Thursday, May 07, 2020


Rural Oregon Sheriff Announces County Businesses Will Reopen. His Statement is Glorious

On Monday, the Sheriff of Crook County, Oregon, John Gautney, issued a statement that went viral for all the right reasons. In announcing that the county was ready to get back to work, he said that the sheriff’s office would not cite businesses that chose to reopen. Sheriff Gautney said that it didn’t make sense for small businesses to remain closed when large retailers could continue to operate with proper safety measures in place. He noted that Crook County has had a grand total of one case of CCP coronavirus, and that it was time to get back to work.

Gautney also pointed out that Crook County was forced to release some prisoners from jail in response to pressure from special interest groups. Citing the U.S. Constitution, he said it is time to unite, use common sense, and let small businesses reopen.

Here’s the full statement, posted to Facebook:

May 4, 2020

The last many weeks have been a very difficult time for all of us. The unknown has created fear in many people to the point that it has been crippling to our economy. Crook County has been very good at maintaining our ability to function, in the most part, by doing what we have always done; using our common sense. There have been many businesses in our community that have been terribly harmed by the closing of the businesses by the State. In some of the more populated areas of Oregon, that might be needed, but not in Crook County. We have had one COVID case since this event started, and that was weeks ago, with no new cases since. As a rural county of Oregon we have been able to take care of ourselves and our families for years, and that is no different today.

I don’t want to see more families hurt by this virus, and it is terrible what families that have lost a loved one have gone through. My heart goes out to them. I, in no way want to lessen the importance of their loss.

I know that recently there has been criticism of the local government officials for not doing anything to get the county back open. I have been here almost every day since this crisis started and I can tell you that the county government is working daily to try and get the economy moving again. It is not always visible to the general public because it is going on behind the scenes. Judge Crawford, Commissioners Brummer and Barney have been constantly meeting with the Governor’s Office along with our County Health Director putting together a plan to move us forward.

Regarding the Sheriff’s Office, we had immediately taken measures to protect the county from lawsuits from special interest groups in regard to inmate safety because of this virus. In doing so we reduced the number of inmates in cooperation with local law enforcement, the Courts and our Community Corrections Division. We are currently in a very good position to protect our inmates and staff by implementing restrictions during the booking process. Our medical staff is constantly observing and taking any action necessary should anyone show indications of an illness. Our Patrol Division is continuing to patrol the county and answer your calls for service while practicing protocols that will protect themselves as well as the public. Our Community Corrections Division is continuing to monitor their clients and hold them accountable as needed.

Many are concerned that law enforcement will arrest anyone who violates the stay home order. That is simply not true for the Crook County Sheriff’s Office. As we have seen released in the media more than once, that Oregon law enforcement’s role in this is that of EDUCATION if they see violations. The enforcement role falls to the organization that issues licenses for that particular business. If a business decides to open, that is a decision the business owner makes. If customers choose to shop with that business that is that person’s choice. We are a free society and able to make decisions based on common sense. I see large businesses open every day with lots of customers and they are using safety precautions if they choose. The point is they have the right to choose. If the large stores can accommodate the large number of customers and operate effectively, why are we not letting the small business operate under the same guidelines?

I know this is going to draw disapproval by some, and that is ok. That is their right to do so. That is what our country is based on. If you are elderly and have underlying medical issues, then by all means stay home, IF YOU CHOOSE to do so.

I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Oregon and the laws thereof. I also try to apply common sense in the application of those laws.

Keeping this in mind, and after consultation with my staff, effective May 5, 2020, the Crook County Sheriff’s Office will be open for regular business, with some restrictions in place so that we may serve all citizens that need our services. New Concealed Handgun License (CHL) applicants will be able to resume with the application process. If you are on our waitlist, our office staff will be contacting you to make an appointment. CHL renewals will continue to be done by mail until our backlog is caught up.

With this change in our operation we do ask your cooperation for the time being. Please respect other’s by only two people in our lobby at a time. If you are sick with any illness, please reschedule your appointment until you are well. This is to protect my staff so they can continue to remain open and serve you.

Due to the close environment of the jail facility and the need to protect our persons in custody, as well as our staff, restrictions will remain in place for the immediate future.

As I have always said, if you have questions about the Crook County Sheriff’s Office, or of me as your Sheriff, please contact my office and arrange a time that we can meet. To this date since this crisis began, I have only have one person from the community call and asked to meet with me over the issues that we are facing.

Going forward I ask that you please allow the county officials to work to get Crook County up and running again. We can make this happen by all working together. If we are not united, then we are divided and that cannot be good for our economy or our lives.

Sheriff John Gautney

SOURCE 






IL: Church continues to exercise constitutionally protected rights of worship and assembly in defiance of Pritzker’s diktat

An Illinois church on Sunday defied Governor J.B. Pritzker's extended stay-at-home order by holding services, days after it filed a federal lawsuit contesting the governor's executive actions to limit the coronavirus' spread.

The Beloved Church of Lena in Stephenson County, which has a roughly 80-person congregation, held services beginning in the morning, according to local media outlets. Since Pritzker's stay-at-home order went into effect on March 21, Pastor Stephen Cassell has flouted its ban on public gatherings and continued to hold meetings for worship, Bible study and prayer. The state has issued the Beloved Church of Lena with "cease-and-desist" orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic to stop it from putting people in harm's way.

The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based conservative law firm, filed a federal lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Rockford on behalf of the church on Thursday contesting the stay-at-home order.

In the suit, Cassell and the firm alleged that Pritzer's orders were discriminatory against those practicing religion and "intentionally denigrated Illinois churches and pastors and people of faith by relegating them to second-class citizenship."

Pritzker, the Stephenson County Sheriff, the region's Department of Public Health administrator, and the Village of Lena's Chief of Police were named as defendants in the suit.

The governor has ordered churches to either cancel their services or conduct them online, as the state battles with containing the coronavirus outbreak through the stay-at-home measure and various other mitigation methods.

Ben Jacobi, an attorney representing Sheriff David Snyders and the County Health Department, told Newsweek that "the court denied the Church's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" on Saturday night and "issued a thorough legal opinion explaining its decision" on Sunday.

"Stephenson County Sheriff Snyders and County Health Department Administrator Beintema are happy that the court rejected the injunction requested against them, and will consider their options after further digesting the court's analysis," Jacobi added.

Middle Georgia Churches Remain Closed Despite Governor's Reopening of StateREAD MORE

After filing the suit, the Beloved Church on Thursday announced the Sunday service in a Facebook post. It "is going to be another epic one!" the church wrote. "The momentum of the victory we are getting over fear and anything else that has tried pulling us down is as fervent as ever! Can't wait for service with you, Beloved!"

Thomas Ciesielka, a spokesperson for the Thomas More Society, said 60 to 80 people attended the service Sunday and described it as "uneventful," according to the Chicago Tribune. Sunday's service had "about the same number for average attendance," he said, noting that social distancing was maintained at the event and attendees were provided hand sanitizer. Police did not break up the service and no action has been taken against the church for their defiance of the stay-at-home order at the time of publication.

On the same day the lawsuit was filed, Pritzker modified his stay-at-home order to list the exercise of religion as an essential activity for which leaving the house is permitted. However in the new order, which went into effect on Friday and continues through May 30, all religious gatherings are still only allowed if they are of 10 people or less, and those in attendance can comply with social distancing.

"Religious organizations and houses of worship are encouraged to use online or drive-in services to protect the health and safety of their congregants," the order said.

