Isolation as dangerous as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, lockdown adviser warns

Social isolation is as damaging to your health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, an academic advising the Government on lockdown has warned.

As the nation remains cut off from family and friends, fears are growing over the physical and psychological impact of stringent social distancing measures.

Studies have found that being isolated can increase your risk of death by up to 30 per cent, similar to the impacts of obesity or smoking.

Professor Stephen Reicher, who is part of a group of behavioural scientists advising the Government, told The Telegraph: “The problem with lockdown is isolation; being cut off from people is bad for you psychologically and physically. It is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day

SOURCE 





It's Time to Sideline the FDA

The coronavirus pandemic, now going into its eighth week, has exposed so many flaws in our nation’s healthcare system. We have shortages of doctors and nurses because of restrictive licensing requirements. We have a shortage of equipment because of trade barriers stemming the flow of materials from abroad. We also have a shortage of money because of our government’s reckless spending on other nonsense over the years.

One thing we’re also running short on is time. More than 30 million people have now filed for unemployment. We simply cannot afford to hamstring our economy the way we have for much longer. Certain state governments and federal government officials have expressed hesitancy to reopen America until we have a vaccine available. Dr. Anthony Fauci has said it’s “doable” that one could be developed and ready to go within a span of a year to 18 months. He noted this is well ahead of the normal schedule for a vaccine, which is 5 to 10 years.

This begs the question: Why does it take that long? In addition to the shortages listed above, data shows that the U.S. is dealing with a number of drug shortages. This is in no small part due to the absurd web of regulations the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) makes manufacturers jump through to get a drug or vaccine to market. One has to wonder how many thousands (or potentially millions) of people died preventable deaths while the FDA spent almost a decade making sure every ‘t’ was crossed and every ‘i’ was dotted on a potential cure.

With the coronavirus, there are more than millions of lives at stake. There are also tens of millions of livelihoods at stake. Yet, even the most generous estimates say that we won’t have a vaccine before the end of this calendar year. In the meantime, millions are going to struggle to feed their families and we’re going to lose a good amount of elderly and immuno-cmpromised Americans. The pressure everyone is feeling has exposed how agonizingly slow the FDA process is and has crystallized how unacceptable it is.

However, this has always been unacceptable. It’s simply more obvious now. The question that exists now is how we are going to remedy not only the coronavirus, but the FDA. The answer, as in almost any functioning marketplace, is to introduce competition: other options. The FDA operates with impunity and no one has had any option but to work within its framework, and our country has been worse for it.

The time has come to break up the traffic jam on the proverbial FDA highway by providing an exit lane. That exit lane would be a proposal known as “Free to Choose Medicine” and it would exist independently of the FDA.

As outlined in the picture above, the Free to Choose track would bypass the FDA. Manufacturers sufficiently confident in their development could elect to put their products on the Free to Choose track. At that point, patients could have informed discussions with their doctors about whether or not that path would be right for them. Naturally, this includes manufacturers educating doctors about the drug and the potential risks involved.

No drug or vaccine is ever 100 percent safe. That is the nature of this business. There are always rare, unforeseen side effects that can pop up. However, that is no reason to relegate millions to helplessness who could have the option to live.

Many Americans are dissatisfied with the healthcare system in America. However, every proposed solution by mainstream politicians includes reforms to the existing system. America needs to consider the reality that the existing system is broken and that if we want to build a functioning system, it has to operate outside of the constraints of our current one. That’s what Free to Choose offers. If coronavirus has taught us anything, it’s that we need something radically different than what our leaders have to offer us now.

SOURCE 





Salons And Barbershops Across America Are About To Show How Unnecessary This Lockdown Was

In the eyes of many, Dallas salon owner Shelley Luther has become the latest face of justified resistance against governmental tyranny for her steadfast refusal to back down on keeping her business open despite the prospect of going to jail.

Luther’s Salon a la Mode opened for business last Friday, then promptly got slapped with a court order to close because of coronavirus restrictions. Instead of meekly complying, as most others doubtless would have, Luther stood outside her salon and literally ripped the thing to shreds. Indeed, it was a moment that would have made Patrick Henry proud. (I’m also pretty sure it would have made another person with the surname “Luther” proud too.) The salon owner told media she has “had enough” of stupid, nonsensical restrictions on her livelihood and that of her employees, and is more than willing to go to jail to make her point.

“Essential, non-essential,” Luther said. “That’s ridiculous what has been deemed essential and non-essential because right now the pet groomer next door has been essential this whole time. So pets can get their hair done but someone can’t walk in my salon and get their hair cut? So why is a pet getting essentials?”

Good on her. The continued enforced closure of hairdressers, barbershops, salons, and the like are one of the most ridiculous in a sea of ridiculous aspects of the current coronavirus lockdown insanity. Turns out, while the generally solid GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has finally signed off on allowing some types of businesses to open, salons and barbershops inexplicably aren’t yet among them. They are “nonessential,” don’t you know, and the people who work in them apparently don’t deserve the same chance to feed their families that others do.

Insisting that salons are still not “safe,” Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins ripped Luther and other like-minded business owners as supposedly “putting their own need to make money ahead of public health.”

But Luther disagrees: “It’s pretty ridiculous to think that our place would be unsafe. The second part of that is we’re all grown adults. We decide where we want to go and if someone does not want to come in the salon, I respect that decision.”

Truly, is there any logical reason to think salons and barbershops are any less safe than most any other public place, particularly if owners and employees utilize masks, gloves, and regularly sanitize between customers?

Another business owner, California barbershop operator Juan Desmarais, received what Tucker Carlson called a “self-righteous scolding” from CNN’s Brooke Baldwin for his decision to open up his shop. Despite the California government’s anti-Constitutional power grabs, Desmarais intends to try to make a living for his employees and his family, insisting that he is more than capable of ensuring proper sanitation measures are in place to prevent the spread of the virus.

Here in Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee also excluded such businesses from his initial reopening phase. However, he relented under pressure and is allowing them to open up this coming Wednesday. My sister, the owner of a high-end salon in east Tennessee, was more than a little frustrated and might have even considered going the Luther route, until Lee changed his mind.

“We can control contamination much better than a restaurant,” she told me. “You can’t eat with a mask on. In a salon, you can be one on one. You are not touching other clients in between. The stylist and the client can have a mask on when cutting or color is being applied.”

Her reopening plan is probably not unlike those of other hair shop owners:

“Our plan is to keep the door locked and allow only one person in per stylist,” she said. “Clients will wait in their cars, not the waiting area. Further, our front desk person will use an infrared thermometer to check temperatures before anyone is allowed inside. Sterilize each workspace, then change gloves and wash hands between clients. No magazines, no handing drinks out. Provide masks for those that do not have them.”

Sounds pretty safe to me. Safer, in fact, than Walmarts, price clubs, home improvement retailers and grocery stores across the country have been the entire course of this ridiculous lockdown. Our leaders, for some odd reason, have decided that it’s better to crowd everybody into a few specific locations rather than spread things out and trust informed, adult humans to be responsible. While they pay lip service to “science,” these morons refuse to listen to it when it gets in the way of their inane power trips.

The actual “science,” as Copenhagen Consensus Center president Bjorn Lomborg explains, tells us that the only thing forever lockdowns are efficient at is destroying economies. "You can't have a strong lockdown forever,” he said. “If you look at what most epidemiologists tell you to do, is to flatten the curve so that your health system can handle this and that's what Sweden has been doing."

Isn’t that what we were told in the beginning, before the goalposts moved? Despite near-universal world condemnation, Sweden did it, and they are now well on their way to the only thing that can ultimately stop this virus - herd immunity. They showed, conclusively, that the curve can be flattened with minimal impact to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary citizens. Salons and barbershops in many states across America are about to show it too, and it can’t come a moment too soon for a certain columnist in need of a serious haircut!

SOURCE 





Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce 'Unconstitutional' Stay-at-Home Orders

Governors across the nation have issued stay-at-home orders. Many have extended them once or twice. Some have even gone so far as to threaten to slap residents with fines. But what these governors are counting on is local police departments and sheriffs to enforce their orders. Sheriffs from around the country are standing up and refusing to enforce the orders because they believe them to be unconstitutional.

Two Arizona Sheriffs – Doug Schuster of Mohave County and Mark Lamb of Pinal County – said they will not enforce Gov. Doug Ducey's (R) stay-at-home order. Both Schuster and Lamb agreed to talk with residents about violating the governor's order but they would not arrest those who refuse to comply, Arizona Central reported.

Even though Mohave County is home to Lake Havasu City, one of the state's most popular tourist attractions, the sheriff believes people will be respectful of Ducey's orders.

“We’ll get compliance,” Schuster said. “These businesses are not looking to butt heads with law enforcement or the state.”

Sheriff Lamb, who has become a regular on A&E's "Live PD," said he never intended to make his "unspoken rule" known, but the governor's orders forced him to do so.

“I think people want to know that we’re going to support their constitutional rights,” Lamb said. “I felt (Ducey) pushed me into a position where I needed to make our stance clear.”

According to the Pinal County sheriff, the state's low number of Wuhan coronavirus deaths – 330 – no longer justified a stay-at-home order and keeping people from their livelihoods. He even went so far as to say he would join a lawsuit challenging Ducey's order.

“Three hundred deaths is not a significant enough number to continue to ruin the economy," Lamb said.

Schuster said if he received a complaint about a business, such as a restaurant being open, he would show up and encourage them to practice social distancing and other health care guidelines.

“Call me a coach,” he said. “We’re here to support you. We want to see businesses get back to normal as quickly as possible.”

Schuster said he has no desire to arrest people who are filling restaurant orders.

“My conscience will not allow me to arrest someone who is trying to make a living,” he said. “I don’t believe it is a crime to try and make a living.”

Two sheriffs in Washington State – Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney and Franklin County Sheriff J.D. Raymond – had similar sentiments.

Fortney took to Facebook to explain why he thought Gov. Jay Inslee's (D) orders were wrong.

"I am worried about the economy and I am worried about Washingtonian’s that need to make a living for their family. As more data floods in week by week and day by day about this pandemic I think it is clear that the 'models' have not been entirely accurate," he wrote in a post. "While that is okay, we cannot continue down the same path we have been on if the government reaction does not fit the data or even worse, the same government reaction makes our situation worse."

He went on to say he believed Inslee's orders violated the Constitution.

"As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion. We have the right to peaceably assemble," Fortney said. "We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to attend church service of any denomination. The impacts of COVID 19 no longer warrant the suspension of our constitutional rights."

Sheriff Raymond said he refuses to enforce Inslee's orders or "guidelines that infringe on your constitutional rights," KOMO-TV reported.

Raymond made the case that residents can be adults and care for themselves.

"I believe that social distancing and taking appropriate and proper steps to slow the spread of the virus and control its transmission is important," he wrote in a letter to his constituents.

Sheriffs across the nation are standing up against laws they believe are unconstitutional. It really is similar to sheriffs who are bucking gun control laws across the nation. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution and are doing everything in their power to preserve and protect their constituents' rights.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************