Categories
general freedom too much government

Diners’ Rebellion

Italy was hit hard by COVID-​19, and harder by the lockdowns. 

The lockdown idea — with which we are more than familiar in America — rests upon the notion that the best way to fight a new contagion is to rob it of hosts, and the best way to do that is to enforce anti-​social edicts, forbidding normal human interaction thereby (the rationale goes) limiting spread of the disease. 

But Italians are not, say, Scandinavians. While folks up north (and in much of America) tend to maintain a more extensive baseline social distance, by custom enforcing a fairly wide personal space, in Italy folks tend to be much more hands-​on, requiring close human contact for everyday happiness. So even had lockdowns worked, they would have been traumatic. But lockdown results have been dubious at best.

So Italians are rebelling.

Specifically, restaurateurs.

And their patrons.

“Thousands of restaurants have opened in Italy in defiance of the country’s strict Chinese coronavirus lockdown regulations,” we read at Breitbart. “The mass civil disobedience campaign —  launched under the hashtag #IoApro (#IOpen) — has seen as many as 50,000 restaurants opening despite evening curfew restrictions.”

My favorite video has diners in Bologna shouting police out of an illegally open restaurant with chants of “Libertà!”

News outfits in America do not appear to be giving much attention to the anti-​lockdown movement in Italy — or elsewhere in Europe. It is almost as if the story does not fit The Narrative, which (do I have this right?) has Europeans more accepting of government paternalism, leaving Americans as the more uncooperative, unruly individualists to be controlled by a browbeating press.

But lockdown protests here are nothing like that in Europe.

Makes me a bit sad for America, actually.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom too much government

The Saddest Thanksgiving

We are social animals. We need human interaction, not just interaction with our “screens.”

So, no wonder suicide is a rising problem during the lockdowns.

Jon Miltimore, writing at FEE, focuses on one country known for its suicide-​tolerant culture: Japan. “Suicide Claimed More Lives in October Than 10 Months of COVID-​19 in Japan, Report Shows.” Though the island nation had seen lowering levels of suicides for years, the lockdowns to prevent the spread of the Wuhan contagion have apparently reversed the trend.

“The 2,153 suicides reported last month are about 600 more than the previous year, CBS reports, with the largest gains coming in women, who saw an 80 percent surge in suicide,” Miltimore informs.

Though these United States do not publish timely stats, reports from specific locales suggest that suicide is rising in America, too.

And this is not surprising.

If one were to “follow the science” — or sciences, in this case sociology, social psychology, etc.  — one would have predicted such an effect. The “social distancing” model for pandemic mitigation is the perfect recipe for inducing suicidal ideations in social animals like ourselves.

Most at-​risk are those with depression problems already, orother social trauma — or “merely” have trouble making friends. Government-​mandated distancing just makes it harder for those who really need to make connections, but have trouble doing so.

Add on the holidays — a traditional time for familial bonding and social conviviality, but really tough for those alienated from same — and we are in for a bumpy sociality crisis.

Lockdowns are anti-​social. This holiday season, reasonable, usually-​healthy people might want to reach out, repeatedly (if only “virtually”), to those who need what many states now prohibit: human contact.

For humanity’s sake. For our friends’ sake.

This is Common Sense. Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
too much government

For a New Normalcy

Science writer Ronald Bailey argues that the best path to “a New Normal” can be found by rolling out home COVID-​19 tests. But notes they are illegal.

Bailey’s November piece in Reason magazine informs us that “biotech startup E25Bio, diagnostics maker OraSure, and the 3M Co., are working on and could quickly deploy rapid at-​home COVID-​19 diagnostic tests.”

These tests work, he says, “by detecting, within minutes, the presence of coronavirus proteins using specific antibodies embedded on a paper test strip coated with nasal swab samples or saliva. Somewhat like at-​home pregnancy tests, the antigen tests change color or reveal lines if COVID-​19 proteins are recognized.”

So why not go ahead with these antigen tests? Well, the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t allow it. Bailey quotes a Harvard epidemiologist: “Until the regulatory landscape changes, those companies have no reason to bring a product to market.”

Regulatory blocking and kludge are just one reason this is not possible.

But if you — or for that matter, Mr. Bailey — think that this problem can just be solved with a Trumpian executive order or a quick legislative fix, there are reasons for doubt.

Our whole system is government-​rigged. And, as Ludwig von Mises made clear in Bureaucracy, clunky slowness is not just a bug of such systems. It’s the feature

And it’s a bad feature. 

It’s why many of us oppose regulation by bureaucracy and prefer a rule of law and competition within markets to supply the regulation that businesses need.