SOURCE 





Politicians Have Destroyed Markets and Ignored Human Rights with Alarming Enthusiasm

An economic cataclysm has been unleashed upon the world by Western politicians and bureaucrats. Unbelievably, economic activity in the West has slowed to a creep, as entire populations have been confined to their homes for weeks, if not months. As a result, millions have had their lives turned upside down. Most entrepreneurs and self-employed persons have had their livelihoods jeopardized.

The EU economy may shrink by 5 percent according to the European Central Bank (ECB), and similar figures have been forecast for the US. The economic devastation wrecked upon Western economies by governments will have consequences for many years to come. It will inevitably lower European and US citizens' quality of life for a long time, impacting their health as well.

It is important to understand that this disaster is not the result of the coronavirus pandemic, which is a public health problem, but of overzealous government officials reacting to the pandemic. A growing number of researchers and health professionals are suggesting that the total number of cases is far higher than previously thought, which means that COVID-19 is far less deadly than the media and government advisors insist. If correct, these revised death rates put COVID-19 in many places at a case fatality rate similar to that of the flu, which kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year globally, without provoking any notably large political reaction.

This raises a question: Why the enormous and extreme reactions to the virus from Western politicians, bringing the entire economy to its knees and severely curtailing the fundamental individual freedoms of millions of citizens? Of course, there is the usual incompetence and herd behavior in the political leadership of many countries to be reckoned with. But other reasons exist for this disastrous and irresponsible behavior. Here are some.

First, politicians have generally little understanding of how markets work. Steeped in administrative and policy thinking, most politicians have never worked in the private sector or studied market economics. They neither understand nor appreciate the complexity of markets which make our high standard of living possible. This complexity includes an unfathomable number of daily exchanges, myriad commercial relations, and never-ending adaptation to surrounding conditions. The logic of politics, however, dictates that politicians cannot be seen as "doing nothing," so they seek always intervention in markets. This is not new; it has always been a typical trait of politicians and bureaucrats. The political reactions to the coronavirus pandemic have just dramatically confirmed this truth yet again.

Secondly, politicians naturally make political calculations. Having reelection constantly in mind, they do not want to be held responsible for anything that goes wrong. In a crisis, they always prefer to act than not to act—all else being equal, to show that they tried something. At least then—in their minds—they cannot be accused of idleness, negligence, shortsightedness, or callousness. However deleterious their actions, politicians generally are not held accountable and can present themselves as heroically standing firm in dangerous times, acting forcefully and with determination. President Roosevelt's harmful economic policies during the Great Depression and World War II are an example of this.

Thirdly, politicians sometimes rely too much on scientists, who generally have no training in social matters at all. Even more so than politicians, scientists often have great difficulty in grasping the concept of the spontaneous order of the market, not surprising given that they are followers of the rigorous scientific process. Albert Einstein's frankly embarrassing economic proposals are a famous example. Whereas the politician is at least fully aware of the subtle gray shades in policymaking and the fine balancing act of satisfying various stakeholders, the scientist generally means well but sees the world in black and white.

Thus, if a scientist is asked how to stop the spread of a pandemic, he or she would probably answer that the best and most efficient way is to order the strict confinement of the entire population to their homes for weeks. This is what the France's influential "Conseil Scientifique" has recommended, and it may well be true from a purely scientific point of view (although that is open to debate now). The problem arises when politicians enthusiastically follow such opinions without considering them in the light of their political and economic consequences. The first two reasons mentioned above may explain why politicians tend to place excessive trust in scientists: politicians are not familiar enough with market economics to fully grasp the consequences of acting on purely scientific advice, and it may be in their interest to act on such advice, since to do something—anything—is key.

A fourth reason why politicians have acted so recklessly to counter the spread of COVID-19 is certainly the political pressure that they are under. In times of (perceived) crisis, they are looked up to for guidance, if not for orders to follow, by an unwitting and politically uneducated electorate. But the pressure comes not only from the people, which perhaps is normal in a democracy, but also from foreign politicians. No leader wants to be outdone by his foreign colleagues and be left with the weakest plan to address the crisis. In this case, the UK's Boris Johnson reversed his policies, and Sweden's Stefan Löfvén has been slowly bowing to precisely this external pressure to act.

