The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Ugliness, Mendacity and a Complete Lack of Restraint

The Democrat's trained hamsters in the media have begun clutching their pearls as the Trump campaign and other conservative voices suggest that Kamala Harris is not the "moderate" that the media narrative wants the public to believe, nor is she above criticism for her checkered political past. This morning, the NYT became concerned that "raw personal attacks" were already being leveled at Harris. 

But before the hamsters become too agitated, they might want to think back to their own behavior when another female VP candidate, Sarah Palin, threatened an election outcome that involved their chosen one, Barack Obama.

After describing a moderate and competent Governor Sarah Palin that his fellow Alaskans knew in 2008, John Davidson comments:

That was not the Sarah Palin the rest of the country would come to know, not because she went through a radical transformation—although she did play up her folksiness for a national audience—but because the corporate media, who saw in her a threat to the election of Barack Obama, decided to tear her apart, to destroy her politically, even if that meant destroying her personally.

What ensued was the greatest persecution of an American political figure in modern times. Palin, a mother of five who had recently given birth to a baby boy prenatally diagnosed with Downs Syndrome, became an object of hate for the media. Nothing has come close in its ugliness, its mendacity, its complete lack of restraint and, given Palin’s status as the second woman ever to appear on a major-party presidential ticket, the abject hypocrisy of a media establishment that purports to champion women’s rights and equality. 

I would argue that far too many Dems have learned to specialize in "ugliness, mendacity, and complete lack of restraint" during the Trump era, but that's beside the point.

It's perfectly acceptable to question a person's political positions and past actions and to do so harshly. But it's not okay to use vicious ad hominem attacks (e.g., like those used against Judge Brett Kavanaugh just a few short years ago). Democrats called Palin (according to a book by Mathew Continetti):

... ‘freak show,’ a ‘joke,’ an ‘extreme liability,’ a ‘turncoat b*tch,’ an ‘insult,’ a ‘fire-breather,’ ‘xenophobic,’ a ‘sitcom of a vice-presidential choice,’ a ‘disaster movie,’ a ‘shallow’ person, ‘chirpy,’ a ‘provincial,’ a ‘disgrace to women’ who was ‘as fake as they come,’ a ‘nauseating,’ ‘cocky wacko,’ a ‘jack in the box,’ ‘Napoleon in bunny boots,’ ‘extreme,’ ‘radical,’ a ‘vessel,’ a ‘farce,’ ‘Bush in drag,’ ‘not very bright,’ ‘utterly unqualified,’ a ‘bimbo,’ ‘Danielle Quayle,’ the ‘new spokesperson for bellicosity and confrontation,’ a ‘fatal cancer,’ ‘like a really bad Disney movie,’ ‘laughable,’ an ‘odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from Being There and Marge from Fargo,’ ‘dangerous,’ a ‘bully,’ the ‘biggest demagogue in America,’ the ‘Paleolithic Princess of Parsimonious Patriotism,’ the ‘anti-Wonder Woman,’ ‘judgmental’… ‘dictatorial’ with a ‘superior religious self-righteousness,’ a ‘racist’ who was ‘absurd,’ ‘scary,’ and a ‘token,’ a ‘bantamweight cheerleader,’ an ‘airhead,’ an ‘idiot,’ a ‘librarian in a porn film,’ a ‘Jesus freak,’ a ‘man with a vagina’… a ‘Drama Queen,’ a ‘Republican blow-up doll’ who ‘ideologically’ is ‘their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread,’ an ‘opportunistic anti-female,’ a ‘true Stepford candidate, a cyborg,’ a ‘quitter,’ and—this list is by no means exhaustive—a ‘bonbon.’

Oh yeah ... the hamsters also suggested that Palin's youngest son, who was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome, was not hers, but rather her daughter's love child. Tell me again about "ugliness" or for that matter, misogyny.

But all of that was okay, because ... Palin. Kamala Harris will be rightly characterized as a leftist* and she will be criticized on her positions and past actions, but somehow I doubt that she will be referred to by Republicans as "a bimbo," "a librarian in a porn film," [Biden] "in drag," or a "[Democrat] "blow up doll."

Of course, progressive Dems have two standards when considering what is harsh or inappropriate criticism. When a Democrat woman or man is the target, they demand "civility." But when it's a conservative woman or man who they despise or who threatens their narrative, absolutely anything goes. Even worse, they convince themselves that their "ugliness, mendacity, and complete lack of restraint" is somehow justified because they and they alone are on the side of the angels. To call them hypocrites is far too mild a term.

FOOTNOTE:

*  It could be argued, I suppose, that Harris is not an ideological leftist, but rather a typical power hungry politician who has shifted her positions to the left to mollify the Democratic Party's hard-left base. If she were to be elected and assumes the presidency, there's little doubt that she would govern in a way that satisfies people like socialist Bernie Sanders (a Biden king-maker) and members of The Squad.

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Kamala

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Joe Biden's team picked Kamala Harris as the Democrat's VP candidate. The editor's of the Wall Street Journal comment:

In choosing Kamala Harris as his running mate on Tuesday, Joe Biden checked the essential boxes his party had demanded—a woman, a minority, and a progressive who has moved left as the Democratic Party has ... 

Mr. Biden’s choice is especially important because he would be the oldest President on Inauguration Day at age 78. The actuarial tables and his declining mental acuity suggest he wouldn’t run for re-election, assuming he lasts a full term. Americans who have watched Mr. Biden on the campaign trail—and the way his advisers protect him from media questioning—are smart enough to know that in voting for Mr. Biden they’re also voting for his running mate as a likely President.

Ms. Harris is most appealing as an example of American upward mobility, especially for immigrants. Her father is a Jamaican-born Stanford economist. Her Indian-born mother was a breast cancer researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Even when the country was less racially tolerant than it is now, both parents had successful careers and were able to provide opportunities for their daughter even as they divorced. She made the most of them. Like Barack Obama, Ms. Harris’s success is a living refutation of the left’s critique of America as an oppressive, racist land.

For the past four years, the Democrat's have returned over and over to their go-to trope, derived from Critical Social Justice Theory—America is a "systemically racist" country that "oppresses" people of color. How then, do they explain Kamal Harris and her rise, despite what the Dems claim to be a society in which "white privilege" is a roadblock to people of color.  They might argue that it's only through the moral superiority of progressives that Harris rose and is now able to run as a VP candidate. But how then would they explain someone like Condolezza Rice, who arguably rose to a position that had far more influence and importance than VP. Oh well ... never mind.

Inevitably, Harris will be used as a political attack dog, given that Biden is struggling mentally and must be kept away from the media. That 's perfectly okay. Politics is hardball.

The problem is that when she is questioned on her positions or attacked on her policies, the Dems will use another go-to strategy that provides her with a protective force field. Anyone who dares question the VP candidate in anything but the most gentle terms will be characterized as a "racist" and/or a "misogynist." 

The Dems may not realize it, but in taking that defensive posture, they suggest that a competent and accomplished woman like Harris can't stand on her own but needs the protection of woke dictates that make her look vulnerable and weak. Makes you wonder who the real "racists" and "misogynists" are.

UPDATE - 1:

Less than 24 hours since the announcement, and it looks like the force field has already been switched on. Stephen Kruiser comments:

WaPo kicked it off last week with an Op-Ed titled, “Biden’s VP should be prepared for an onslaught of online misogyny unlike anything seen before.”

They followed that up this week with another Op-Ed that’s basically a primer on narrative crafting.

Expect an onslaught of this kind of stuff in the MSM now, especially with Harris on the ticket. As I said in my column, she is more than baggage-laden. She’s got a record that even the people on her side don’t like. The MSM is going to need a steady supply of distraction and deflection to keep people away from telling the truth about her.

We’ve seen this playbook in use a lot the last couple of years. Every time anyone takes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or a member of her Squad to task over anything, the MSM and their Dem overlords dismiss the criticism as an “attack on a woman of color.”

The interference the MSM runs for AOC is going to look calm and measured compared to how much they’re going to have to cut out of whole cloth to make Kamala Harris seem less awful to, well, almost everyone.

If Biden does manage to pull out a victory with Harris at his side it’s going to be because the MSM does most of the work. They’ll “interpret” his word salads for us, continue lie about Trump, and scream “MISOGYNY!” every time someone mentions that Kamala Harris is lacking in personality or that her record as a prosecutor is very different from what she’s portraying as.

Standard playbook.


Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Reynold's Law

It appears that the loose collection of marxist thugs that is often referred to as "antifa" have decided that rioting in cities controlled by Democrat mayors and city counsels just isn't rewarding enough. After all, where's the fun when at least some of those Democrat mayors and counsel members have expressed support for your "mostly peaceful protests." Antifa wants outrage to accompany the heartfelt expressions of virtue signaling that accompany vandalizing property, the ruination of small businesses, theft, violent attacks on bystanders who have the temerity to question their actions, and repeated attempts to burn down public buildings (police stations come to mind) with people inside them.

As a collection of self-described social justice warriors, antifa believes it's on the side of the angels, expressing moral outrage as the Democrats trained hamsters in the media do everything possible to avoid videos that show the leftists attacking old women and rioting. After all—they're "mostly peaceful," don't you know?"

So this pathetic collection of leftists has decided to move at least some of its operations to the suburbs—"NO JUSTICE ... NO PEACE!" has to apply in quiet suburbia as well as chaotic downtown Portland. After all, if you can terrorize soccer moms, you've won the revolution.

Let me digress for a moment and then return to a representative event in suburbia.

Glen Reynolds makes an interesting comment about the "defund the police" crowd. He observed that the police aren't there only to protect average citizens from thugs and criminals. Actually, they're also there to protect thugs and criminals from average citizens. We'll call this "Reynolds's Law."

When those same average citizens (Kurt Schlichter calls then "Normals") are threatened with violence or see their property destroyed or their peaceful existence violated, they become angry.  If the police are present, anger is all there is. But if the police are "abolished" or "defunded" and therefore nowhere to be seen, Normals will protect themselves. They'll form protective groups, arm themselves with weapons that range from baseball bats to AR-15s, and take matters into their own hands to protect their families, their neighborhoods, and their property against a threatening leftist mob. That's beginning to happen right now.

In Fort Collins, CO, a group of antifa thugs decided to invade a suburban neighborhood. No police were present, so Reynold's Law applied.  By appearances, the residents were a collection of blue collar and white collar people, determined residents who were pissed off and who ... what's the best way to describe this ... were not of the woke, progressive variety. There's a video at this link.

Things did not turn out well for antifa.

The goal of the hard-left and their cat's paw, antifa, is a "revolution." In their infantile worldview, a leftist/socialist utopia will be the result. The first step in their revolt is to be sure that the police are eliminated, that chaos reigns. Then the "transformation" (as Joe Biden's puppet masters put it) will begin.

Antifa and the left better be very careful what they wish for, because ... Reynold's Law.

UPDATE:

------------------------

The following tweet provides just one instance of trained hamsters in the main stream media—the once respected Washington Post, no less—overtly celebrating antifa. For the media, these "mostly peaceful" thugs are the height of hipster chic. Pathetic.


Pushback is coming.

Monday, August 10, 2020

Maybe

I have for many months now been using the phrase, "Pushback is coming," to emphasize the notion that "Normals" (i.e., millions upon millions of us who are not social justice warriors and are not conventionally 'woke') have observed the lunacy of the Left and rejected it out of hand. Normals are currently silent, but they will "protest" in their own way on November 3rd. 

Maybe it's cancel culture, as exemplified by the destruction of historical statues, the ignorant condemnation of historical figures like George Washington, or the firing of business or entertainment people who have said or done something that "offends" the woke, or

Maybe it's the "mostly peaceful" riots that have overtaken cities like Portland or Seattle with the acquiescence and sometimes support) of Democrat leftist city leaders, or

Maybe its the outright refusal of Democrat leaders to condemn the actions of Antifa extremists and BLM marxists are they pillage cities, or

Maybe it's the truly demented notion, proposed by far too many on the hard Left, that we disband or defund the police because... "black lives matter," or

Maybe its the disintegration of far too many blue cities where violence and decay have caused limousine liberals to flee but trap the middle class and poor in a nightmare environment, or

Maybe it's the continuing advocacy of a national shutdown, almost exclusively championed by Democrat leaders, that have damaged the lives and livelihoods of middle class and lower income workers while allowing woke tech employees to work at home in their pajamas, or

Maybe its the continuing advocacy of school closures, almost exclusively championed by Democrat leaders, as children sit at home learning little and suffering the adverse psychological effects of isolation, or

Maybe it's the mainstream media that has become so biased, dishonest, and extreme in its effort to defeat Donald Trump, using fear, uncertainty and doubt to sow hysteria among the general public.

Or maybe it's all of that and more.

Andrea Widburg writes:

One of the things that struck me today was how many stories involved people pushing back.  They're pushing back against the Black Lives Matter narrative, they're pushing back against cancel culture, and they're pushing back against the Wuhan virus lockdown.  In other words, after being beaten around the head for a few months, Americans are beginning to remember that they're a free people in a constitutionally run nation.  They're finally getting mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore ...

She provides multiple examples.

Even the new hard-left Democrats appear to be getting worried. They have championed unpopular ideas (e.g., school closures). Their internal polling must be indicating that the tide is turning. So now we have Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—once a strong advocate of keeping schools closed, saying: "If you don't open up the schools, you're going to hurt the economy because people can't go to work."

Duh, Chuckie, you've had an epiphany, huh?

For the point of view of us Normals, the Dems have been on the wrong side of a lot of important issues and ideas over the past 4 years. They revel in polls that indicate a return to power, refusing to recognize that the Normals remain silent.

Pushback is coming. There's no "maybe" about it.

Sunday, August 09, 2020

Berenson

There seems to be only one antidote to the mindless hysteria sown by the lies, distortions, and purposeful omissions of Team Apocalypse—Alex Berenson. In his best-selling e-book, Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns: Part 1 & Part 2 (available on Amazon, but only after pressure), Berenson does what few other journalists have done—he researches, he synthesizes, he reports unvarnished publicly available data and facts, he cites actual scientific research, he questions the strategies proposed by "experts,", he dissects the panicky decisions made by political leaders and public health experts, and he shows the absolute folly of our shutdown approach to SARS-Cov-2. 

But most importantly, he demonstrates the abject incompetence, bias, and dishonesty of a main stream media whose sole objective during these difficult times was to encourage fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the public to achieve political ends.

He begins by noting that the CDC had developed a scale for the severity of any pandemic similar to the five point scale used for hurricanes (another natural phenomenon). On the CDC scale, the conventional flu (killing 40,000 to 90,000 people each year) would be rated a level-1 event, and a catastrophic pandemic like the 1918 Spanish Flu (that killed 20 million people) would be rated a level-5 event. By the CDC's own metrics, SARS-Cov-2 is rated a level-2 event. The CDC further recommended (for many years before COVID-19) that no economic shutdowns or long-term school closures need be implemented for a level-2 pandemic. Why is it that not a single main stream media source mentions this scale or discusses why long-standing CDC recommendations were disregarded?

In part 2 of his book, Berenson begins by providing clear citations from major public health organizations (e.g., the CDC, WHO, The Institute of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University) that all concluded that large scale shutdowns are counter-productive and would not effectively stop the spread of a level-2 pandemic. He tries to understand why, despite the long-standing recommendations against a shutdown, that government shut down the economy in this case. He writes:

But the most likely explanation is the simplest. Faced with a risk of hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths [projected by flawed predictive models], the public health experts who for decades had counseled patience and caution flinched. They found they could not live with acknowledging how little control they or any of us had over the spread of an easily transmissible respiratory virus. They had to do something–even if they had been warning for decades that what they were about to do would not work and might have terrible secondary consequences.

The resultant decisions they made did more harm that good.  In conjunction with Team Apocalypse's propaganda campaign, the mandated shutdown heightened public hysteria. People panicked, and one of the results was this:

“In New York, emergency room visits for respiratory and flu-like symptoms rose from about 1,700 a day at the beginning of March to more than 4,000 by the middle of the month. Some people already had coronavirus or the flu. Others were simply afraid. For them, emergency rooms were an ideal ground to pick up or trade the virus. They also increased the risk of passing the virus to the physicians and medical staff who treat them–who in turn can spread it to patients who are already hospitalized.”

It gets worse: 

At the same time, lockdowns force people to stay inside. (Obviously. That’s the point of lockdowns.) Unfortunately, coronavirus spreads most efficiently inside, especially in households living in poorly ventilated apartments or small houses, their windows closed against winter cold or summer heat. On March 30, Dr. Mike Ryan, the Irish surgeon who leads the World Health Organization’s COVID containment and treatment program, warned at a WHO press conference: "At the moment, in most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the [virus] transmission that's actually happening in many countries now was is happening in the household at family level. In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushback into family units."

But, but, but, what about all the concern about keeping "non-essential" stores and restaurants closed?

The researchers—all public health experts—found that:

... 80 percent [of respiratory virus transmission] took place in homes or apartments. Another 34 percent occurred on public transportation (some outbreaks occurred in more than one place, or could not be placed at a single venue). All other venues, including stores and restaurants, accounted for less than 20 percent of infections combined. “Sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk,” the researchers wrote.

So by all means, keep people closeted in their small homes and apartments, where 80 percent of transmission happens. 

Clear and irrefutable evidence indicates that between 40 and  50 percent of all SARS-Cov-2 deaths occurred in nursing homes. The problem is that broad shut-downs do nothing to prevent that.

Long-term care facilities are uniquely vulnerable to the coronavirus because their patients are both medically fragile and live close together. Fewer than 0.5 percent of Americans live in nursing homes–fewer than 1 in 200 people. But in both the United States and Europe, nursing home residents have accounted for 40 to 50 percent of all Covid deaths, well over 100,000 in all.

As deaths attributed to COVID-19 started dropping precipitously in June and July, Team Apocalypse pivoted to "cases." Their intent, abetted by the Team's trained hamsters in the media, was to continue to encourage people to be afraid, very afraid. Of course, 50 percent of the "cases" exhibited no symptoms whatsoever and their transmissibility is in question. Ninety percent of the remaining cases exhibited symptoms that are no different than the common cold, requiring no professional medical care at all. Berenson notes:

Six months into the epidemic, the data are clear: the overall number of people infected with Sars-Cov-2 is less relevant to the number of people who die than which people are infected. Only when nursing home and hospital outbreaks burn out do deaths decrease.

It's reasonable to fear death, but it's a sign of hysteria when you live in fear of something that has a statistically tiny probability of leading to death.

But in places with Democratic or politically progressive leadership, Team Apocalypse has won. Many, locales continue to mandate masks outside—an insane and wholly ineffective dictate that is pure theater. Schools remain closed despite the clear evidence of the damage that closure does to children. Petty tyrants who run some cities and states, continue to keep places of worship closed, while punishing businesses for trying to reopen, and citing or arresting young people for gathering. The power to do these things must be intoxicating for Dem leaders, hence they're doing them—using "safety" as an excuse.As a consequence, an irrational fear continues to grip a significant percentage of the populace, stoked by non-stop media propaganda.

Berenson and others like him will ultimately prevail in getting the truth out, but not until catastrophic damage has been done to children, adults, and businesses of all kinds.

The Hippocratic oath warns "... first do no harm." I can only wish that our political leaders and health care experts had followed that advice. They. Did. Not.



Saturday, August 08, 2020

There's Still Time

There's still time. The Democrats need to consider the simple reality that Joe Biden's cognitive deficit is getting worse at an alarming rate. His recent interviews, as limited as they have been, indicate that the poor man is in trouble. 

When asked a question about relations with China, Biden responded:

“The way China will respond is when we gather the rest of the world that in fact [unintelligible] in in fr- in in in in open trade and making sure that we’re in a position that the world uh that that we deal with WHO the right way that in fact that’s when things begin to change.”

Re-read the response. It is a jumble of incoherent thoughts.

And then, as if the punctuate his cognitive deficit, Biden made a comments that, if made by any Republican, would have the main stream media screaming "racist" and demanding his withdrawal from the race:

"And by the way, what you all know, but most people don’t know, unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

Wow! That's not a gaffe, it's the sign that the man doesn't understand the subtle implications of his words.  The Dems need to replace Biden with a candidate for president who does not have a severe cognitive deficit. And they need to do it now. 

With the exception of when Biden is reading teleprompted remarks prepared by his staff, he has become nearly unintelligible. He exhibits all the signs of some form of senile dementia—the thousand mile, deer-in-headlights stare, the inability to string three coherent sentences together coupled with occasional moments of lucid thought, the bluster to cover his cognitive deficit, the sad struggle to process the meaning of a question and then respond with something that is even close to the topic at hand. 

I've seen all this before. My father lived for 13 years with Alzheimer's disease and had all of these symptoms. It's tragic.

Over the past four years, the Democrats have done some reprehensible things, all driven by their loss in 2016 and their absolute hatred of Donald Trump. They have all but accused an elected president of treason and initiated a 2-year investigation that came up with nothing, they tried (in the case of Brett Kavanaugh) to destroy the reputation of a respected judge by relying on a concocted accusation that was completely evidence-free, they initiated a 'soft coup' that is only now coming to light, they impeached a sitting president over a telephone call.

But as vicious and dishonest as all of that was, it can, I suppose, be attributed to political hardball utilized in their unrelenting quest for power.

But BIden is another matter entirely. A major political party cannot—should not—put a cognitively disabled person in position to be elected President of the United States. Do they hate their own country so much that they're willing to risk major decisions to a man who cannot understand the issues and think clearly? Or maybe, they see Biden as a "moderate" vessel that will allow them to sail to victory in November, only to be replaced by a hard-left vice president within a few months of the election. The underlying reasons don't really matter.

Yes ... the Dems have done reprehensible things over the past four years. But running Biden is the most reprehensible of all— not because Biden is a bad guy—he isn't, even though I often disagreed with the politics he espoused back when he thought clearly—but because no responsible political party would do this. It is yet another reason that the Democrats do not deserve to lead.

Friday, August 07, 2020

Virus Gonna Virus

The SARS-Cov-2 virus is a malevolent force of nature and like tsunamis, hurricanes, dust storms, and other natural phenomenon—it cannot be easily stopped. All we can do is recognize the potential danger these phenomenon pose and accept the fact that they are unstoppable. To paraphrase one of the few honest and informative journalists on SARS-Cov-2, Alex Berenson, "Virus gonna virus."

The impact of SARS-Cov-2 on humans can and has been measured in detail. We understand what demographic groups are most vulnerable  (those 70+ years old with pre-existing conditions) and which groups are relatively safe (those between birth and 40 years old). We recognize that the likelihood of a child dying from the virus is about 1 in a million. Yet despite the fact that COVID-19 is a respiratory ailment that is only somewhat worse than the common flu, Team Apocalypse has succeeded in creating hysteria across the land, leading to ineffective and often counterproductive measures to combat the virus.

Christopher Roach comments further:
Shutdowns and masks are brute force measures of dubious utility. So far, they either have not worked or their benefits dissipate as soon as life returns to normal. It appears the virus has its own agenda, and the stoic approach of herd immunity, which does much to keep the flu and other diseases from becoming ravaging pandemics, has been set aside. 

Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta appears eminently more sensible and balanced than many of her colleagues. She is a prominent lockdown skeptic and says in this excellent interview,

... the only way we can reduce the risk to the vulnerable people in the population is, for those of us who are able to acquire herd immunity, to do that. Even if there is a little bit of a risk. I’m 55 years old, there’s some slight risk out there. But I would be willing to take that, just as I do with the flu. There’s a risk I might die of flu, but I’m willing to take that risk, because I know that if I don’t then flu will appear as it did before, it will enter the population of immunologically naive individuals, and then there will be a high risk of infection which will have a disproportionate effect on the vulnerable sector of the population. . . . Flu is clearly a very dangerous virus, but the reason we don’t see more deaths from flu every year is because, through herd immunity, the levels of infection are kept to as low a level as we can get.

While the coronavirus mitigation measures are sometimes framed as pitting the economy against lives or greed versus compassion, Gupta makes the useful point that there is a terrible moral and social cost that comes with many of these measures. They encourage people to be afraid of others, avoid human connection, and willingly confine the most vulnerable to grinding poverty. 

Admitting that we may simply be required to accept the inevitable and manage a difficult situation is counter to the assumption of modern medicine that the world and death itself can be fully conquered through science.
Because they have been the strongest proponents of a national shutdown, prominent political leaders in the Democratic party need to step forward and paraphrase President Franklin D. Roosevelt, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Instead, the Dems and their trained hamsters in the media sow fear, uncertainty and doubt among the public, hoping that the virus can be used as a lever to win the November election. The damage they are doing to all of us—children, adults, businesses, the economy, cities, states, and the nation as a whole—is incalculable.

I suppose it could be argued that this catastrophic damage might be worth it if the public health measures proposed by Team Apocalypse worked. But they do not.

Roach writes:
The recent resurgence of the coronavirus in California, as well as in Spain and Japan, is happening in spite of long and rigorous lockdowns and widespread masking. Even if these measures were fully successful, it’s not clear they can ever be lifted in a way that didn’t lead to the virus resuming its course. Moreover, by preventing the acquisition of herd immunity, these measures seed the conditions for a truly devastating pandemic in the process, including from other diseases. Our approach is analogous to the outdated policy of aggressively fighting small forest fires, which seems logical enough, but creates the fuel for larger and more devastating conflagrations in the future.
We have to have the courage to accept the presence of COVID-19 and live our lives, not hide behind masks or shelter in place.. The virus is gonna virus. Humans just gotta be brave and return to school, to work, to life. But will we?

UPDATE:
------------------
Lionel Schriver writes about the U.K's experience with COVID-19:
There’s nothing unprecedented about COVID-19 itself. The equally novel, equally infectious Asian flu of 1957 had commensurate fatalities in Britain: scaled up for today’s population, the equivalent of 42,000, while the UK’s (statistically flawed) COVID death total now stands at 46,000. Globally, the Asian flu was vastly more lethal, causing between two and four million deaths. The Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 also slew up to four million people worldwide, including 80,000 Britons. Yet in both instances, life went on.

What is unprecedented: never has a virus been so oversold. Why, I’d like to sign on with COVID’s agent. What a publicity budget.

In a recent Kekst CNC poll, British respondents estimated that nearly 7 percent of the UK population has died from the coronavirus. That would be 4.5 million people. Scots supposed that more than 10 percent of the UK population has died. That would be seven million people. Astonishingly, Americans believed that COVID has killed nine percent of their compatriots, or almost 30 million people! 

... [t]rue, your average everyman and woman are not dab hands at statistics. Nevertheless, broadcast news has bludgeoned audiences daily with COVID death totals. 
And before you argue that the U.K is different than the U.S., recognize that the CDC estimates that the 1968 H1N1 flu killed about 100,000 people in the U.S, not all that much different than the 160,000 killed by CIOVID-19, particularly since death counts have become politicized and are therefore inaccurate (and always err on the high side).

So the next time you hear a catastrophist argue that COVID-19 is much, much, much worse than the conventional flu or other pandemics over the last 50 years, recognize that reality says otherwise.

And when the same catastrophist argues, "... but, but, but look how many 'cases' we have!!" Ask him or her whether you have a 'case' of the the common cold if you're not sneezing, not coughing, have no runny nose, no fever, and no aches and pains—NOTHING, but you've run a test that shows trace amounts of the virus. The majority of the COVID-19 case are analogous—they are asymptomatic.