More than 100 people attend ‘Back the Blue’ rally and march in Thousand
Mike Harris Ventura County Star
Published 4:30 p.m. PT Aug. 29, 2020 Updated 8:15 p.m. PT Aug. 30, 2020
More than 100 people demonstrated in support of law enforcement at a “Back the Blue” rally and march in Thousand Oaks on Saturday.
“We’re here to protest the villainization of our courageous men and women in blue and the effort across the nation to defund their departments,” Gina Libby, one of the organizers of the event at Oakbrook Neighborhood Park, told the crowd.
“We’re demonstrating our gratitude and support for law enforcement,” she said.
In the wake of the death of George Floyd, a Black man, while in custody of Minneapolis police in May, Black Lives Matter and other activist groups have pushed to defund police departments across the nation.
None of Ventura County’s police agencies, however, including the Thousand Oaks Police Department, have had any such funding reductions.
Attendees at Saturday’s rally held “Blue Lives Matter” and “Back the Blue” signs, waved American flags and displayed “Trump 2020” banners as they listened to speakers. “God Bless America” played in the background at one point.
Many cars honked their horns in support of the demonstrators. Most attendees didn’t wear masks.
Matthew Wiers, 59, came to the rally from Simi Valley.
“I want to support the police,” he said, holding a sign that read “Honk Support for Law Enforcement.”
“Defunding the police is a ludicrous idea,” said Wiers, a statistics lecturer. “There’s a lot of crime out there and the police are the ones who protect us from that crime
and keep us safe. How can you be against that?”
Nancy Van Dolkinburg, 59, of Thousand Oaks, also thinks cuts to police budgets isn’t the right approach.
“I’m not in favor of defunding them,” said Van Dolkinburg, who works part time in real estate. “If anything, I think they need more money.”
“I believe there are bad apples in every profession,” she added. “So yes, we do need to do something about reform. But defunding the police is not the solution.”
A number of candidates for office in November’s election also addressed the crowd, including Kevin McNamee, who is running for the Thousand Oaks City Council, and Conejo Valley Unified School District Trustee Sandee Everett, who is running for re-election.
The demonstrators later marched a short distance from the park to the corner of Erbes Road and Avenida de Los Arboles, where they waved pro-law enforcement signs and American flags at passing cars.
“Honk support for law enforcement,” Libby yelled.
Many cars did.
Mike Harris covers the East County cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, as well as
transportation countywide. You can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or 805-437-0323.
SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM and get all the latest East County news from Star reporter Mike Harris. Get a digital subscription
McNamee can get the job done
September 03, 2020
As the years go by and the older we get, God and our church become more central in our lives. We seek comfort from the words in the “Good Book” and the support from our fellow parishioners who are available in a time of need.
It’s people helping people get through this thing we call life.
At times, during church services, some need emergency medical care where the paramedics are called to action.
Recognizing the need to be prepared for such emergencies until the paramedics arrive, an usher at our church, Kevin McNamee, suggested that all the ushers be trained in CPR. People came together, using their talents and resources, to make it happen.
One person coordinated with Los Robles hospital for their Sidewalk CPR team to provide instruction. Another coordinated with scheduling and location. Another made posters and Flyers announcing the class, which was expanded to all parishioners and the local community.
The First CPR class became popular, with it growing into several events. Young to old, 12 to 80, have learned the lifesaving gift of CPR through the efforts of many good people volunteering their time and energy.
The CPR class was an idea to meet a need in our church and community.
Mr. McNamee saw the need and asked for help developing it. The parish community responded.
He is running for Thousand Oaks City Council. I hope he is elected so he can do the same for the city as he did for our parish and community: identify a need and nd a way to solve it by bringing talented people together to make it happen.
Please consider voting Kevin McNamee for City Council.
By Dr Kevin McNamee
A recent report from the Ventura County grand jury says that “without major, immediate changes, Ventura’s water shortages will be at a scary level within five years.” The report concluded that cities must address water needs. “Ventura County may have survived the worst of the state’s drought but . . . several cities rely too much on imported water and haven’t developed plans for an emergency water shortage.”
It’s clear that our cities need to address the issue because Sacramento legislature is not. Ventura County cities are on their own to solve this one.
Doing back-of-envelope calculations reveal a creative, economically viable solution including a continuous infrastructure revenue stream:
Calleguas Municipal Water District, which supplies the drinking water for Thousand Oaks and most of Ventura County, purchases annually 87,541 acrefeet of water, costing $82.5 million, from the Metropolitan Water District. After conventional water treatment, Calleguas distributes the drinking water to the city and county.
An innovative solution to consider, making the county less dependent on imported water, is to redirect the ultra-pure effluent back to Calleguas for reuse. It would save $11.4 million dollars for the Thousand Oaks resident which will lower the average homeowner $600 annually.
The result is for Thousand Oaks to become less dependent on imported water in Los Angeles, for Central Valley farmers to have more water, and having a continual revenue stream to maintain water and wastewater systems without raising rates or floating construction bonds.
by Dr Kevin McNamee August 13, 2018
Finished my lunch today at the local diner, I gathered my things and prepared to return to the practice for the second half of patient care. I asked the server for the check.
He paused, reached into his pocket and pulled out what looked like a business card and handed it to me. He said there was no charge. It was paid by someone else. I thought, who would do such a thing and why?
I read the card. It said that years ago, his two year old child Reese had died and since then, he has made a point of doing nice things for people. He asks nothing in return except to do, if possible, something nice for someone else in the memory of Reese.
When I went to place a tip on the table I noticed I had to get change. My server was at the register. I tipped my server and handed him the card with the request that I pay for the meal of the woman and small child enjoying lunch together and give them this card.
He smiled and said he would be delighted. As I paid the check, the server said the man comes in periodically to eat. Before he leaves, he walks through the restaurant identifying which meals he will pay. On this visit, another man and I were chosen.
It was a pleasure to continue the very kind gesture shown by a man who suffered such a tragic loss years before. There is something to be said for acts of kindness and to pay it forward. Perhaps Reese would enjoy knowing that happiness is being spread around the community because of him.
by Dr. Kevin McNamee June 9, 2019
The alternative energy loan and grant program was originally created in 2005 during the Bush administration but it was not very active due to the law required companies receiving loans or grants have a sizable amount of their own money in the game, a “down payment” on projects. The 2009 stimulus bill removed that provision. Wealthy investors in green-tech companies could now get large government “investments” with very little of their own money at risk.(1)
Peter Schweizers’s book Throw Them All Out explains the goal of President Barrack Obama’s green energy plan was to create “green jobs” but according to the federal government’s records, many of the grants and loan guarantees created few or no jobs. Often taxpayer money was given to politically connected companies for projects that were already under way or even completed. Government grants and loans were given to companies that were money loser that needed government funds to stay in business or turn a profit.(2)
President Obama moved tax money taken from all, rich and poor, and gave it to billionaires under the guise of an economic stimulus plan to create jobs and to develop alternative energy. Washington handed out billions of dollars in cash and federal loan guarantees. This overwhelming amount of money has been directed to wealthy financial backers of President Obama and the Democratic Party has been almost entirely unreported by the media.(3)
Now the grants and loan guarantees provide access to taxpayer capital and it serves as a federal government “seal of approval” which opened up access to other private capital such as stock holder money. The crony-capitalist road to riches was simple and became the pattern of other companies: invest in a green-tech company, secure a much larger investment from the federal government, take your company public, make lots of money and get out.(4,5)
Many Department of Energy green energy grant and loan recipients served on the President’s campaign finance committee, or functioned as campaign donation “bundlers” or were major contributors themselves. They raised and donated millions for Obama’s 2008 campaign. In return, the companies they owned or lead received billions in government-backed loans and outright grants which are tax free.(6)
At least ten members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were grant and/or guaranteed loan recipients. Several politicians who supported Obama launched alternative energy companies and obtained grants. Department of Energy granted $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loan guarantees to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers (bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party).(7)
After 2008, Steve Spinner became the “chief strategic operations officer” for the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office. He served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee. Spinner, who controlled billions of taxpayer-guaranteed loans for the DOE, was neither a dedicated scientist, engineer nor had civil servant background with financial knowledge. Prior to his appointment to the Loan Program Office, Mr. Spinner was a campaign bundler functioning as liaison to Silicon Valley to raise campaign funds for President Obama.(8)
Jonathan Silver served as the DOE executive director, responsible for staffing the programs, and leading organization analysis, and negotiation. Silver’s wife served as financial director for the Democratic Leadership Council. His business partner, Tom Wheeler, was an Obama campaign fund raiser bundler. Jonathan Silver managed the loans with advice from his strategic advisor, Steve Spinner.(9)
The grants originated in the office of Cathy Zoi who served as the assistant secretary of energy for efficiency and renewable energy. She previously worked in the Clinton White House as chief of staff on environmental policy then as the CEO of former Vice President Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.(10) When Zoi left the DOE in 2011, she became head of a new green-tech investment fund being established by George Soros, the investor whose firms received taxpayer money through Zoi.(11)
The Government Accountability Office was critical of the loan guarantee and grants awarded by the DOE saying the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. GAO’s examination of the first eighteen approved loans found that none were properly documented. Officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these loan applications. For example, electric car loan program “lacks performance measures.” Loan officials did not keep notes so it is difficult to understand how loan decisions were made.(12)
Gregory Friedman, who is not a political appointee, chastised the alternative energy loan and grant program for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”(13)
Obama White House memos said these grants and guaranteed loans were very lucrative for key political financiers. Several huge checks or loan guarantees were given to small companies with revenues of less than $1 million.(14)
A memorandum for the President from senior White House officials explained that the grants and loans were an economic boon to the companies involved. Many companies had “relatively small private equity (as low as 10%), while generating “an estimated return on equity of 30%.” If these companies were in the private sector, they would be hard-pressed to negotiate that sort of arrangement. The government money made the difference between success and failure. A wind farm can cost 55% less with the government grant or loan than a company that did not get government support. The solar energy companies had their costs cut in half due to the government grants. The White House memo to the President made it clear that the DOE grants and loans selection received White House review and input allowing it to pick winners and losers.(15)
First guaranteed loan provided by the Obama administration for alternative energy was the massive $573 million for Solyndra, a solar energy company. It received a low interest rate loan that if the company could not pay for it, the government would. Solyndra lost money on every solar panel sold and was never profitable. Oklahoma billionaire investor owned 35% of the company and was as a campaign fund raiser bundler for the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. One investor told the Wall Street Journal: “There is a perceived halo around the loan. If we get the loan, then we can definitely go public an cash out.” Terms of the taxpayer-backed loan, investor Kaiser and other investors will be paid before the government. Secure government money, go public and get out.(16)
Sample of $16.4 Billion of the $20.5 Billion Loan Guarantees Awarded to Companies that Supported President Obama and /or the DNC, Leucadia Energy(17) At time of funding, had 1 employee and $120,000 in annual revenue. Chairman and CEO: Ian Cumming’s served on Obama’s 2008 National Finance Committee and 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee $260 million for industrial capture project $1.6 billion in loan guarantees for coal gasification project $1.6 billion for synthetic gas project Outcome: Projects have not been completed. Created 3 jobs.
Solar Trust of America(18) $2.1 billion for a solar facility. $6 billion put in by Citigroup Global Partners and Deutsche Bank Louis Susman, Vice chairman of Citigroup was on Obama’s National Finance Committee and fund raiser. Later Obama appointed him ambassador to Great Britain. Seth Waugh, CEO of Deutsche Bank North America was Obama’s campaign bundler.
