (and scientists alike) are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority.

In other words, scientism is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. How many Americans now find their fulfillment and purpose in these movements? They celebrate Earth Day and Darwin Day. They boldly assert, “Science is my Savior.”

Also, scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so shut up and get in line.

And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. “I dread government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of “science”? How many of us cower and yield—or “shelter at home”—because, well, if the “scientists” (and then the politicians) tell us to do so, then we must do so?

We have long seen the results: generations are taught that life began without God; that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable; that abortion is not really the taking of a life; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is “fair;” that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions.

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State,” based significantly on the lies of scientism. It’s time for Americans to wake up to this perversion of science and return science, faith, philosophy, and by all means, common sense, to their proper place. This is especially true in times of crisis.

(See this column at American Thinker and at Climate Depot.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com