Sexual procurement

Trying my hand at clickbait…

Japanese mayor says only men should be allowed to go grocery shopping during coronavirus crisis because women take too long – Blazing Cat Fur

At first I thought, “This guy is onto something!” Weeks ago, I suggested banning women from garden center, paint, furniture and flooring departments. This would mitigate the human interaction-duration problem Michigan’s Governor used to justify disallowing such sales.

Men generally don’t, for example, take 20 minutes to decide which of the 37 shades of white best match the antique doilies in the guest room.

“That woman in Michigan” couldn’t go as far as a grocery store ban based on sex, though. Can you imagine the embarrassment from a gathering of 1,000 women drivers circling the Capitol building waving their expiring coupons? The coupons they can’t trust their husbands to use?

Would Gretchen tell them, “I don’t want you wandering all over the store picking out things you don’t really need just so you can get the 10th item free,” or, “Down with the Patriarchal oppression of grocery shopping! It’s for your own good.” My bet would have been on the latter until Biden ran into #MeToo problems with Tara Reade.

It occurs to me that the sale of clothing at Meijer’s should have been banned before those other items. Women might squeeze the occasional cucumber, but they run their hands all over clothing they have no intention of buying. And women will bring home three similar (well handled) items, intending to return two, just so they can ask their husbands perilous questions about the fit.

All because there’s a “sale” sign… Make that “SALE!”

Which word should be banned from all signs for the duration. Its use just attracts and encourages women to linger unnecessarily. “Look, a squirrel!”

On reflection, though, I’ve decided banning women from grocery shopping is a bridge too far. First, then I might have to do it. I’m not trusted with coupons for good reason. For example, I won’t stop at three stores to use coupons to save $0.92.

Second, I’m afraid men would be excluded from hardware and gun stores.

Victor Davis Hanson

Brilliant. A must watch.

Victor Davis Hanson: COVID-19 and the Lessons of History | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefing

50 minutes. I watched at 1.5x. Speech is understandable, but is out of sync with video.

Hanson’s recounting of his family experience, through many deadly diseases, in a house they’ve owned for 145 years, is awesome.

His forbears had no expectations that government could solve every problem. When that changed, we started loosing America.

“[T]hey [Government during the Spanish flu, for example] didn’t have confidence that they were all knowing… they were much more humble about their own data and the ramifications.”

Compare and contrast with Gretchen Esther Whitmer.

Then read the quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville and Ayn Rand at the end of this post.

Plus c’est la même chose

Excerpts from an extensive article at the National Institute of Health (Because this is an extended quote, I’ve chosen to italicize it rather than indent for readability.).

Citations omitted:

THE SARS EPIDEMIC AND ITS AFTERMATH IN CHINA: A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE

This “strange disease” alerted Chinese health personnel as early as mid-December. On January 2, a team of health experts was sent to Heyuan and diagnosed the disease as an infection caused by a certain virus… A Chinese physician, who was in charge of treating a patient from Heyuan in a hospital in Guangzhou, quickly reported the disease to a local anti-epidemic station… We have reason to believe that the local anti-epidemic station alerted the provincial health bureau about the disease,

On January 27, the report was sent to the provincial health bureau and, presumably, to the Ministry of Health in Beijing. The report was marked “top secret,” which meant that only top provincial health officials could open it.

Further government reaction to the emerging disease, however, was delayed by the problems of information flow within the Chinese hierarchy. For 3 days, there were no authorized provincial health officials available to open the document. After the document was finally read, the provincial bureau distributed a bulletin to hospitals across the province. However, few health workers were alerted by the bulletin because most were on vacation for the Chinese New Year. In the meantime, the public was kept uninformed about the disease.

[U]ntil such time as the Ministry chose to make information about the disease public, any physician or journalist who reported on the disease would risk being persecuted for leaking state secrets. A virtual news blackout about SARS thus continued well into February.

On February 11, Guangdong health officials finally broke the silence by holding press conferences about the disease.

From then on, information about the disease was reported to the public through the news media. Yet in the meantime, the government played down the risk of the illness. Guangzhou city government on February 11 went so far as to announce the illness was “comprehensively” under effective control. As a result, while the panic was temporarily allayed, the public also lost vigilance about the disease. When some reports began to question the government’s handling of the outbreak, the provincial propaganda bureau again halted reporting on the disease on February 23. This news blackout continued during the run-up to the National People’s Congress in March, and government authorities shared little information with the World Health Organization until early April.

In fact, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention did not issue a nationwide bulletin to hospitals on how to prevent the ailment from spreading until April 3, and it was not until mid-April that the government formally listed SARS as a disease to be closely monitored and reported on a daily basis under the Law of Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases.

[T]here is no doubt that [CCP] government inaction paralleled by the absence of an effective response to the initial outbreak resulted in a crisis.

On May 12, the very same day that Premier Wen Jiabao released the new regulations to promote openness, the Beijing Morning News carried an article on how people who spread “rumors” about SARS could be jailed for up to 5 years.

You will have noted a few minor discrepancies in this account from our current situation. Locations, precise dates, leadership names. That’s because this 2004 article describes events that took place during the SARS outbreak in 2003. The players change, but the game remains the same.

Given the CCP’s track record, the World Health Organization’s deference regarding the 2019 virus is unconscionable. If you read the whole article, you’ll likely come away with the impression it was better handled in 2003.

Stop it!

Harvard researchers say social distancing may be needed into 2022
Detailed models suggest the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 could resurge as late as 2024.

The worst secondary effect of the CCP virus pandemic is the press coverage. CNET should be ashamed and so should Harvard. The idea that CCP virus will come back is intuitively obvious, but the article hawks it as unexpected.

A couple of snippets that tell you the model and the article were unnecessary:

[S]ome social distancing methods, like avoiding hugs and handshakes, could persist beyond the end of the pandemic

“The authors are aware that prolonged distancing, even if intermittent, is likely to have profoundly negative economic, social and educational consequences,”

Maintaining ‘no hugs nor handshakes’ would surprise precisely no one as a natural public response.

This behavior will not be intermittent, it’s going to be a fact of life, like more hand-washing. The lack of “hugs and handshakes” will not have “profound” effects. If they’d mentioned the six feet distancing rule, they might have made a case for “irritating effects.”

Harvard bases this on a “detailed model.” OOOh! Models. Harvard. Scientists. Changes in public behavior after a world historical pandemic. Run!

The CCP virus modeling has been wildly wrong – as bad as CAGW models. They specify 2024. Because putting a number on it makes the model seem more precise and insightful, but it is a WAG generated by a spreadsheet. Why not 2028 and 2035? People wouldn’t worry so much, and wouldn’t click on it.

A 2024 resurgence would be tempered by a vaccine, likely by effective drug treatment, likely (and sadly) acceptance of cell-phone-based contact tracing apps by those who care nothing for privacy, and by handy, 5 minute, inexpensive self-testing kits available at CVS and Walmart. If the FDA gets out of the way.

I question whether they factored those changes into their model. If they did, I’d call BS on the values they used.

To help determine the way forward, the researchers say a better understanding of immunity to the virus is key, as is epidemiological surveillance of the disease, which can be done through widespread testing and contact tracing.

They had to have a model to reach that insipid conclusion? While admitting the key element of their model, immunity, is not understood?

A plea for funding, and a quest for clicks.

Chekists

Well before some functionary, with career advancement too much on his mind, decided I could be held criminally negligent for my sons’ use of seat belts and the precise dimensions of their car seats when they were under a certain arbitrary height and weight…

“I don’t want you to forget, or think of it as optional, because then you won’t have done it when it might matter. I want you to get to the point where I trust you to follow the rule, and I won’t have to check to see if you’ve done it. My job is to get you there.”