Solar Reserve(19) $737 million loan guarantees Michael Froman was head of CitiAlternatives, largest investor also served with Obama at Harvard Law School. He introduced Senator Obama to major Democratic Party players and later an Obama policy advisor.
Peco Energy(20) $200 million for smart-grid network Owned by Exelon who’s executive Frank Clark and board member John Rogers Jr. were on Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee. Outcome: Created 102 jobs
Basin Electric Power Cooperative(21) $100 million for “smart meters” to monitor energy consumption. Powerspan overseeing work, Powerspan, executives Daniel Weiss and Zeb Rice served on President Obama’s National Finance Committee. George Soros was a Powerspan investor and early Obama supporter Outcome: Created 8 jobs.
Hydrogen Energy California, LLC(22) $308 million for joint venture between BP and Rio Tinto BP gave more to Obama’s political campaigns than to any other candidate over the past twenty years. Outcome: Created 23 jobs.
First Wind(23) $115 million for wind energy projects in Utah and New York $117 million for wind energy project in Hawaii Both projects were underway when the funds were awarded.
David Shaw, founder of hedge fund D.E. Shaw, head of President Obama’s National Economic council. Outcome: Created 125 jobs Sapphire Energy(24) $135 million for an algae biorefinery to create “super algae” to convert into energy Major investor ARCH Venture Partners founding partner, Bob Nelsen, served on Obama’s National Finance Committee.
Vantage Wind Energy, LLC(25) $60 million $68 million for Beech Ridge Energy Wind Farm Wholly owned by Invenergy, LLC, a Chicago-based company headed by CEO Michael Polsky who is a major donor to Obama president campaign and DNC.
Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC(26) $1.5 billion CEO is Eric Redman, a former Democratic senator staffer, and major DNC donor. Project manager is former Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, a former newspaper reporter and environmental activist, daughter of former head of Neiman Marcus. She never worked in the energy industry. Outcome: Created 8 jobs.
ZeaChem(27) $25 million to modify a “demonstration sale” biorefinery. Major investors, Globespan Capital’s Jonathan Seelig is a Democratic donor. PrairieGold Venture Partners headed by Paul Batcheller is a former aide to then-Senator Tom Daschle. Outcome: Created 2 jobs.
Solazyme(28) $21.7 million Founded by Jerry Fiddler a large Democratic donor and contributor to the Obama Victory Fund and DNC. Outcome: Created 13 jobs
Famous sociologist Max Weber said “Either one lives ‘for’ politics’ or one lives ‘off’ politics…. He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives ‘off’ politics as a vocation.” Today some people are living very well thanks to crony capitalism in Washington. Politicians have made politics a business.(29)
It appears that President Obama found the best form of payoff and patronage for rich friends and supporters is to give them billions of dollars in taxpayer cash.(30)
1. Schweizer, P., Throw Them All Out, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, 2011, p. 83-842. IBID, p. 823. IBID, p. 774. IBID, p. 845. IBID, p. 866. IBID, p. 777. IBID, p. 79-808. IBID, p. 809. IBID, p. 8110. IBID, p. 8111. IBID, p. 10312. IBID, p. 8213. IBID, p. 8214. IBID, p. 8315. IBID, p. 8316. IBID, p. 8617. IBID 86-8718. IBID, p. 8719. IBID 87-9020. IBID 9221. IBID 92-9322. IBID 93-9423. IBID 9424. IBID 94-9525. IBID 9526. IBID 9527. IBID 10228. IBID 10329. IBID p. xiv-xv30. IBID, p. 76
By Dr. Kevin McNamee September 10, 2019
It finally became clear how couples are gaming the welfare system to enrich themselves at American tax payer expense while destroying the institution that lead to our national success.
I was confused when a woman tells me that her daughter is not marrying the father of their child but they are living together. The woman is delighted at the prospect of being a grandmother but is not sure why they do not want to marry. Her daughter said, “It is better not to be married.” I did not understand but listened.
I listened to a contractor tell me how he asks one of his long-time, “green card” employees from Mexico when he will become a US citizen. The employee says, “Why should he? It is better for him to not become a US citizen.” Again, I did not understand but listened.
The contractor said the employee and “wife” are unmarried and have four children. Three children are attending California State University Northridge. While attending college, each child receives a living subsidy ($3,000 annually) and pay no tuition, fees, etc. ($9,000 annually).(1) For the three children attending college, his savings for being unmarried with three children from Mexico attending a California State University, $36,000 annually or $144,000 after four years.
I was told of a man and woman living in Palmdale, California who are not married but live in the same house raising their children. She is a school teacher. He is employed as an electrician. They say, “It is better not to be married.” Again, I did not understand but listened.
Because the welfare system does not know the two live together, she qualifies for federal housing and food assistance. If they married, the welfare assistance would stop so they continue to live together in the same home, raising their children, functioning like a family but remain unmarried. By all outward appearances, they function as husband and wife raising a family.
Contrast these unmarried, family-living arrangements, to the story of a traditional life journey.
Another woman tells me that she and her husband have been married for four years and have a three year old child. She tells of how they have been living with her husband’s parents so they can save for a down payment to buy a house and make it their home.
After four years living with the in-laws, they decided to move out, rent a house and begin an independent life together. She described her frustration that she is paid well at her job and her husband’s company is finally making a profit and growing with the economy but between the two incomes making “good money” there is nothing left for a down payment after paying rent, taxes and expenses.
She then tells of two friends who have a child of the same age, but both women are not married to their respective “fathers of the children.” Both couples decided not to marry but live together while raising their respective child. Because the women are unmarried, they receive federal housing, food and healthcare assistance. If the women were married, those federal welfare subsidies would be stopped.
The woman and her husband, starting their life married and raising a family, are doing it the traditional way. She was angry that being married is penalizing them while her friends are rewarded by not marring. Her friends receive federal tax payer welfare subsidies and gaming the system to their financial benefit. She said “And I am a millennial, but this is not fair.” I said to her, “You sound like a Republican.”
I listened and began to understand.
Today’s youth have figured out that it is financially better to live together unmarried, in the same house, raising the family, receiving federal assistance, instead of being married which stops federal welfare benefits.
There are advantages to being unmarried besides the federal welfare benefits.
Today, there is less social stigma for an unmarried woman raising children.
It is easier for the unmarried man to step away from the “family” and abandon his children and the woman who birthed them.
Being unmarried removes the arduous and financially painful journey of divorce court. Unmarried, the man simply step away and is not obligated to pay child support and alimony. Unmarried woman’s benefit is the child support and alimony payments are shifted to a more financially lucrative, secure and reliable income source, welfare subsidies paid by tax payers.
Everyone wins with the unmarried approach to “family” except the tax payer who pays the cost of the bastardization of welfare’s intent which is enriching the unmarried couple.
Being unmarried was a non-traditional approach to raising a family but has become the norm. The traditional approach of marriage is now arbitrary and capricious.
The fabric that weaves historically through America society that has been so important to our national success is marriage and the family. However, this is changing with the invisible hand of government’s welfare policies and programs that encourage more couples to remain unmarried while raising children.
I listened and began to understand why couples are not marring. Government rewards it.
by Dr. Kevin McNamee March 28, 2020
While leaving my office this afternoon, I took the back stairs that exit to a landing with a low wall. As I opened the door to leave the stairwell, I felt a resistance against the door and heard a woman shouting wait. Looking around the door, I saw a cell phone, back pack, syringe and a woman with a tourniquet wrapped around her arm.
She looked to be in her mid 40’s but upon further inspection I realized she was a very weathered 20 something year old who’s once attractive features were ravaged by drug use, homelessness and surviving on the street.
I asked her to go elsewhere to do this. She apologized and quickly gathered her belongings. I asked where she gets her food? She said food stamps. I asked what was her drug of choice? She lowered her head and said does it matter? She walked to the sidewalk and disappeared around the building.
Heroin and crystal meth are highly addictive drugs that capture the hearts and minds of Americans rendering a person incapable of fulfilling their purpose in life. The addicts thoughts move away from service of others and towards the next feel good drug hit. No longer is their family and loved ones as important as the drug.
Unable to maintain a job but still have the need for the drug, forces the addict to search other means of income. Prostitution, burglary and robbery are among the many crimes drug addicts do to get their fix. Our community crimes revolve around drug addiction in one manner or another. Law enforcement place eighty-percent of the homeless as drug addicted or mentally ill.
When seventy-percent of the illegal drugs entering this country come through our shared southern border with Mexico, why then do politicians oppose securing it?
To those who feel the war on drugs has not worked to stop the flow of drugs into America, I wonder, absent this effort, how readily available drugs would be in our community to reap havoc.
To those who feel drugs should be legalized so government can regulate it and receive the tax revenue, I ask why then in Amsterdam, who has done just that, have seen the drug tax revenue pay for drug rehabilitation facilities for their drug addicted and homeless who are forever dependent on the government for sustenance.
An answer to why our elected politicians do not unleash the power of American resources to stop this keeps pointing to drug cartel money finding its way into the politician’s pockets, either directly or indirectly. Don’t think it has not happened. American politicians are just as susceptible to the lure of the same traps as politicians of Mexico, Central and South American.
By Dr Kevin McNamee May 7, 2020
Since the beginning of the Coronavirus watch began late December, epidemiologists from many universities have created computer models to predict its transmission rates and impact upon health-care delivery system and guide policy makers.
These models are only as good as the data and assumptions used to derive the mathematical model. As computer software programmers say, put Garbage In you get Garbage Out.
The May 6, 2020 cover article in The Wall Street Journal explains the predictive models challenges and why some epidemiological models were so wrong in the initial days of the pandemic.
April predictions estimate U.S. deaths ranging from 70,000 to nearly 170,000 by mid May. Another placed that number at 135,000 by August.
The challenge is these estimates are only as good as the underlying data and assumptions. “Unfortunately the underlying data is flawed” said a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Modeling is a valuable tool for health providers and policy makers.
However current public policies may reflect the data and models in January and not current data. Thus the disconnect about who is at risk, what steps society should take and the measures governors should impose upon our freedom of movement.
In question is the data for the models such as unknown infection rates, cause of death may not be due to the Coronavirus or patients convinced they are infected by the Coronavirus, test negative for antibodies yet their doctor submits a diagnosis as Coronavirus.
Inaccurate data reporting causes the predictive models to be in error raising doubt about the model projection accuracy. But policy makers are making decisions based on incorrect facts and varied modeling method motivating cities to convert conventions centers and sports arenas into make-shift hospitals that were never used. Floating naval hospitals were sent to New York and Los Angeles ports to care for non-Coronavirus patients which were not used.
The American industrial know-how was unleashed to produce more ventilators. Companies pivoted from making its usual product to ventilator manufacturing. All this preparation for an overwhelming tsunami of patients that will inundate our hospital emergency rooms and intensive care units. Problem is it did not happen. Hospital emergency departments are empty. The usually full beds in the intensive care unit are empty. What happened to the media and politician driven prediction of the world coming to an end? It has not happened.
This maybe why Americans are seeing a disconnect between what is observe in their neighborhoods versus what researchers, media and policy makers are reporting.
There are many unknowns about the Coronavirus which throw off predictive models. For example, one predictive model with a value less than 1 means an outbreak is headed for control. Higher values mean significant spread.
The 1918-1919 influenza pandemic had a value of about 1.8, the 1957-1958 influenza pandemic was about 1.65, and the 2009 influenza pandemic about 1.46.