Which suggests to me that the best way back to normalcy is not through a quick government fix but by nixing government fixes more broadly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Photo by Marco Verch

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability initiative, referendum, and recall

Instead of Kidnapping

Regarding the lockdowns, I said in the last episode of my podcast, “we’ve kind of accepted the Chinese model.” 

You know: extreme; cruel; totalitarian. 

And few officials in these United States seem more “Chinazi” than Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her Attorney General Dana Nessel. 

Their authoritarian behavior has inspired quite a bit of anger, and even, it appears, plotting for a kidnapping.

Fortunately for citizens who voted these two lockdowners into office, insurrection is not necessary to re-​establish a rule of law. Let mlive​.com explain: “Earlier this month, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a 1945 state law Whitmer used to sign executive orders during the extended COVID-​19 state of emergency was unconstitutional. The court said Whitmer did not have the authority to continue a state of emergency without the support of the Legislature, essentially ending her orders signed past April 30.”

Yet the AG has decided to enforce Whitmer’s unconstitutional edicts, nonetheless.

The political backlash is now quite legal and above-​board, for the state’s Board of State Canvassers has approved petition language to recall Nessel.

On the petitions, which will be circulated on Election Day, the explanation for the recall will read as follows: “Dana Nessel, on Thursday, August 6, 2020, Announced plans ramping up efforts to enforce Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-148.”

The petition has been spurred by Albion, Michigan, resident Chad Baase. He is incensed, as he should be, that Nessel “violated her oath of office by enforcing an executive order which violated the Michigan constitution, therefore she violated the constitution.”

 “She needs to be held accountable,” Baase insists, and it’s great that he has found a peaceful way in democracy’s ultimate recourse: the recall vote.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

For WHO the Toll

When the World Health Organization did an about-​face, last week, advising against the lockdowns that have constituted the most-​touted and most common extreme pandemic response around the world, many wondered: what could the WHO be up to?

David Nabarro, the organization’s special envoy for Covid-​19, explains that lockdowns are useful only to buy time “to reorganize, regroup, rebalance” health care resources, and that we are obviously not in such emergency conditions now.

J.D. Tuccille, writing at Reason, provided us with the most astute news angle from the WHO’s apparent turnabout: “At long last, months into the pandemic, the debates over the proper response to COVID-​19 have begun.”

We can hope so, anyway. Enough with bullying by government edict or inane “follow the science” rhetoric!

But what the WHO’s new clue should highlight is how we got here. The lockdowns were first offered as a way to do precisely what Mr. Nabarro said, buy time to reorganize medical resources so as not to induce chaos — you know, “flatten the curve.”

It did not take long, however, before a very different rationale for harsh “mitigation efforts” became the rule: buy time for a vaccine.

This plan was strenuously argued against by a trio of doctors in their eyebrow-​raising “Great Barrington Declaration.” Continuing the lockdowns until a vaccine emerges “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

The lockdown obsession may misdirect our attention from actual treatments for the disease — which President Trump has touted from the beginning. Indeed, Trump’s quick exit from his own bout with the malady may serve as an effective reminder that our options are not limited to (a) quivering in sequestration till vaccinations roll out or (b) mass death.

There is hope.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
too much government

The Really Slow Fast COVID-​19 Test

A rapid test for COVID-​19 that you could perform in homes, workplaces, and classrooms would be less accurate than the best slower tests. But even somewhat accurate fast tests would help many to cope with the disease more effectively.

If necessary, asymptomatic persons who test positive could be retested by another method while staying isolated. If test-​takers have already exhibited COVID-​like symptoms (but also bad-​cold-​like symptoms), a quick positive result means that they could more quickly start appropriate treatment.

An easy, rapid test would be a godsend in situations where it is advisable for people to be retested continually.

In late August, Abbott Labs announced that production of a credit-​card-​sized, “$5, 15-​minute, easy-​to-​use” test is being increased “to 50 million tests a month.” The U.S. has approved its mass-​scale use.

Hooray! Another positive development in efforts to cope with a scourge that is not the Black Death but not just-​the-​flu either.

Not so fast. 

Great as far as it goes, but as FEE writer James Anthony notes, this is only one approval of one test produced by one company. And the test can be performed only at “point-​of-​care” sites able to flourish special regulatory approval. So not at every workplace, classroom, or home. 

Yet, according to Abbott, the test delivers results “in just 15 minutes with no instrumentation.” 

Sounds like mere lay persons like you and me would have to . . . follow instructions. 

Like governments should follow ours … and get out of the way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts