Any COVID Response Excluding Herd Immunity Doomed For Failure

A cursory study of diseases shows that defeating COVID-19 through social distancing, mass testing, and a hoped-for vaccination is impractical, and has no expiration date.

There is no practical “exit strategy” to Democrats’ shut-down measures

Any health care response that excludes exposure to and surviving COVID-19 – the same way hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, contract and recover from influenza each year – is incomplete. If this is a “war against an invisible enemy,” as President Trump declares, then young, healthy people need to “serve” in this national crusade by contracting and recovering from COVID-19 to build “herd immunity,” for their own future safety and to weaken COVID-19’s deadly impact when it assuredly returns some day. “Herd immunity” simply describes strengthening one’s own, personal immune system, which naturally fights diseases such as COVID-19, while also benefiting society as a whole.

President Trump needs to fire germophobes Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx and get a “second opinion” by hiring new health care advisers who recognize this reality.

So far, the argument against the extreme social distancing mandates required by the nation’s almost overwhelmingly Democratic governors has been that the economic and societal catastrophe created will be far worse than the impact of COVID-19 to the population. But now more than six weeks into this nightmare of restricted liberties and quarantine edicts, the country ought to open for business as soon as possible for health reasons, too.

Social distancing and all the other precautions to avoiding contracting COVID-19 have merit, but can’t alone succeed even if Democratic governors would rule by executive order indefinitely. This is where the dishonesty begins: There is no practical “exit strategy” to Democrats’ shut-down measures.

Despite vaccinations, flu kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans each year

Even if a vaccination were discovered tomorrow to combat coronavirus, it’s unlikely that it would eradicate COVID-19 forever based on what we already know about other viruses, such as the flu, which is that they mutate and continue to kill even with vaccinations.

Despite vaccinations, flu kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans each year and we do not shut the economy for the flu. What we do is vaccinate vulnerable elderly people and children and hope for the best. And when one considers that it took decades of research and testing to find cures for viral diseases such as polio, measles and chicken pox, we don’t have that time to wait, while our country falls apart and people’s businesses and lives are ruined.

Both COVID-19 and influenza cause lower respiratory illness that leads to death, sometimes from pneumonia. Others who die from COVID-19 had heart disease or diabetes. The point is that it’s not so simple to determine a cause of death.

Closing elementary schools and colleges in the United States to combat COVID-19 was a big mistake. Young people are the least likely to die from COVID 19, and would have greatly contributed to developing “herd immunity.” This alone cannot solve the problem of COVID-19 transmission, but would greatly contribute to reducing the number of “hosts” in which the virus could “live.”

Viruses can’t survive without a host, and the more people possessing coronavirus antibodies, the sooner COVID-19 will “die”

The death data so far show that the overwhelming number of the people “killed” by COVID-19 had compromised immune systems or were older and sick, and that nearly no children have died. Once children and young adults survive COVID-19, they likely will have the antibodies to protect them in the future when COVID-19 or another coronavirus returns.

Viruses can’t survive without a host, and the more people possessing coronavirus antibodies, the sooner COVID-19 will “die,” even though it’s not technically “alive” from a scientific perspective.

Everything in this article was gleaned from well-known, mainstream disease-combating websites, such as from the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “I’m no doctor” line comes from a comedian Brian Regan skit about visiting a hospital and being asked stupid questions by the staff about why he was there.

We were told at the beginning that social distancing was to “flatten the curve” so as not to overwhelm the health care system with COVID-19 cases. However, that has morphed into we cannot open the economy until we have testing and a vaccine, which frankly will never be adequate to the Democrats who want to defeat President Trump this November, hence the politics of this “crisis.”

The media tells us that COVID-19 is “really bad,” and “much worse than the flu.” It may be worse, but they are Fake News and a mouthpiece of the Democratic National Committee. It is a partisan press, the same way that it was at the beginning of the country, and no American ought to take the Washington Post, or the New York Times, or CNN seriously on any topic.

We are alive, but we are not living

Right now, we don’t have to care whether the number of COVID-19 deaths has been exaggerated or whether the Chinese created it as part of biological warfare. There will be time for that later, but we do have to have a plan that works, which we do not have now.

We cannot ignore the Democrats and Deep State motivation to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency, and their obvious delight that COVID-19 and their draconian response to it presents them with their latest, best opportunity to do so, but which will also fail. In this regard, the Democrats and the Deep State are Wiley E. Coyote to Donald Trump’s Roadrunner.

We are alive, but we are not living. In New York City, people wait in line to enter grocery stores; all the concrete “parks” are closed to street basketball. Even so, yesterday, I saw two Dominican teen boys hop the fence to play.

Everybody has to do their part in this “war” against the pandemic: People have to get the virus and survive it and build herd immunity. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of England, contracted COVID-19 and recovered, everyone else can and ought to as well.

There is more to life than trying to avoid getting sick

Doctors are great; the whole “white lab coat” thing. But there is more to life than trying to avoid getting sick, and that’s what we are doing right now. That’s not sustainable or even desirable.

We need to stop telling people to “stay safe,” but rather “be smart.” We need healthy people, including children, to become infected and recover and develop the antibodies to minimize their future susceptibility of contracting the disease and using those antibodies to discover an effective vaccine. As said before, healthy people who survive will likely experience minimum to less severe symptoms while they become immune to hosting the virus.

We are not South Korea, which has a homogeneous population and culture, and can require a complete lock down of their country to combat COVID-19. In the United States, we have individual liberties. We have to be smart and solve this with American ingenuity. There is no solution in social distancing without opening the economy, protecting the vulnerable, developing herd immunity, while waiting for a vaccine that may or not arrive soon. And even then, people are doing to die, like they have for time immemorial, because that’s the nature of life on Earth. And it is a twisted, dystopian ideology to think that “hunkering down” and hoping for an as-yet-undiscovered vaccine can save all of us. It can’t.

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump’s Ukraine Call?

Image result for cnn liar

In order to impeach the president, Democrats have to lie about the facts. It has now come to the point where even CNN is calling the Democrats out on their lies. 

Two Democratic representatives from Texas, Veronica Escobar and Sheila Jackson Lee, both lied during debate on articles of impeachment on Thursday about what President Trump said during his phone call to the president of Ukraine.

Rep. Escobar said President Trump told President Zelensky, “I want you to do me a favor though.” 

Rep. Jackson Lee quoted Trump saying, “I would like you to do a favor though.”

What Trump actually said was “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.” The full quote makes it clear that Trump was asking the president of Ukraine to do “our country” a favor. 

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Dems Veronica Escobar and Jackson Lee purposely misquoted my call. I said I want you to do us (our Country!) a favor, not me a favor. They know that but decided to LIE in order to make a fraudulent point! Very sad.87.1K7:40 AM – Dec 12, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy40.5K people are talking about this

Even CNN had to admit the president was right (Via CNN):

President Trump alleged that Democratic Reps. Veronica Escobar and Sheila Jackson Lee “purposely misquoted” his call with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky in a Tweet this morning.

Facts First: Trump is correct that the call was misquoted during today’s debate over the articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary committee.

In the declassified memo of the July 25 phone call between Trump and President Zelensky, the President says, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.”

Of course, the headline CNN used, “Fact check: Trump says Democrats misquoted his call. He’s correct,” has a lot less vitriol than other CNN headlines like, “Lies, lies, lies: How Trump’s fiction gets more dramatic over time.” But at least they got the facts right this time. 

If Democrats The Party Of Public Safety Honestly Cared About Public Safety They Would Support Border Security, They Would Not Support Sanctuary Cities!

In their every press conference and interview rejecting President Trump’s call for a wall along our southern border to help prevent and protect against human trafficking of women and children, the unbridled import of opioids, and the entry of criminals and terrorists into our country, the Democrats maintain that they oppose only the Wall but otherwise strongly support border security. Thus, they state that they prefer drones and hi-tech equipment instead of a wall because, they say, those more modern approaches will do an even better job than will an old-fashioned wall at guarding the border. In other words, they claim to be as concerned as is the President over the chaos transpiring along our porous southern border.

There are two ways to demonstrate they are lying. One way is by sitting and arguing back-and-forth with the other side endlessly, as in a cable news panel discussion. I have come to hate wasting my time watching those. When I have a few moments each day to grab some news on Fox, the only value-added from Marie Harf, Chris Hahn, and Jessica Tarlov is that, while muting them, they offer a few moments for me to check the channel guide or pay a bill or two. But there is a much quicker alternative way to cut through the muck and prove Pelosi, Schumer, and their gang a bunch of liars on border security:

Just ask yourself: Side by side with their opposition to a wall, why do they also support Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States? If they truly are so concerned about protecting the public against the infiltration of Illegals into our midst, why do they seek to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from receiving the information and tools ICE needs to remove illegal entrants safely and promptly from our land? Would that kind of helpful cooperation with ICE not be a logical part of any drone, hi-tech, and “everything-but-a-wall” approach to protecting the border?

They support Sanctuary Cities because they want porous borders, and they will do everything humanly possible to swell the tide of illegal immigration into a tsunami. They do not want word to spread southward that this country punishes and promptly deports those here illegally. Au contraire — they want a message to be sent to Guatemala, the Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico that it all is a children’s game of tag: once you get past the “home-base” line without getting tagged, you may call “Sanctuary” — just like Quasimodo (or even Totalmodo) — and you are safe. Thus, ICE plans a raid to arrest Illegals, and Pelosi’s northern California ally, the despicable mayor of Oakland, publicly warns the Illegals that “The Fuzz” are coming, so get away quick. In another time in this country’s history, that mayor of Oakland would have been arrested. However, in today’s America it is the President of the United States whom the Democrats would impeach. The inmates in charge of the asylum.

Need more proof that the Democrats do not merely oppose The Wall but actually want porous borders? OK. Remember Jeff Sessions, the guy whose virtual absence from ministering the Justice Department for two years prepared all of us to experience what a Government Shutdown would look, sound, and feel like if they ever did to the rest of Washington what The Recuser did to Justice? Well, no sooner did he finally act against Sanctuary Cities, announcing a Trump Administration decision to withhold federal funds from any municipality refusing to cooperate with ICE, than the Democrats and their Left allies sprinted to House Lannister in King’s Landing — the Westeros-like fantasy land also known as the region within the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — and got themselves an Obama Judge to strike down the law with a nationwide injunction. United States District Judge William H. Orrick III nailed the door, pending eventual Supreme Court review one of these years, on the Trump Administration’s efforts to stop the madness. “Not an Obama Judge,” huh? Guess what? He previously had bundled $200,000 for Obama. Thus, the Justice Department never had a chance with him, and they did not have a snowball’s chance in a California summer of doing any better on appeal in the Democrat-Left-dominated Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court in pertinent part.

(The Ninth Circuit panel split 2-1. Affirming the Obama Judge were U.S. Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas and Ronald Gould, both named by Bill Clinton. Voting in the Ninth Circuit minority to support the President’s Executive Order was U.S. Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, initially named a federal district judge by President Reagan and there after elevated by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge Fernandez found that District Judge Orrick’s court “fail[ed] to accord the Executive Order a fair enough reading. That resulted in its abusing its discretion when it issued the injunction.” In the words of Chief Justice Roberts: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”)

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all those newly harvested Democrat House representatives up and down California really wanted border security, why did they not join the chorus who spoke out against the judge’s ruling? Why do they instead all support Sanctuary Cities? Just as we are told that cereal and fruit juice are part of a balanced breakfast, isn’t the arrest and removal of illegal immigrants an obvious part of a complete border-control policy, side-by-side with drones and high technology and increased border patrols? Is there a consistency between Democrats saying, on the one hand, that they would pay for more guards and drones along the border… while, on the other hand, guaranteeing “sanctuary” for all criminals who sneak past those very guards and drones?

So it all is a game. A joke, a lie. When they say they are for border security in every which way — everything, everything except for a wall — there is the truth, the proof. No need for a cable television-news panel debate. This does not take rocket science. If you install a home protection system, but then a crook evades the front-door camera or the home alarm or just defiantly smashes your front window and breaks into your home anyway, do you take the position that you will not shoot the invader or call the police — or first call the police and then shoot the invader — because, well, they got past the alarm, so…SANCTUARY! If you employ an insect exterminator — and, no, we are not comparing illegal immigrants other than MS-13 and opioid smugglers and human traffickers to insects — and if that exterminator does a great job, but you later see an ant or spider or silverfish that got past him, would you not squish it? Or do you look at that centipede and proclaim liberty throughout the land: SANCTUARY!

The pernicious “Sanctuary City” secessionist movement from the federal government and from the supremacy of federal immigration law that has spread throughout Democrat-controlled urban polities proves definitively that all the other talk about “protecting our borders, just not with a wall” is facially mendacious. For the liberals and their Democrat party, the issue is not The Wall but assuring that our southern border remains porous so that the national voting electorate can continue to be transmogrified from a rooted majority-conservative constituency to a blue New Mexico, a converted-blue California, an increasingly blue-ing Nevada, and a purpling Arizona. It is about changing the demographic of our country by importing a new voting bloc of people who, because of their understandable poverty and limited Anglophonic skills, amplified by their utter ignorance of the values and beliefs and self-evident truths that animated our nation’s founding, will need to fall on the Government for handouts for at least a generation — free healthcare, free education, free hospital emergency rooms for stuffy noses, food stamps, welfare. They will be as natural a constituency for Democrats in other states as they have proven to be since turning California from the reliably Republican state that it was as recently as twenty years ago.

That is what this is all about. It is not about drones and high tech and about what else “works better” than a wall. Rather, it is about the destiny of this magnificent social experiment that, as of now, we still call America — until someone on the Left finds a tweet from Amerigo Vespucci where he said that there only are two genders, male and female.

For Democrats, Power Isn’t Everything — It’s the Only Thing

The partisan impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump is little more than the Democrats’ latest attempt to gain what has always been the object of their party’s desire: political power.  To the end of obtaining power, the Democratic Party has supported every tyrannical and immoral policy — from slavery to confiscatory taxation to abortion — presented in the political domain over the past two hundred years.  Paraphrasing Vince Lombardi: For the Democrats, power isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.

Aiding and abetting this impeachment process are the mainstream media, whose portrayal of the Democratic primary candidates as the cool cats from Ocean’s 11(when from a political perspective they actually resemble the mutants of The Island of Dr. Moreau), combined with an unceasing barrage of Trump-hatred, would seem to offer the Democrats an unbeatable advantage in the 2020 race.  Why, then, is such feverish energy being channeled into impeachment, which will likely die on the vine in the Senate led by recent pro-Trump ally Mitch McConnell?  Because with Democrats, some things never change.  Trump’s dogged refusal to back down in the face of all their shenanigans simply aggravates their rabid and insatiable lust for power.  By pursuing impeachment, they are aiming to harass the president into resignation.  If that fails, they hope to weaken him sufficiently that whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic primary will actually win the Electoral College in 2020.

To achieve their current goal of ousting Trump, perhaps the Pelosi-Schiff-Nadler cabal decided to study their party’s history, because their conduct in their persecution of President Trump looks remarkably like that of their party forefathers in two analogous cases.  In the first analogue, today’s nefarious bunch have taken a page from the playbook of their Democratic predecessors who successfully dislodged a Republican executive near the end of Reconstruction.

Southern Democrats tasted blood in the water subsequent to the 1874 midterm elections, when, like the undead, their party rose from the political grave dug for them at Appomattox Court House in 1865.  Having regained control of Congress, the Democrats ramped up their efforts to conquer the state governments of the old Confederacy.  In 1875, Adalbert Ames — a Civil War veteran and Radical Republican who favored civil rights for the freedmen — was in the middle of his term as governor of Mississippi.  Former slave and one of the first blacks to serve in Congress John Roy Lynch recounted in The Facts of Reconstruction (published in 1913) that winning control of the Mississippi Legislature was insufficient for the Democrats:

[T]the Democrats could not afford to wait until Governor Ames’ term expired.  They were determined to get immediate control of the State Government.  There was only one way in which this could be done, and that was by impeachment.