Before social distancing for Covid-19 the value ranged from 2 to 6.5 in 20 studies reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
University of Virginia’s Biocomplexity Institute analyzed only Virginia’s cases and controls calculated predictive value of 2.2 before March 15. After March 15 it dropped to 1.1. But this raises a question of the models predictive accuracy before March 15 due to inaccurate data. Was the reduction due to social distancing or due to more and better data through Coronavirus testing?
All these models depend on correct assumptions and accurate data. Before March 15 data accuracy was at best questionable. Today, more people are being tested making the data more accurate but cause of death accuracy is still in question. Better data means more accurate predictive models.
Until then, the media enjoys high ratings by spreading doom and gloom. Governors and judges will impose the ominous weight of law enforcement and incarceration upon the people.
A judge in Texas sentenced a hair salon owner to 7 days in jail for defying his cease and desist order to close the business even though they exercised safe practices. He offered to drop the jail sentence if she “apologize” for tearing the order up, a request often asked by a parent to a child. She did not apologize stating that she and her employees need to feed their families.
She was sent to jail yet these same jails are releasing sex offenders and other high risk criminals due to fear of the Coronavirus spread among inmates.
Average American trying to restart their businesses, who are complying with social distancing, repeated cleaning of possible infected surfaces, wearing mouth and nose coverings are not allowed to open and can’t feed their families.
Public policy needs to evolve as the data unfolds. Unfortunately our courts and elected officials are making policy decisions on old predictive models that use inaccurate data and assumptions.
Yes the virus is real. People have died and continue to do so. We now know who is most at risk and can better protect them. We should make every effort to stop the spread of the virus.
My opinion is let business open if they comply with procedures consistent with reducing the virus spread. As results of this are revealed adjust the policy.
If families cannot feed themselves anarchy is not far off.
by Dr. Kevin McNamee May 27, 2020
Afternoon instruction ended in the one-room schoolhouse in the farmlands of Missouri. The Great Depression was ending with the beginning of the second world war.
There were no fences surrounding the campus. No metal detectors at the door or police presence. The school’s security was the goodness of the local community who looked after their neighbors and the acreage surrounding the school provided the quiet to learn and safety any parent could want. It was God’s protective green-belt. It was also the children’s playground were their imagination can wander and build strong bones though play.
There was no need for long faculty meetings because there was only one teacher who taught the local farmer’s children. This lone, dedicated woman taught children from ages 6 to 16, to read, write, add and subtract, sing, dance and play. And she did it well. She bestowed life lessons within those four walls. Just one dedicated teacher in a one-room schoolhouse is all that was needed. There were no legions of teaching specialist, no union negotiations, no principals or school board with government regulations dictating how the teacher taught or the children to learn. It was the local parents who decided what they wanted for their child’s education, not the government.
The older students helped with the lessons of the younger ones. This reinforced what the older ones learned years before and the younger students received special attention to their lessons.
When the school day ends, the children begin to collect their belongings and start the walk home. At the schoolhouse door was a dog named Ghost who appeared daily to escort the two sisters safely home. In the morning, it was Ghost’s self appointed responsibility to walk the sisters to school and then return later that day to walk them home. No one had to tell Ghost when school began or ended. He just knew and appeared at the school door each day.
In the fields, farmers were at work tending to their crop. Shortly before classes ended, local farmers looked at their pocket watches and began moving towards the creek to carry the children across the water.
The creek was shallow enough for the men to safely step through but the legs of a little person would be quickly swept under and the child carried down stream. The local farmers coordinated between themselves as to which would provide safe passage across these treacherous waters.
The men would leave their plows and walk to the waters edge. As the children arrived, the men would carry each child safely across. When completed and all children were accounted for, the men would return to the farms to continue work. No need for a government bridge or a crossing guard. The community took care of their own. Cooperation between all to benefit each other. This is a farmers self-reliance without the government.
By Dr. Kevin McNamee June 19, 2020
Because China did not allow an international team of epidemiologists and other scientists to enter their country in November / December 2019 to assess the virus origins and how to contain it, the virus spread and spread it did.
China allowed its citizens to travel the world knowing of the highly infectious virus which they tried not to admit they had lost control because they “Did Not Want To Lose Face.”
January 2020, the world was dealing with an unknown virus which had no vaccine or treatment. Some countries and cities did not have the hospital infrastructure to deal with it. People died. Many people died.
January 2020, only a few cases in the United States – specifically a nursing home. Key word – nursing home.
President Trump shut down flights from China except those Americans returning but these travelers were quarantined for two weeks.
Scientific models varied in their predictive infections and death rates with some saying the world is ending.
These models are only as good as the data. Accurate tests for the virus were being developed and then needed distributed for use. As these tests are performed it is becoming clear from the antibody tests many Americans have been infected and recovered.
Bill de Blasio wanted to shut New York down but Gov Cuomo said only the governor can do this. Six weeks later, the city was shut down. New York prepared for the worst. Converted a convention center into a hospital. USSN ship sat in the harbor. Both were unused.
Fast forward to today. We know
- New York Subway system has specific stops where they now know the virus spread. Epidemiologist and public health workers tracked infection in the community back to these subway stops.
- We know the vulnerable population are those over 60 years of age with comorbidity like asthma, COPD, heart disease, etc. If infected these individuals may die. Children are not as vulnerable. Under 60 with major comorbidity are at risk of death.
- Had Gov Cuomo closed New York down when Mayor de Blasio asked instead of waiting six weeks the infections and deaths would be lower.
- We know not to send seniors who just left the hospital having been treated for Covid back to their nursing home where they contracted it. Gov Cuomo compelled nursing homes to take these seniors. If the senior, after being released from the hospital, went to recover at a family members home they usually survived.
- We know many if the nursing home caretakers are working at multiple locations and are vectors between nursing home spread.
- We know that wearing the mask over the nose and face reduces floating virus in the air to infect others but it does not keep you from being infected. It also reduces the oxygen blood levels due to carbon dioxide level elevation under the mask. Not good for those with compromised lung profusion.
- We know doctors and hospitals are incentivized to diagnose Covid for more revenue. With hospitals sitting vacant waiting for the wave of Covid patients that did not happen. Hospitals are hurting financially due to less revenue of other services.
- We know the CDC Data is flawed by the doctor and hospital reporting inaccurate diagnosis but also the CDC is combining patients with symptoms but no positive Covid tests with those that have positive Covid test. It inflated the numbers making it great for media rating and doom and gloom but not reality.
- We know when Tuberculosis was prevalent in the 1930s those who tested positive were isolated in their home or sanitariums to recover. The public was not quarantined just the one infected.
- We know from the data, this is a flu, but it vegetates in the lungs not the sinuses or digestive track.
- We know that like any flu the elderly are vulnerable with the annual death rate for the flu being between 8,000 to 60,000.
- We know NY hospitals had empty beds but patients without Covid were taken to the area with Covid infected patients. It made the hospital look full from those not on the inside.
- We know if you get Covid and do not have comorbidity the chance of dying are about the same as the annual flu.
So why are we not isolating those infected instead of those who are healthy and not infected?
Why are we not shutting down the economy, everyone wearing masks, washing hands, disinfecting surfaces with the flus of past years? Why now?
Why are we all having to shelter in place in this situation and not previous flu seasons?
With the statement that “if it saves just one life” why have we not been forced to wear masks in a typical flu season? Why then do we not drive our cars at a maxim speed of 25 mph when we know this will save lives?
If the person knows they are at risk then shelter in your place of residence.
The scientific predictive models are getting better as understanding if the virus grows. The early predictions for most were very wrong. The rest of the country is not New York City. Other American cities do not have mass transit, highly populated areas and bad decisions by the Governor (contrary to Gov Cuomo’s press conferences). He should have listened to Mayor de Blasio.
The media has created the Church of Covid based on inaccurate data, emotional images that do not represent the typical American experience, peppered with doom and gloom scenarios.
Media benefits from high ratings and politicians have more control of us. All this at American’s expense.