But the strongest pressure on governments probably comes from the media, in particular in the current times of pervasive internet and social media. Politicians are now constantly scrutinized and held responsible in a way that just a generation ago they were not. Further, mass media is prone to dramatize and exaggerate events, as this makes for better ratings, but also because journalists are not virologists. Mainstream media often tends to misinterpret and simplify the facts, inadvertently or not. An example of this is the mortality rate of COVID-19, which is constantly reported to be much higher than it is, because only declared cases are used (case fatality rate (CFR)). More generally, the prevailing attitude from the media is that everything must be done to save a small minority of the entire population today, even if that comes at the price of future economic pain for tens of millions of people. This is the classic socialist and interventionist dilemma: Where does it stop? In a world of scarce resources, how much taxpayer money should the state spend to save one life?

Finally, it is necessary to entertain a darker and more cynical explanation for the political reaction to the pandemic: power in a time of crisis. The state never misses a chance to increase its power. Crises are considered great political opportunities, and have thus been used countless times in history by rulers. This was the case during and after World War I and World War II, as well as after 9/11, with the passage in Congress of the PATRIOT Act (Providing Appropriate Tools to Restrict, Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act). But this is also true of smaller crises, such as the current panic. The economic stimulus packages that are now being proposed will again benefit corporatist bankers, as happened during the financial crisis. This is why the big banks have been the first to call for and cheer more "economic stimulus." They stand to immediately benefit from such "government aid."

That most Western governments have now decided to emulate the Chinese dictatorship in imposing a severe lockdown of society should be a wake-up call for those innocent souls who still think, even after the show trial of Julian Assange, that the West still protects individual freedom. A dangerous and frightening political evolution is on the way in an already fragile political and economic system. The political consequences of the generalized confinement of millions of people in Europe will be of long-lasting consequence to the balance of power between state and society. Though the Western "liberal democratic" order was never really one except in name, it is clear that a decisive step has now been taken away from it.

This politically triggered economic crisis could then also lead, hopefully, to a clearer understanding among the population that constitutional changes are due in many countries, in order to limit the powers of executive branches everywhere. Let us hope that this will be the lesson learned by the millions confined to their homes by the arbitrary will of the state.

SOURCE 





Coronavirus: Old or young – every life has a different value and we accept that

Comment from Australia

When the pandemic has passed, there will need to be a reckoning of responses by state and federal governments. The reckoning should focus in particular on the costs incurred and the benefits accrued from the Morrison government’s decisions, how and when they responded to the health crisis, the costs of lockdown, and when and how they unlocked the economy.

This reckoning should not be downplayed as negative or unfair criticism of governments forced to fly in the dark, hampered by ­incomplete modelling, hamstrung by medical experts who are all trained, and paid, to expect the worst, and hindered by their political aversion to risk.

This should be about constructive learning, gathering information, comparing real outcomes to the modelling and the experts’ advice, and doing a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of responses. We might learn we need a precautionary principle to the precautionary principle because overreactions are not usually cost-free.

But a few straw men must be dismantled first. Some say we should put people ahead of economics. Scott Morrison says every Australian matters. Some say it is wrong to ignore the old.

If only dealing with COVID-19, not to mention settling on many other policies, were that simple.

Choices we make are never ­between a person, or people generally, and the economy. As rich and fortunate as we are, the starting point in Australia is still that resources are limited. That is the case whether we are talking about taxpayer dollars in federal coffers used by government for the people, the supply of livers, hearts and lungs for patients on a transplant list, or the availability of ventilators to coronavirus victims. When resources are limited, they must be rationed.

Governments and policymakers are confronted by tough questions every day about where to spend money. Safer roads will mean money taken from some other area. More money put into prostate cancer for men may mean less money for breast cancer. This is the reality that confounds those who say that we must put people ahead of economics.

No one is saying we should ignore the old either. However, the doctors I have spoken to, many who have worked for more than 30 years in Australia’s best teaching hospitals, acknowledge they make decisions every week about older patients that they don’t have to make about younger ones. Age, unfortunately, is inevitably a determinant in health decisions. As one senior anaesthetist told me last weekend: “These decisions are often shrouded in secrecy, but we don’t have unlimited resources to treat everyone to the maximum.”

The committed Catholic accepts that sometimes he has to make difficult decisions. This is not something he or his colleagues are comfortable with. But reality cannot be wished away by saying that all lives matter. They do. Life is precious. But no life is priceless. Lives are priceless only in a fictional place called La La Land where resources are infinite.

Another doctor pointed to the decision-making infrastructure purposely built to determine who gets a set of lungs or a heart transplant. These are dreadfully difficult decisions about who will live and who might die, given the demand for organ transplants exceeds supply. And when allocating scarce resources, the age of a ­patient is relevant because doctors are asked, among many other things, to decide who will get more years of life from a new set of lungs or a new heart.

Measuring the responses to COVID-19 raises similarly confronting issues that many prefer not to think about. Obscuring the difficulty of these issues with simplistic sound bites such as putting ­people ahead of the economy is unhelpful at best and dishonest at worst.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet already has a document that many will find confronting. It is called the Best Practice Regulation Guidance Note: Value of Statistical Life. The note “provides guidance on how officers preparing the cost-benefit analysis in regulation impact statements should treat the benefits of regulation designed to reduce the risk of physical harm”.

The concept of “the value of statistical life” is an estimate of the value society places on reducing the risk of dying. The modelling starts with a young adult with 40 years of life ahead and uses a related concept called the “value of a statistical life year”, which is an estimate of the worth society places on a year of life. Drawing on research in 2007, and updating in 2019 dollars, the August 2019 Guidance Note suggests the value of saving the life of someone who has 40 years of life ahead is $4.9m, and a value of a statistical life year is $213,000.

The note draws on work that argues these estimates will vary according to the characteristics of people affected and the nature of the risk or hazard: “For example, society may be willing to forgo more to prevent the death of a young person, or to avoid conditions that significantly reduce the quality of life.”

The point of the Guidance Note is to make clear that these key concepts, though highly contestable, should be one input into assessing proposed regulations. In other words, comparing the statistical value of lives saved and the costs of implementing the regulation. Given that decisions to deal with COVID-19 needed to be made quickly, the Prime Minister granted an exemption from the usual regulatory impact statement and this kind of analysis. But after the pandemic has passed, we need a hard-headed and rational analysis of the responses to COVID-19. Indeed, the Morrison government has already committed to a post-implementation review within two years to assess its decisions.

It will have to include many tricky and tough questions. How many lives were saved? What was the average age of death from COVID-19 (not with COVID-19) compared with the average mortality rate in normal periods? How did deaths from COVID-19 compare with an awful flu season that kills young people too? How many people died from other medical conditions that were not treated because of the lockdown? How many additional suicides or cases of domestic violence were caused by the lockdown? Did more children drop out of school when schools were closed?

How much money did governments spend dealing with COVID-19 and how many businesses were brought asunder by the lockdown?

What other financial impacts arose from locking down the economy?

Could older Australians, who are most vulnerable to COVID-19, have been protected with different responses that carried fewer costs? In other words, could we have handled this crisis differently?

Only by providing answers to very tough questions will future governments have more complete information at their fingertips the next time a pandemic threatens.

This is not an immoral endeavour. It is not even a utilitarian one. It is simply one driven by realism and honesty about the imperfect world in which we live. The worst outcome would be to blindly ­assume that governments performed so terrifically that an investigation into this pandemic, not just its origins, but its handling by governments, is not needed.

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

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

No comments: