| Letters
to the editor from this week's Chronicle
Dear Editor, Lately there has been an increase in disregard for covid guidelines...from the government officials who made them. On November 6, the governor of California ate with eleven other people at The French Laundry restaurant. Apparently, no one in the group wore masks or social distanced, yet according to the California Department of Public Health: "People in California must wear face coverings when they are...In any room or enclosed area where other people (except for members of the person’s own household or residence) are present when unable to physically distance." The very next day, the mayor of San Francisco dined at the same restaurant with a group of seven others. This may not have violated any rules in Yountville at the time, but it seems it would have violated at least one or more rule which the mayor had herself imposed on her own city. (later, on November 10, the mayor ordered the suspension of all indoor dining in San Francisco). Also of note are the mayor of San Jose (purportedly violated California's Thanksgiving guidelines) the mayor of Denver (advised residents to avoid travel if possible, then took a flight to Mississippi) and the Republican and Democratic parties' post election dinners (though these were apparently changed to takeout only). "I'm sorry" isn't enough coming from people in these positions. These are people who have wielded tremendous power over past months. They must either retract the directives they have violated, or receive whatever consequences apply. A church in San Jose is facing $350,000 in fines for exceeding the arbitrary seating limit placed on it by the county...as mentioned above, the mayor of San Jose also committed a violation. But it must be okay, because, well, he said he would "commit to do better". If covid is the sort of threat these leaders make it out to be, then they must removed from office because, playing by their own rules, we can't afford leaders who make these mistakes. If covid is not the threat these same officials say it is, then either they have been duped, or they are liars, abusing the powers granted them to harass the people. In any case, it seems some of us must find new leaders. Isaiah Williams Cottonwood To the editor, Although it is a denial of the science on the subject, we continue to be bombarded with assurances that masks will help stop the spread of SARS CoV 2. Once again, science says otherwise. In a paper published on MedRxiv dated April 2020, researchers announced “we do not consider that the balance of evidence across all available studies supports routine and widespread use of face-masks in the community” (“Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19: a rapid systematic review”). As mentioned in previous letters, this is old news. For instance, a 2016 Lancet study (revised 2017) found that “face masks provided a non-significant protective effect against 2009 pandemic influenza infection” (“Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis”). A 2009 Japanese study concluded that “face mask use in healthcare workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds” (“Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among healthcare workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial”). N95 respirators fared no better than common surgical or medical masks in a 2019 randomized clinical trial published by the American Medical Association. The study concluded, “among outpatient healthcare personnel, N95 respirators versus medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.” These findings were affirmed by a systematic review and meta-analysis from West China Hospital of Sichuan University published February 2020: “the use of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for [the] general public.” If a person wishes to wear a mask they should do so. However, let’s stop the nonsense of suggesting the science supports masking as a means of mitigating the spread of SARS CoV 2. D. Eric Williams Cottonwood
No. 294 - 12/14/2020 Wow! What to believe! These are indeed confusing times, and for young and old today, what to believe is a problem! The news today is not good when viewed through the eyes of an 80+ person who has been studying economics and history now for over 60 years! So which are the more credible stories being peddled lately? One side agrees with the Associated Press claim that the November election "Is the most accurate and fair election IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY!" I capitalize because in essence that is what I read in daily papers lately, not just once, but twice, and claimed again in different words! The other side hears the internet buzzing with videos and claims that fraud in four critical states have stolen the election. I hear that votes in some cases exceeds the number of registered voters. Then there is the issue of the Dominion voting machine which is claimed can switch votes from one candidate to the other. Interesting it is, that one of those machines used in Georgia has now fallen into the hands of the Trump team claiming fraud of all kinds. Mail in votes after the polls closed election night, favored Biden in unrealistic numbers, or had only his name on the ballot. Trashed ballots found in waste baskets, ballots which came in after the deadline, or violated the rules required. Dead people voting! Enough to make a person's head swim! In the opinion of this writer the charges of fraud are legitimate! For several reasons. One is the vote change over night from a Trump lead to Biden's made no sense to me. Also, it is hard to believe that Biden could attract over 10 million more votes than Hillary and her political machine mustered back in 2016. His rallies were poorly attended, his background cluttered with charges relating to his son Hunter, his close relationship with socialism, his choice of vice president, his unpopular continued calls for mask wearing and lockdowns to me were out of step with the typical voter in this country. But of course, making his win more believable is the fact that close to 90% of today's news media, and college professors for some reason, are solidly behind the socialist band wagon! It makes no sense, that such a large percentage of those individuals could really fall for the failed system of socialism that history records in its pages, and is so visibly present south of our border today in Venezuela. With these things in mind, it is my intent to go back and review earlier topics discussed here at length, and which might shed additional light on the crazy direction we find our country in today. In July, 2015, in RNR #14, the predictions of Frederik Bastiat in his book, THE LAW, were treated in detail. In simple and easy to understand logic, Bastiat argues that LEGAL PLUNDER once started by governments, will eventually lead to the collapse of the country resorting to it. His claim that a person who takes from another by force if necessary, any thing some one else owns, is guilty of theft, something which cannot be allowed. But if government does the same, that is takes by force something that is owned by one person, then gives it to another, this theft, or PLUNDER, Bastiat calls it, becomes LEGAL, only because government is doing it. Far back in time, Bastiat saw some traces of this legal plunder already beginning in early America, and argued that once started it would become more and more of a problem, eventually leading to the collapse of any country resorting to it. In the beginning he argues, a little is taken by force, taxes, from many people, then is given to a few selected to receive it. Hardly noticed! Eventually however, the "plundered" will demand that they too should receive part of the "plunder," so that eventually, the ones who benefit grow in numbers, while those "plundered" must demand their share just to survive. Finally, the country resorting to it must borrow on the future to satisfy everyone, and in so doing, signs its own death warrant! Do we see this happening today, and is it in some way part of the problem perhaps made worse by the recent election outcome? Jake Wren |
|