That’s how I explained to my sons, then 8 and 10, why they had to fasten their seat belts when we were only driving a couple of miles. Their response, and the cause of the glitch, “Mom doesn’t make us do that!”

“Well,” I said, “Mom and I agreed before that you should always do it, and she’s wrong if she lets you off. I just told you why she’s wrong.”

After a couple of dozen seconds sitting silently in the unmoving car, they complied. I didn’t have to remind them again after that, and soon stopped checking.

But what happens when some functionary applies that principle to free adults?

The FDA happens. They never stop checking. Checking is what they get paid for. So they constantly find new things to check and more ways to check the old things.

Bureaucrats aren’t concerned about YOUR welfare, they’re concerned about their own. Uncertainty is their friend – because, unlike an actual parent, they aren’t interested in having nothing to enforce.

It’s Time to Track the FDA’s Death Toll Emphasis mine:

The Food and Drug Administration helped turn the coronavirus from a deadly peril into a national catastrophe. Long after foreign nations had been ravaged and many cases had been detected in America, the FDA continued blocking private testing. The FDA continued forcing the nation’s most innovative firms to submit to its command-and-control approach notwithstanding the pandemic…

Dr. David Kessler, who became FDA commissioner in 1990, quickly sought to intimidate the companies that his agency regulates. A laudatory Washington Post article concluded, “What he cannot accomplish with ordinary regulation, Kessler hopes to accomplish with fear.” Kenneth Feather of the FDA’s drug advertising surveillance branch boasted: “We want to say to these companies that you don’t know when or how we’ll strike. We want to eliminate predictability.”…

The FDA’s stonewalling of new medical devices was sometimes politically motivated. A 1994 report by the Medical Device Manufacturers Association noted, “It is not unusual for [FDA] reviewers to express the position that excessive requests [for additional information] are made because of a concern or fear about how a particular member or members of Congress will react” to the approval of a new device. Sacrificing lives was a small price to pay for bureaucrats to avoid bothersome interrogatories from Capitol Hill…

[I]n 1991 Dr. Kessler prohibited pharmaceutical companies from informing doctors of new uses for approved drugs. He announced that the FDA would enforce the ban with seizures, injunctions, and prosecutions. Though the agency never finalized its proposed regulations, it warned companies that they would face its wrath if they violated the draft proposals. Dr. Kessler, in a speech before the Drug Information Association, said: “I would urge all members of the pharmaceutical industry to take a long and hard look at their promotional practices. I do not expect companies to wait until this guidance becomes final to put their advertising and promotional houses in order.” The question of off-label treatments is becoming a key issue again as doctors search for effective treatments for the COVID-19 coronavirus…

Dr. Kessler declared in 1992: “If members of our society were empowered to make their own decisions…then the whole rationale for the [FDA] would cease to exist.” Kessler derided “freedom of choice” as an illusion unless people are presented only with government-approved choices. But the FDA “liberated” people by shielding them from information, devices, and drugs that could have saved their lives.

How far removed from Constitutionality and actual legislation is a DRAFT proposal from a government agency managed by mandarins and staffed with non-elected officials?

The FDA’s mission is to protect the power of the FDA. Not your ignorant, childish ass.

RTWT

Also:

The COVID-19 Crisis Is the Result of Decades of FDA Misrule

The COVID-19 pandemic is exposing how the US Food and Drug Administration puts Americans at increased risk of sickness and death. Decades of killing medical innovation and forcing industries offshore made this inevitable.

The real debate should be over how best to downsize or abolish the FDA, which contributed greatly to the vulnerable state in which America now finds itself…

[T]hanks largely to its treatment in the media, many Americans have never imagined how the country might benefit from doing away with the bureaucracy. That may change now.

Imagine there’s no bureau
It’s easy if you try
No hell in freedom
Above us, an ally
Imagine all the people living for themselves