Reason Roundup

As New Lockdowns Loom, How Did We Get Here Again So Quickly?

Plus: E.U. considers travel restrictions for Americans, more...

|

As COVID-19 case counts rise and some states start reviving their shutdown orders, regulators are coalescing around the idea that we reopened too fast.

Many people have been taking precautions while going to restaurants, churches, hair salons, and so on, and many businesses have been great about taking steps to keep customers safe. But a few "super spreader" events, plus social-media images of people packed maskless into crowded spaces, have sparked a lot of ire at the lifting of the lockdowns. Packed-in, mask-free groups make an easy target among calls to take more action.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced last week that restaurants must not exceed 50 percent capacity, "outdoor gatherings of 100 or more people must be approved by local governments," and bars with less than 50 percent revenue from food must close entirely.

"As I said from the start, if the positivity rate rose above 10%, the State of Texas would take further action to mitigate the spread of COVID-19," Abbott said in a statement. "At this time, it is clear that the rise in cases is largely driven by certain types of activities, including Texans congregating in bars."

Florida, too, has once again ordered bars to close for on-premise drinking. ("On Saturday, Florida reported more than 9,500 new cases, up from almost 9,000 on Friday, the previous record," notes Yahoo News.) And in California, the Los Angeles Times reports, the governor just told seven counties "to immediately close any bars and nightspots that are open and recommended eight other counties take action on their own to close those businesses. The order shuts down any bar, brewery or pub that sells alcoholic drinks without serving food at the same time."

How did we get here again so quickly?

Following a March and April marked by strict shutdowns—and by high-profile protests in favor of reopening—states started phasing out strict COVID-19 containment measures throughout May and June. Cases in early hotspots such as New York had started dwindling, after all, and major outbreaks had yet to hit many American states. We had indeed slowed the spread, and we now knew more about how the contagion happened, too. It had more to do with person-to-person proximity than with germs on surfaces, more to do with indoor activities than with outdoor ones—and masks, even a basic cloth covering, seemed to help stop the spread. Meanwhile, unemployment numbers continued to skyrocket, people needed to see doctors for non-virus reasons (and really wanted haircuts), and the weather was suddenly perfect for spending time outdoors. The risk-benefit analysis seemed squarely on the side of at least some reopening.

Health experts advised that to make things go smoothly, people should still maintain a physical distance from others, be extra-vigilant about what they touch, and wear a mask or some sort of facial covering as much as possible outside the home. It's no one's ideal of what social interaction, shopping, dining out, or doing one's job would look like. But it did present a way for us to get back to some semblance of normal life—and more economic activity—without just accepting that tons more people would die or waiting months or years for a vaccine.

Plus, voluntary measures taken by individuals and businesses can be an effective hex against government mandates. People taking precautions and proving we can socialize responsibly during a pandemic seems the best way to keep authorities from banning bars and barbershops, ordering everyone home, and making it a federal crime to leave the house without a mask.

Alas, there's been a sustained crusade against voluntary mask-wearing and social distancing. It has been encouraged by President Donald Trump, whose refusal to wear a mask gives succor to those who treat this basic precaution as a partisan symbol that Team Read should reject. "Unfortunately, wearing a mask has become a political issue for many people," as Robert Jeffress—senior pastor at the 13,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas—wrote recently in an op-ed about churches reopening safely (and urging people not to buy this mask politicization). Meanwhile, mixed messages from on high have made it easier for all sorts of people, not just Trump loyalists, to shrug their shoulders and crowd into bars, casinos, restaurants, religious services, etc., without wearing masks or otherwise observing any sort of breath- and spit-distancing policy.

Now positive coronavirus tests in many areas have started to trend back up. "Confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States surpassed 2.5 million on Sunday as a crushing new wave of infections continued to bear down throughout the country's South and West," The Washington Post reports. "Across the nation, 40,587 new daily cases were reported." (Death rates, fortunately, have not yet started to climb.)

Several factors are likely behind this increase, and it's hard to definitively separate them. Some can certainly be attributed to increased testing, but myriad health experts and public officials say there's more to it than just that. In general, there's evidence that the majority of infections are spread by a minority of "super spreaders."

Meanwhile, empirical evidence backs up the idea that transmission risk is lower when people wear masks. See, for instance, this study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Or, on an anecdotal level, the Missouri hair stylist who started seeing customers again, then tested positive for COVID-19—she and her customers had all worn masks, and none of the customers contracted it from her.

There's also interesting, if far from conclusive, information to be gleaned from the thousands of mostly masked people crowded together at outdoor protests in the beginning of June—with little evidence as of yet that these were major sources of spread. In fact, health officials in some areas with large protests, including New Orleans, say few new people who test positive report having been out protesting.

At the same time, we're seeing more and more stories about particular indoor bars, house parties, or church services with unmasked patrons becoming major sites for COVID-19 transmission.

"An outbreak at a Pentecostal church in Oregon, where hundreds of worshipers resumed gathering over Memorial Day weekend, forced an entire county to return to phase one of its reopening after local officials traced 258 cases of Covid-19 back to the facility," notes Politico. "In West Virginia, six health departments across the state have reported coronavirus outbreaks linked to churches. One of them, a Baptist church in Greenbrier County, had 34 congregants test positive for the virus. And in Texas, which hit an all-time high of new cases last week, health officials have received numerous reports of church-related exposures."

Masks and a certain amount of social distancing during public outings aren't a perfect precaution, but they are a reasonable precaution—one that seemed poised to allow American cities and states to start being open for business again. But a lot of people seem to think that lifting the lockdowns means the risk is over, and are behaving accordingly. (This itself raises questions about the unintended consequences of the lockdown approach.) Whether this actually accounts for rising COVID-19 numbers is unclear, but it's already fueling stricter regulations.


QUICK HITS

• The European Union is now thinking about excluding Americans from people who will be allowed to start traveling to countries there.

• On Saturday, the state of New York saw its lowest daily deaths from COVID-19 since March 15, with five new deaths. "This compared to 13 fatalities the day before as the number of fatalities caused by the virus continues to plummet in the state. During the peak of the pandemic in April, nearly 800 people were dying a day from coronavirus."

• How coronavirus is demolishing college towns.

• Matt Taibbi reviews White Fragility.

NEXT: Reopen the Schools!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Protests caused the spike – the timing is right, and this outbreak is concentrated on younger people, the same demographic that was at the protests.

    1. Hello.

      Lockdowns loom.

      But gay pride rallies bloom.

      And those riots too!

      This is bananas. The whole thing is just bloody retarded.

      1. Scientists say you can’t spread Covid with a dick in your bum, and Dykes On Bikes participation scares away the demons of illness.

        According to DNC research only Synagogues, Churches and places you can engage in legitimate business practices are high risk locations.

        1. It’s ok. They’re wearing masks!

          When in fact, social distancing is probably more effective.

          Even that they get wrong.

          They’re full of shit. We know this.

          1. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone………More here

          2. ITT, Marxist Jeffy, aka, De Oppresso Loser, who I used to call Lying Jeffy because he lies as much as Jeff and is probably him, comes out of the closet as a Marxist, by admitting that he does not believe in private property.

    2. SCIENCE tells us that it is the people who stayed at home who transmitted the virus! SCIENCE tells us that protests protect against the virus! SCIENCE tells us that’s why we need to be locked down in our homes again! I Heard it on national TV and read it in top newspapers! (And I’m not kidding.)

      1. Now be a good boy and wear your muzzle in public

        1. Wear a small piece of fabric over your mouth and nose, an incredibly small inconvenience for you that may actually save a life, selfish snowflake.

          1. Drive 25 mph, it is just a minor inconvenience.

            1. You have a big problem with driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone?

              1. I remember when there was no such thing outside of a school zone.

                1. Still that way where I live. Are there are a lot of speed trap 25 mph streets where you live?

                  1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had .CDs Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month FEd I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

                    Heres what I do…………. Home Profit System

                2. FYI, if you want to visit NASA in Clear Lake, Texas, across the parkway is the little town of Nassau Bay. They have a speed limit of 25, and I got pulled over for going 25. Fuck that place. Skip going to any of the nearby restaurants in Nassau Bay or near it, and go to Nobi Public House in Webster instead. Fantastic food and extensive beer list.

                  Small towns in Texas are about as bad as small towns in Ohio when it comes to Draconian traffic regs.

                  1. Sorry to hear you have b.s. like that going on where you live.

                  2. What, did the cop say you were going too slow? “The speed limit is 25!” “But you were blocking traffic.”

                    1. My guess is that his radar popped for 27 or so, it was midday, and he was bored, and hoping I would talk myself into a violation.

                      “Do you know how fast you were going?”
                      “Yes, the speed limit. 25, per that sign.”
                      “Oh.”

                      I still got a warning citation. Warning for what, I’m not sure. Other than to stay out of that ‘hole. The parkway is a good deal faster (45, IIRC), and most neighborhoods in Texas are no lower than 30. Nassau Bay is a notable exception, and I bet they make zillions in traffic fines.

          2. I do like how you pretend to be libertarian with comments like these.

            I like how you’re also too stupid to understand long term mask wearing does have negative health consequences per studies w nurses.

            1. Doing the right thing whether or not you are forced to isn’t libertarian? Never heard of personal responsibility or voluntarism or patriotism?

              And you’re scare of the supposed “health effects” of mask wearing? What do you think is more harmful for respiratory health, wearing a fabric face covering, or covid 19? Think real hard, retard.

            2. Wow, if what you are claiming is even true, it’s a completely different kind of mask in a completely different environment with completely different amount of time spent wearing the mask.

          3. “Wear a small piece of fabric over your mouth and nose, an incredibly small inconvenience for you that may actually save a life, selfish snowflake.”

            Get fucked with a running chain-saw, you cowardly piece of lefty shit.
            Scared of catching something? Crawl in a hole and stay there for the good of mankind.

            1. Ah, Sevo. Always the guy who you can count on for a rational discussion free of personal invective and anger management issues.

          4. Being considerate of their fellow humans isn’t really high on their list.

            It’s more important to virtue signal what hardcore freedom fighters they are.

            1. …who never actually fight or even inconvenience themselves in the slightest, ever. Just a bunch of selfish toddlers. The perfect example of why america is the way it is now. “My rights are infinitely more important than my responsibilities.”

              1. “My rights are infinitely more important than my responsibilities.”

                The two things are inextricably bound.

                A fact that you and your ilk never seem to grasp hence the utter horror your leftist ideas create over and over and over again.

                Because you expect people to shoulder responsibility without ever respecting their rights.

          5. Giving up cars would save far more lives.

          6. Just out of curiosity, if masks work then why can’t people go back to their jobs or to church services etc. so long as they wear masks? Why is a “lockdown” necessary?

          7. Wear it voluntarily. That’s the step you guys keep leaving out.

      2. Keep your social distance pal.

    3. “That’s different” – every democrat ever

      1. Something, something, common good.

      2. “That’s different” — also, every Republican ever.

        Wait, no. Only 95% of Republicans. Trump tweeted this morning that 5% of Republicans are RINOs because they are disloyal to himself.

    4. Your armchair science is impressive.

    5. Protests caused the spike

      Do you have data to support your assertion?

      1. Of course, he doesn’t. And he didn’t spend one second looking for any evidence that counters his conclusion.

        Like, for example, there were entire states where there were virtually no protests, but there are spikes.

      2. Common sense would say that the protests were just as likely vectors as the people partying over Memorial weekend or the anti-lockdown protests the couple weeks before that.

        But you’ll pretend that you never complained about the lockdown protestors.

        1. You mean because he’s a dishonest piece of shit?

    6. Flaw in your oh-so in-depth armchair science: There is a spike in my state, but there were virtually no protests here.

      What we did have was reopening of bars, and people going nuts like they were celebrating the end of Prohibition. (Which they kinda were.)

      1. How many is “virtually no”?

        1. Two or three peaceful protests with about 100 attendees. Most people wearing masks.

          1. So ‘virtually no’ means ‘some’.

    7. Just in case I’m being too subtle: Your armchair science is just your coming to a conclusion that validates your team-based political views. It’s not based on any real analysis.

      1. We get it you now down to the state. Stop pretending your a libertarian okay sweetie?

        1. As I said, I’m not bowing down to shit.

          You know what’s bowing down. It’s letting any politician, Democrat or Republican, influence how you look at scientific evidence.

          1. Yet you are looking at it purely from a democratic perspective. Weird.

            What in his inference didnt make sense? 2 week incubation periods. Protests started 2 weeks ago. Mask using is laughable there. It was the young being infected. How is that inference anti scientific. There is no pure scientific test to determine spike origins. The tracer teams cant even ask about protests for fucks sake.

            So what the fuck are you complaining about?

            1. What did I look at from a Democratic perspective? I just pointed out the flaw in Ra’s armchair science.

              I’ll point it out, again. There are states, including the one I live in, that had virtually no protests, yet are now surging. That disproves Ra’s “scientific” conclusion.

              1. Texas had protests all over the big cities, you moron.

                1. Not talking about Texas.

          2. Like about sex and genetics?

          1. to science and facts, you brain dead partisan.

            1. The Science. It’s called The Science. Try to get it right, dummy.

    8. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, Click For Full Details.

    9. Nope it was young people at bars not protests.
      Contagion is related to
      1) The concentration of virus you are exposed to (mask wearing reduces this)
      2) The amount of time you are exposed
      3) The ventilation in the area

      Out doors with a mask is much, much safer than indoors without one. Crowded indoor bars without adequate ventilation and where everyone is shouting over the music are among the very worst venues.

  2. https://1010wins.radio.com/articles/112-victims-reported-in-83-shootings-over-9-days-in-nyc
    112 injured or killed in 83 shootings over 9 days in NYC: ‘I haven’t seen anything like this in my entire life’

      1. Minneapolis council members calling to defund police spend $63G on private security details after receiving death threats
        The security details reportedly cost the city $4,500 a day in taxpayer dollars.
        https://www.foxnews.com/us/minneapolis-city-council-members-private-security-detail-death-threats

        1. A glimpse into the future.

          1. Yes, where the connected have police protection.
            Hoi polloi? Who cares?

            1. “Progressive policies for thee, but not for me” – t. Your clerisy & political classes

      2. Private security for all!

        1. It should be a right!

  3. As COVID-19 case counts rise and some states start reviving their shutdown orders, regulators are coalescing around the idea that we reopened too fast.

    I distinctly saw a ton of protesters in the streets complaining that we reopened too fast.

    1. Notice how they went from death count to case count and ignore the antibody studies showing estimates as high as 10x population with antibodies?

      Went from flattening the curve, to reducing deaths, to nobody catching it

      1. The best indicator is the hospitalization rate. The number of hospitalizations per capita is independent of the number of tests done. Plus if you are hitting up against your hospital or ICU capacity you are running into trouble that should not be ignored no matter how low you say the overall rate is due to antibody testing.

        1. You do realize that hospitals typically run at about 80% capacity, and they have the ability to expand that capacity in accordance with need, right? ICU beds are not a static figure.

      2. This is exactly what I was going to say.
        They slyly shifted the reporting from hospitaliations and death counts to incidents of infections.
        The whole fukin point of the reports is supposed to tell us how dangerous it is, not how well it spreads.
        The more testing we do, the more “cases” will be detected. But cases don’t count if people are not getting sick. And even if some identifiable sub-portion of the population is getting sick (sicker than the seasonal flu that is), then the lockdown guidelines should apply to them, not everyone.
        Typical socialist thinking — if some people cannot handle omnipresent challenges, then they must impose restrictions on all people, irrespective of their capabilities.

  4. How did we get here so quickly? Houston became a hot spot last Wednesday — 15 days after another event in Houston: the funeral of George Floyd.

    The New York Times reported at the time, “A public viewing in Houston drew nearly 6,400 people, including Gov. Greg Abbott, nurses fresh from work dressed in scrubs, new fathers holding babies and Mr. Floyd’s high school classmates. Following Tuesday’s service, he was to be buried at the Houston Memorial Gardens in a grave next to his mother, Larcenia Floyd, who died in 2018.”

    This shit isn’t hard. But hey, let’s blame ending the lockdown, which happened 8 weeks earlier because rioting is sacred and could never result in anything bad.

    1. What happened at the same time across the country? Protests.

      What did not? Reopening, which happened with different schedules in different states.

    2. YET, it’s clearly not fatal.

      There’s no justification for another lockdown.

      smh.

      1. But only 99.999% survive!

        1. So good! So true.

      2. The seven day running average for deaths is down to 596. That is the lowest it has been since March 30th.

        1. but it was supposed to be 3000 deaths a day, I would say that that is a win for opening.

          1. The highest daily death count for the US was in April and was 2701. We never hit 3,000 deaths a day for even one day.

            1. I know thats what they were predicting would happen after re opening to scare us into not re opening which never made sense since it was never that high during the the worst of it.

        2. My bet. And this is just an off the cuff assumption.

          My bet this thing (viral pneumonia essentially?) when all is said and done (as serious as it is so for those of you who pearl clutch relax) this virus will have a lethality rate in line with the flu.

          And deaths will be adjusted downwards.

          Watch.

          1. I imagine overall you are probably correct. It will have a much higher death rate among certain populations and a much lower one among the rest of the population. And it will even out to be about the same as the flu, which kills pretty evenly throughout the entire population.

            1. No, it will have a much higher deathrate because nobody is going to back to correct the misleadingly–recorded statistics. If we could back up and only count COVID deaths where it was a primary or proximate cause of death, we might cut our current number of deaths by half.

          2. Rufus, I said back in late February or early March that the stats would end up indistinct from the fly.
            See no reason to change that

              1. Flea fly flu flum, I smell the blood of a Canadian!

                (Or maple syrup.)

                1. There’s a difference?

            1. The day they shut down here and everyone around me was losing their mind I said to my wife, ‘watch. The cure will be worse than the disease. This is going to be epic in its fuck up. The Pandora’s Box we’re about to open will be felt for years’. Along those lines.

              The day of.

              It wasn’t that hard to predict quite frankly. Entirely foreseeable.

              Fear is our most primal emotion and we let it run rampant dictating our reason.

              A true breakdown of reason.

        3. We’ve killed off all the Florida and New York nursing home patients by now. You can toss Washington in there too, I suppose.

          1. New York, yes.

            Florida, no.

            Florida has about one tenth the deaths of NY–despite having over 2 million more people.

      1. Pride parades are virus proof, it’s been that way since the 80’s. Just ask Liberace and Rock Hudson.

    3. Even if you want to ignore rioting all the people who stayed home for 3 months without getting it apparently are now infecting the public in general while never infecting the family members they were with during the lockdown. not that many actually did follow the lockdowns in the first place. this makes this virus the smartest virus ever since it can wait to infect at will. the conclusion is one of two things. you could lock down for years and it would make no difference once people came back out or someone or government is seeding the virus. How else would a virus know not to infect rioters but will infect church goers

      1. It’s a racist virus Ron. Hello.

        /throws used mask at feet.

    4. You mean Texas is having an outbreak after all the experts warned that Texas was reopening too aggressively and would have another outbreak. You’re right, this shit isn’t hard. Which is why the rest of the civilized world is doing better than us.

      https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/coronavirus/2020/06/23/376713/is-abbott-reopening-texas-too-fast-a-timeline/

      1. And just two weeks after all your favorite riots, DOL.
        What a coinkydink.

        1. Europhiliacs like espresso are nothing if not dishonest

        2. Also, 60,000 people marched in Huston for the Floyd George funeral.
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/06/03/in-houston-60000-join-in-peaceful-march-for-george-floyd/#644f85c5a4be

          Your not very good at this are you, DOL.

          1. Waaahhhh! Stop making fun of De Oppresso Liber! And why are you even here at Reason if you hate libertarians? All their article are great! Waaahhhhh!

            (sniffle)

            1. Good try, Tulpa. My handle has a capital ‘K’ in it. Hard to fake that with the Reason website font.

            2. And why are all these people here at Reason if they hate Reason’s writing? It’s a valid question.

              1. Because they’re trying to encourage Reason to actually print stuff, that might be, you know, LIBERTARIAN, instead of coastal elite, progressive-lite.

              2. It’s usually a bunch of neocons attempting to define “Libertarian”.

                They’ve pissed in their own pool and want everyone to have a taste.

          2. In addition to the protest..looks like many in my area equate “open” as no mask and no social distancing. There was/is no middle ground..

            I think we are back to square 1.

            1. No no no. If you admit that masks can help prevent the spread of respiratory viruses, you are a democrat commie!

              It makes sense if you are pants-on-head retarded.

      2. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/382959/

        And before you go on your usual “It’s PJ Media” ad hominem, just look at the graph. You had weeks and weeks of reopening with no change until the riots.

        Also, please chill the fuck out with your “the rest of the world” nonsense. The US is basically middling on performance compared to the rest of the world.

        1. He is too fucking stupid to understand spikes happen at different times in different locations. Europe has spikes in May.

    5. It’s good to know that you understand that gatherings can cause covid hot spots. I think we should all remember that.

    6. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, Click For Full Details.

  5. “Matt Taibbi reviews White Fragility.”

    Ugh. Taibbi is a phony progressive and discredited #TrumpRussia denialist — no better than Glenn Greenwald or Michael Tracey.

    1. Phony progressive? You repeat yourself.

  6. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced last week that restaurants must not exceed 50 percent capacity…

    The “half you can eat” bar is open for business.

    1. And the ‘half what you need to stay in business’ bar won’t be open for long.

      1. There should be civil disobedience.

        1. The bar owner has powerful incentives to comply: Remember that liquor license which was supposedly granted to ‘make sure there aren’t too many bars’?
          Suffice to say it has other uses.

          1. License to kill, eh?

    2. Why “half capacity” the magic number? Will 60% be measurably different? 40% measurably better? It makes a difference to the guys you are driving towards bankruptcy.

      Or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass because it sounds good?

    1. Hmmm? DeJuan Young claimed he was shot by a white racist in CHAZ/CHOP. DOL claimed last week he went to the area armed. Coincidence?

    2. At some point the mayor’s gonna have to bite the bullet and send the in the troops. I have a feeling it won’t be until an actual tax payer gets it in the neck.

      1. Not that he’d care about the tax payer, per se, but you can’t just let people shoot your tax cattle.

        1. yep. Plus it keeps the rest of the herd calm.

  7. Trump keeps claiming that the most dangerous cities in America are all run by Democrats. They aren’t.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/trump-keeps-claiming-that-most-dangerous-cities-america-are-all-run-by-democrats-they-arent/

    Most of the current mayors of these cities are Democrats. Two of the mayors of cities with the most reported violent crimes overall, though, are independents and one, the mayor of Jacksonville, Fla., is a Republican. Among the 20 cities with the most violent crime per capita, one isn’t a Democrat: the independent mayor of Springfield, Mo.

    1. LOL

      Drumpf totally got OWNED by that fact check!

    2. Using absolute numbers for the comparison is meaningless. You need to look at the crime rates and the numbers are clear.

    3. DRUMPF totally owned it was not ALL, it was only 19 of 20, lol what a moron! lol, total massive PWNAGE!

    4. “Among the 20 cities with the most violent crime per capita, one isn’t a Democrat:”

      Wow, only 19 out of twenty, that Trump is such a fibber!

    5. “He claimed ALL the most violent cities are run by Democrats! Akshully, it’s ALMOST ALL of them! Checkmate, Blumph!”

  8. …the governor just told seven counties “to immediately close any bars and nightspots that are open and recommended eight other counties take action on their own to close those businesses.

    “You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here. The you-have-to-go-home order is coming tomorrow.”

  9. Matt Taibbi reviews White Fragility.

    Will it trigger me?

    1. Fake news! Chicago implemented common sense gun control and all gun violence stopped.

      1. Actually, violent crime in Democrat-controlled areas is always the fault of Republicans in neighboring states. Didn’t you learn that in college?

        1. Nope.
          I went to college so long ago that they were actually teaching how to read several views on a subject and make up our own minds. Well, except for hard science like math and physics and stuff that is to hard today. Hint; it was so long ago that there were not yet degrees in computer science.
          And oh, by the way, we open carried on campus to and from target practice, and zero people got shot.

  10. Tonight Detroit police drove into a group of protesters, then, when they were stopped in the middle of the group, they hit the gas.

    I guess that’s one way of putting it.

    1. On the other hand – – –
      No dogs were shot, no necks were kneeled upon.

      1. Progress!
        /Pollyanna

    2. Making a roadblock out of human bodies does not seem like a big brain idea.

      1. It always comes down to roads with libertarians, doesn’t it?

        1. hey man, you leave my fetish out of this!

    3. the back window of the cop car is busted out, he can’t really just sit there with the back window busted open surrounded by a crowd since I believe that is where they may keep their AR15’s or shotguns oftentimes.

  11. The European Union is now thinking about excluding Americans from people who will be allowed to start traveling to countries there.

    People from majority Christian nation???

    1. One list scrolling by showed China as an acceptable country to come from.
      You can’t make this stuff up.

      1. Openly racist policy.

    2. And in Texas, which hit an all-time high of new cases last week, health officials have received numerous reports of church-related exposures.

      I knew it. CHRISTIAN BAN!

      1. Pretty much.
        Cuomo made it clear two months ago who the real targets were.

  12. I have a suggestion for my favorite libertarian writer Shikha Dalmia’s next column!

    After protests, a Unilever skin cream popular in India will no longer promote a ‘Fair & Lovely’ look

    Ms. Dalmia can explain how it’s actually Drumpf’s fault that so many Indians have bigoted attitudes about the appeal of light skin.

    #LibertariansAgainstSkinLightening

    1. Trying to keep up here…

      Orange face is bad.
      Black face is bad.
      Now, white face is bad.

      What kind of face is good this week?

      1. Certainly NOT social interface – – – –

      2. only mask faces are good.
        My sister bought a burka so when some one tells her to put a mask on she will put the burka on and say “happy now may as well get used to it since thats where this is going”

        1. Hats off to your sister, she sounds like a fun person

      3. What kind of face is good this week?

        Why two faced of course.

      4. That was one of the most deliberately obtuse things I’ve ever seen.

        1. You should read a Jeff post.

          1. I have seen him be obtuse sometimes. Not often, though.

            Thank you for not going with the tired trope that Jeff and I are just sock puppets of each other.

            1. Next you’re going to tell us not all white women are named Karen. You really don’t understand anything do you.

              1. Huh, another complete non sequitur from JesseAz.

    2. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. Click For Full Details.

    1. IT is a shame they didn’t get to shoot a few of them.

      1. Then they likely would have gone to jail for awhile, and the mob would have burned down their exquisitely restored mansion. The couple, AIUI, are a pair of PI attorneys, and evidently do quite well. As I’ve yet to meet the PI attorney who wasn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I had quite a bit of schadenfreude seeing the video clips.

        Not so fun now without the cops, is it?

        1. Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state. So as long as the Protesters trespassed on their property, the home owners would not be legally wrong for shooting them. I don’t think trespassing on the private street would do it, but it might. But had they come into the yard or tried to enter the house, those people could have shot them with little or no fear of legal consequences.

          And as far as the mob burning the place down, shooting a couple of people tends to take all the fun out of burning shit down. So, I imagine their house would have been fine.

          Had the mob tried to enter the house and a few of them ended up dead, that would have been the feel good story of the summer. I don’t care if it was a couple of half wit white liberals pulling the trigger.

          1. “Whose streets? Our streets!”
            Not only is criminal trespass a violent act, on property he is at least part owner of, but thats a clear statement of intent to occupy/steal

          2. Here in TN unfortunately, they need to actually break into the house/car and for you to fear for your life for you to legally be able to shoot them. You can’t do it in defense of property, just your life. Although if there’s an angry mob, I’d say that constitutes fear for my life

        2. Regardless of their politics, that’s the proper way to confront bully protesters invading your neighborhood, especially if they’re threatening violence. The only thing these feral vermin understand is force and the threat of force.

          Of course, the faggot who was filming it is a Berniebro and claimed that it was on a “public street”–the whole neighborhood is a gated community and is private property, with the street being a common thoroughfare.

          1. There’s other film of the protesters breaking through a gate to get into the neighborhood. I guess the house in question is near the Mayor’s house, and the protesters wanted a shortcut.

            I am not as sanguine as John about Castle Doctrine saving the couple if they started blasting people on their lawn. Not in St. Louis. Coming through the door? Sure. Lobbing Molotovs? Same.

            Just trespassing on the private road and lawn? Ehhhhh. I think you can get to apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm—and I think the couple were scared shitless of just that—-but they’re going to have to work at it. Moreover, nothing says the mob won’t come back to burn the place while the two attorneys are bonding out. For vengeance if nothing else. Like the Wendy’s in Atlanta. Granted, that was the hood, and this St. Louis neighborhood most definitely is not.

            It is a really sweet house.

            1. If they had come up on their lawn, they could have made the case for it. As it is, all they did was yell at the couple and move on.

              These people don’t believe in their cause enough yet to actually risk their lives over it.

        3. Therein lies the irksome rub in all this.

          Fuckhead criminals can trespass and threaten peaceful property owners and if they get shot as proper it’s the owners the cops arrest.

          Civil society should have ONE rule: You enter private property and trespass all bets are off. Proceed at your own peril. PERIOD.

          Those fuckers know system leans their way.

          Bat to the knees they deserve. That way they’ll never dare do that again unless they’re incorrigible criminals. But then I’d get arrested.

          Not right man.

          1. I would suggest that civil society requires two fundamental rules:

            1. Don’t touch me.

            2. Don’t touch my stuff.

            Feelings and fairness and sanctity and other bullshit are just social impositions based on religion, communism, moral superiority, and other delusions.

      2. Republicans now cheering for shooting protesters, yet silent when it comes to Russians paying bounties on US soldiers (with the president’s full knowledge and, it appears, implied consent). What patriots.

        1. Since dumb asses like you have made “protesting” synonymous with “rioting” and burning and looting, yes, protesting now get’s you shot.

          Great job dumb ass. Meanwhile, your dreams of having the mob terrorize the public into submission remain unfulfilled. Until you disarm them, your mobs of black shirts just won’t ever do the trick.

          1. Where was the riot, where was the burning? Those were protestors on a sidewalk, you utter boot licker.

            1. They were protesters in a private neighborhood, you commie shitstain.

              1. “Won’t someone think of the gated neighborhood! No fair! Protesting outside politicians’ homes violates the NAP” -no Libertarian ever.

                1. Where were the politicians in that private neighborhood?

                2. “Won’t someone think of the gated neighborhood!..”

                  You misspelled “private property”, shitstain.

                  1. He’s gone full Marxist! It’s fun to watch how far he’ll go for Orange Man Bad!

              2. And does entering a “private neighborhood” justify pointing a loaded weapon at someone? I’m thinking no, legally or morally.

                1. “The Libertarian Case for Why Private Property Really Isn’t Private.”

                  1. I love how this goal post has been moved all the way from:

                    “Violent looters were rampaging and these hero conserva-cucks defended themselves with guns!”

                    to

                    “Yeah, they weren’t looting or being violent at all, but what were the HOA rules for being on that sidewalk, hmm?!1!11 That’s what I thought!”

                    1. I love how the commie shitstain is defending trespassing on private property.

                    2. I love how this nazi shit stain is defending potentially ending a life over home owners’ association rules being broken.

                    3. Guess the commie shitstain doesn’t know how to read:

                      From the KMOV4 website: “‘We were in fear of our lives’; Central West End couple seen pointing guns at protesters speaks”

                      “Personal injury lawyers Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife Patricia, 61, told KMOV4 that they were having dinner with family outside their home when the BLM protesters broke through iron gates marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” and “rushed” towards their home…According to police, the couple told protesters that they were on trespassing on a private street and needed to leave. Shortly after, the couple grabbed their guns after noticing several armed protesters in the crowd, shouting threats.

                      “This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob,” McCloskey told News 4.”

                      Threats are okay when the Left does it!

                2. It was a gated community with a private road. They came through the gate unwelcome by the people whose property it is. Did you not read the link before spouting your nonsense, again, or are you admitting you’re a Marxist?

              3. Can you link to some kind of source that clearly states that they were in a private neighborhood?

                I’ve never been to St. Louis, and you probably haven’t either, so I looked at a map to get an idea where the protestors were walking. The articles I’ve found are fuzzy on precisely where the private property signs were, and the articles I have found are clear that nobody seems to have stepped onto the couple’s own property.

                1. From the KMOV4 website: “‘We were in fear of our lives’; Central West End couple seen pointing guns at protesters speaks”

                  “Personal injury lawyers Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife Patricia, 61, told KMOV4 that they were having dinner with family outside their home when the BLM protesters broke through iron gates marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” and “rushed” towards their home…According to police, the couple told protesters that they were on trespassing on a private street and needed to leave. Shortly after, the couple grabbed their guns after noticing several armed protesters in the crowd, shouting threats.

                  “This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob,” McCloskey told News 4.”

                  1. Waaahhhh! I said protesters, so they’re protesters, no matter what! Protesters can trespass as long as they’re just protesting!

                    1. No property was destroyed. The only violence committed was 2 boomers pointing guns at people for being in their neighborhood.

                      And if you think the correct course of action to take when catching someone committing misdemeanor trespass (at worst) is to point a gun at them, then you have no business owning a gun.

                    2. It’s fun watching you defend trespassing.

                    3. The only violence committed was 2 boomers pointing guns at people for being in their neighborhood.

                      From the KMOV4 website: “‘We were in fear of our lives’; Central West End couple seen pointing guns at protesters speaks”

                      “Personal injury lawyers Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife Patricia, 61, told KMOV4 that they were having dinner with family outside their home when the BLM protesters broke through iron gates marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” and “rushed” towards their home…According to police, the couple told protesters that they were on trespassing on a private street and needed to leave. Shortly after, the couple grabbed their guns after noticing several armed protesters in the crowd, shouting threats.

                      “This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob,” McCloskey told News 4.”

                      Watch DOL now make the argument that threatening homeowners and trespassing on private property is protected under the First Amendment.

                      The funniest post-script to this? They released a statement saying that they support BLM and that the protesters who instigated the threats were all white. My fuckin’ sides!

                    4. OK, except I didn’t say anything like that.

                      It sounds like the protestors were on private property, and the homeowners were protecting their home with guns, which is their right.

                    5. Yet here’s DOL saying they were in the wrong and you’re still white knighting for him.

                  2. Not his first time crafting a narrative to local media. Well done.

                    This is how you sell that you were in fear of your life, people.

            2. OBEY espresso calling someone else a bootlicker.
              Oh… irony

        2. since when have American Soldeirs not been targets of nations that hate the US this is literally not news

          1. Since when has any world leader been ok with another country offering bounties on their soldiers?
            Trump tried to force Russia into the G7 after finding out Putin had been paying bounties to have US soldiers killed. And those bounties were collected on, meaning Putin directly caused the deaths of US soldiers.

            If you are ok with this, then you are a traitor. Donald Trump is a traitor.

            1. Who said trump was okay dumbfuck? What has come out of the IC is that the reports of russian bounties are from non credible raw intel. The same fucking shit as the trump russia hoax you also fell for.

              There is a reason the military doesnt react to every rumor dummy.

              1. ^ increasingly desperate traitor trying to justify continued support of treason.

                1. Increasing pile of lies from lefty who was called on bullshit.

                2. “The Libertarian Case for Starting a Hot War with Russia”

                  1. Seems to be what he’s asking for.

                    The irony here is, when the US actually does take action against those who arm, equip, and train the fighters who try to kill Americans—like when that drone sent Soleimani to Hell—guys like DOL are the first ones to start bitching about what a warmonger Trump is.

                    I wrote a longer post about this in the transportation lockdown thread today, but the gist is: OK, the Russians are paying people to kill US personnel. What exactly do you want the US to do about it? Because declaring war on Russia, or overtly attacking their people, is not going to happen. Nor should it.

                    1. No one is asking for a war. Try to stay on topic. And are you really so dense that you think war is the only response available? How about not inviting them to international summits, for fuck’s sake. What’s wrong with you trump cultists?! I thought you loved america? Or do you just love your cult leader more than american soldiers? I know it’s tough having to confront your deeply held irrational beliefs, but Trump is a traitor.

                      Aren’t you curious why Trump invited to Putin to G7 after finding out about this?

                    2. You have a cite that Soleimani ever paid anyone to kill Americans dumbfuck?

              2. Ron right above, implied it was A-OK with him.

              3. The statement that the reports were not credible came from a Trump tweet. You are seriously putting a self-serving Trump tweet up as credible evidence?

              4. And I suppose you will change your opinion when it comes out that this happened? Or are you going to come up with a new excuse once we cross that bridge?

            2. Every identifiable source has denied it, but just for fun let’s say it’s true.
              We not only pay Syrians and Ukrainians to kill Russians, we also arm them to do it.
              And is your position that the taliban

              1. would try to avoid killing Americans if not for the supposed bounty?

                1. And would you like to go to war? You europhiliacs are so dumb

                  1. Nardz, the irony of you calling me dumb is surely lost on you, but those with above room temp IQ’s will get a chuckle, so thanks.

                    You realize there are many options available to a president short of declaring a draft and rushing to ww3, right? You are? So you are just being disingenuous to try to head off an argument that you can’t win? Ok, glad we cleared that up.

                    And the issue isn’t that “other countries do it too” the issue is that Trump knew about this, and just fucking took it. Not only just took it, begged for more by inviting Putin to the G7 summit after finding out about this. What a fucking coward. What a traitor.

                    If you still support Trump, you are a traitor.

                    1. That post clearly upset you, obey espresso.
                      It seems the talking points you’ve received are insufficient

                    2. Your talking points are insufficient, as evidenced by you leaving the argument while still talking meaningless shit.

                      Putin had our troops killed, and Trump’s response was to invite him to a party.

                      Benghazi times a million.

                    3. The NYT puts out its narrative and the commie shitstain parrots it like the dumbfuck bobblehead that he is.

            3. Perhaps that is why Trump is pulling out of nuke treaties with Russia. Are you advocating he attack Russia directly because that will be nuclear war? Short of that the USA options are to do more covert attacks on Russia that you or I won’t hear about anytime soon.

            4. It’s kinda sad how badly you want to get involved in a shooting war with half the world.

              Forgive me if I take a giant mountain of salt with every serving of “there are WMD’s, possibly yellow cake, in Iraq” from the IC.

          2. Are you totally unaware of the details of this news?

            1. Anonymous resources pushing raw intel… when has that ever been wrong…

              1. Going to stick my fingers in my ears because I don’t want to consider disturbing news about my hero, Trump.

        3. Republicans now cheering for shooting protesters,

          The disingenuous intentional conflation of ‘rioters’ and ‘protestors’ will be the undoing of what should have been a valid movement. And it’s YOUR fault, Liberal Journalists.
          Unbelievable.

          1. Where was the rioting? They were protesting outside the mayor’s house.

            1. They were trespassing. And you think that’s ok, because you don’t believe in private property. Which makes you a Marxist.

              1. newsflash: you can’t shoot someone over being on the sidewalk outside your house, HOA rules or no.

                1. From the KMOV4 website: “‘We were in fear of our lives’; Central West End couple seen pointing guns at protesters speaks”

                  “Personal injury lawyers Mark McCloskey, 63, and his wife Patricia, 61, told KMOV4 that they were having dinner with family outside their home when the BLM protesters broke through iron gates marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” and “rushed” towards their home…According to police, the couple told protesters that they were on trespassing on a private street and needed to leave. Shortly after, the couple grabbed their guns after noticing several armed protesters in the crowd, shouting threats.

                  “This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob,” McCloskey told News 4.”

                2. You really are just going to ignore all the facts that make you look stupid, rather than admit you were wrong.

                    1. At least Marxist Jeffy gets a new nickname.

            2. This doesn’t in any way exonerate all the disingenuous conflation of “looter” and “protestor” that happens through all the media reporting of the ‘unrest’.

        4. Yeah, the proper response here is to put all of our forces back into Syria for an indefinite amount of time until John McCain and Barack Obama’s gayop coup attempt on Assad is complete.

          1. Mayor doesn’t live in that neighborhood

            1. *supposed to be reply to espresso

        5. I’m sure the anonymous sources from “intel” agencies and the NYT won’t prove completely false again THIS time…

          1. Did Judith Miller write the story?

        6. Still waiting on that proof that the Russians were paying bounties. I’ve seen several statements by IC members saying that it’s a lie, which would make sense since it’s the NY Times that came up with this garbage. They’re back to the “anonymous totally real sources” shit again.

          1. The New York Times has evidence it happened, and you don’t have evidence that it didn’t. Case closed!

            1. The NYT has hearsay, and you’re buying it. Case closed!

            2. you don’t have evidence that it didn’t.

              You can’t prove a negative, shithead.

    2. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. Click For Full Details.

  13. “proving we can socialize responsibly during a pandemic”

    Is this still a libertarian publication? Why the fuck should we have to prove anything to the government here? What a paternalistic take. Government in loco parentis. “Kids, if you can’t climb that tree more responsibly, I’m going to chop it down!”

    Masks are expensive, kinda hard to find, uncomfortable, and most people pull them down below their nose and/or chin. Some experts say they don’t help. This whole debacle is fucking exhausting.

      1. CDC mask guidance for regular flu:

        https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm
        No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses. If unvaccinated high-risk persons decide to wear masks during periods of increased respiratory illness activity in the community, it is likely they will need to wear them any time they are in a public place and when they are around other household members.

    1. Some experts, including the CDC! (unless you are talking ONLY about the Communist Chinese Virus, which is unique)

      Oddly enough, for the real flu;
      Unvaccinated Asymptomatic Persons, Including Those at High Risk for Influenza Complications
      No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses

      But for the magical COVID;
      In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.
      Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.
      The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators. Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance.

      So “cloth face coverings” (note: not called masks) are a voluntary option where anti-social distancing is NOT feasible, according to the CDC.

      Local tyrants, however, are still denying science in favor of fascism.

    2. “…Some experts say they don’t help…”

      ODL posted a link to a study which he thought backed his claim that mask = good.
      The summary stated ‘masks might be effective’.

      1. He also proved he didn’t understand that meta data studies have as much bias as a single study and have their own flaws that are well documented.

    3. I don’t even read her stuff anymore. Makes you wonder.

      “and masks, even a basic cloth covering, seemed to help stop the spread.”

      ‘Seems’ to but go and wear it because ‘socialized responsibility’.

      Not libertarian at all in my view.

    4. Is this still a libertarian publication?

      No. However, some of the commenters are still leaning libertarian; others lean “Libertarian”, which is roughly the same as “socialist utopian” these days.

    5. It’s a practical observation, quite in line with the libertarian philosophy that freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand.

      Where the heck are you looking that masks are expensive? I have several neighbors with sewing machines that are giving them away.

      Experts are clearly saying they do help. The last confusing messaging on this was months ago when the CDC conflated the question of whether masks slow spread with the need to provide medical care personnel with masks.

      1. Another one who bows before ‘experts’ and ‘credentialed’ classes who shift back and forth with their edicts alongside the political wind.

        I will not submit to ‘flimsy science’. Not that there’s a flurry of studies or literature, but the ones I’ve read basically claim the degree of their effectiveness is inconclusive. if they say it’s 30%, that’s not enough to mandate and take away civil liberties. It takes away our ability to weight risk and reward on an individual level.

        It offshoots this decision to civil servants and bureaucrats. A mistake in my view. They then ‘subsidize’ the gaps in evidence with vapid emotion appeals of ‘just wear it for the great good’ and ‘if you’re asymptomatic it’s irresponsible to not wear one’.

        Fuck off with that shit. If that’s the angle they want to push, then we should be wearing on all year round. I don’t want to normalize this sort of ‘new norma’ or habit. I don’t to be Asia. Faceless and afraid.

        I also consider them demanding we wear mask as dangerous for reasons including possibly weakening our immune system. Sure, it’ll take a little longer than a couple of months to achieve that but why even do it ESPECIALLY considering we’re fricken six months too late.

        The virus is out there. Don’t let it control you.

        1. WHO DOESN’T WANT TO WEAR THE RIBBON!?!?

        2. “Bowing”? Nice dramatic speech there. Lots of signaling of what a hardcore freedom fighter you are.

          Here’s the deal. It’s really stupid that science is being politicized by the Team Red vs. Team Blue culture war. I refuse to bow to people who want to suck me into the stupid culture war between the two parties.

          1. As if you’re not a Media Matters mouthpiece for Team Blue, Jeff. You’re not fooling anyone.

            1. As you yourself acknowledged in a comment above, I’m not jeff.

              1. Jeff is reasons version of Karen for those who utilize sophistry.

                Understand Jeff?

          2. “…I refuse to bow to people who want to suck me into the stupid culture war between the two parties.”

            Nice sentiment.
            Shame it’s bullshit.

            1. It’s speaks volumes that you have trouble envisioning what it’s like to be non-partisan.

              1. It speak more volumes that you lie about it.

              2. You’re not non partisan dumbass. You’re sanctimonious.

                1. I’m sanctimonious, and non-partisan.

          3. You’re the most pathetic type here. The sanctimonious asshole who thinks he is above the political fray.

      2. “It’s a practical observation, quite in line with the libertarian philosophy that freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand.”

        Get fucked with a running chain saw, you cowardly piece of lefty shit.
        Scared of catching something? Crawl in a hole and stay there for the good of mankind.

        1. Ah, there’s that patented Sevo temper. Always kicks in when you have no rational position.

          1. There’s that patented Wk ‘stuff’; kicks in when called on bullshit.

      3. I’m sorry. Since when do rational libertarians deny life has risks and we cant mitigate them all. Please once again, advocate for 25 mph nation wide speed limits if every life is your defining principle.

        1. I’m partial to Pournelle’s tongue in cheek suggestion that we get replace seat belts…with a six inch steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel, pointed at the driver’s chest. Drivers will be really cautious then.

        2. If “Every Life” is the new standard, we’ve finally settled that nasty abortion issue, right?

  14. “bars with less than 50 percent revenue from food must close entirely.”

    I am retired from consulting, so I offer this one for free:
    Tonight’s special is “buy bar snacks for $5.00, get a beer for only $2.00!
    (adjust prices to suit local market conditions, just keep the food and alcohol linked at less than 1 to 1)

    1. “I am retired from consulting, so I offer this one for free:
      Tonight’s special is “buy bar snacks for $5.00, get a beer for only $2.00!”

      The core reason that planned economies do not work: All they do is make every transaction far more complicated (and expensive) than it would have been otherwise, resulting in GDP ‘growth’ such as we see in Cuba; in negative number since 1959.

  15. https://www.dailywire.com/news/oklahoma-authorities-charge-alleged-rioters-with-terrorism-this-is-not-seattle?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

    Oklahoma charges rioters with terrorism saying “this is not Seattle”. Pantyfa better stick to the deep blue cities and college towns. Going out into big racist America won’t work out very well for them.

    1. “Oklahoma charges”

      The man’s name is Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater and he’s a fanatic.

      1. Most Oklahoma County DA’s have been. That is another reason why you don’t go out there and start causing shit. They are terrorists as far as I am concerned. I don’t care how long they get locked up for. IF it were up to me I would see them hanged in front of the state capital and left to rot for a few months. Fuck these people.

        1. https://kfor.com/news/former-investigator-drops-bombshell-allegations-against-oklahoma-county-da-david-prater/

          Prater should be in jail himself if this is true. These state officials think they’re above the law. The FBI needs to clean house.

          1. He can share a cell with these animals. One has nothing to do with the other.

          2. Your “concern” is noted.

  16. More bad economic news.

    NEW: More than 1/3 of America’s lowest-paid workers have been laid off — about 4x the number of job losses experienced by the top earners

    Fortunately we Koch / Reason libertarians have the answer. This country needs to implement Charles Koch’s vision of unlimited, unrestricted immigration and no minimum wage.

    #OpenBordersWillFixEverything

    1. No doubt it’s a bitch trying to sweep the factory floor from home – – – – – –

  17. Protestors do not have a right to block public roads. The police looked like they attempted to get through the crowd with minimal damage to the people blocking them. Protesters should not be passive-aggressive bullies.

    1. Don’t you know stopping traffic stops racism?

    2. Looks to me like the protestors were swarming the cop car. Look at the guys chasing after the car – what do you suppose they were planning on doing if they caught it? The cop car starts and stops several times, the protestors weren’t backing off.

    3. True, but not every transgression merits violent retaliation or enforcement.

      1. The violence appeared to be minimal in order to get through the roadblock and do whatever the police were called to do. It was not intended to cause serious injury. There is no right to block the road or impede law enforcement.

      2. And you just said that without any sense of irony, didn’t you?

  18. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/china-forces-birth-control-muslims-suppress-population-71505564

    China forces birth control on Uighurs to suppress population
    A state-orchestrated campaign is slashing births among the minority Uighurs of China’s far west Xinjiang region with brutal efficiency
    By
    The Associated Press
    June 29, 2020, 6:35 AM
    6 min read

    1. The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.

      The population control measures are backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps, the AP found, with the parents of three or more ripped away from their families unless they can pay huge fines.

    2. Who does the CCP think they are Planned Parenthood or something?

    3. Your body, our choice.

      1. It’s for the common good. Do your part.

    1. By the way, I understand there are peaceful protestors but this planned disruptive and dangerous shit is crazy.

      1. There are no legitimate protests anymore.
        They took advantage of tolerance too many times for too long.
        They are domestic terrorists, though some are merely complicit in aiding/covering for domestic terrorism

  19. “regulators are coalescing around the idea that we reopened too fast.”

    That is one disgusting euphemism. I hope they used plenty of hand sanitizer afterwards

  20. “Myth” Busted? NJ AG Indicts Four Over Mail-In Ballot Fraud; “Hundreds” Of Mail-In Ballots Discovered (Updated)
    https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/06/26/myth-busted-nj-ag-indicts-four-hundreds-fraudulent-mail-ballots/

    In the City Council election, 16,747 vote-by-mail ballots were received, but only 13,557 votes were counted. More than 3,190 votes, 19% of the total ballots cast, were disqualified by the board of elections. Due to the pandemic, Paterson’s election was done through vote-by-mail. Community organizations, such as the city’s NAACP chapter, are calling for the entire election to be invalidated. …

    Reporting by NBC further uncovered citizens of Paterson who are listed as having voted, but who told the news outlet they never received a ballot and did not vote. One woman, Ramona Javier, after being shown the list of people on her block who allegedly voted, told the outlet she knew of eight family members and neighbors who were wrongly listed. “We did not receive vote-by-mail ballots and thus we did not vote,” she said. “This is corruption. This is fraud.”

    There were multiple reports that large numbers of mail-in ballots were left on the lobby floors of apartment buildings and not delivered to residents’ individual mailboxes, further casting doubt on the integrity of the election.

    1. There is no doubt about the integrity of the election.

    2. Hudson County is even worse.

      1. Hey, dead people have a right to vote, too! But, seriously, wasn’t it Jersey City that, a couple of years ago, had to reissue a couple of years’worth of birth certificates, due to fraud?

  21. “Confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States surpassed 2.5 million on Sunday as a crushing new wave of infections continued to bear down throughout the country’s South and West,” The Washington Post reports. “Across the nation, 40,587 new daily cases were reported.” (Death rates, fortunately, have not yet started to climb.)

    “A crushing new wave”. How many dead, how many requiring hospitalization? Numbers alone don’t mean anything – in fact, new cases alone is good news since it means we’re building up herd immunity. If lots of people are getting sick but no more than the usual “stay in bed and drink lots of soup for a few days” that’s a good thing. Unless you’re proposing we all hide under our beds until they find a vaccine, which will be possibly never.

    1. Yesterday 285 people died of COVID. That is the lowest number since June 21 when 271 people died. And those two days are the lowest daily numbers since March 27. And as I say above, the 7 day running average is now the lowest it has been since March 31.

      The rise in cases has been pretty constant and has not correlated to a rise in deaths. The daily death total peaked on
      April 21st with 2701 deaths and has been steadily declining ever since.

      1. Just because Reason does not yet moderate these comments is no reason to bring in actual facts; please join the rest of us in simple-minded ranting and openly trolling.
        Thank you.

      2. we were supposed to be up to 300 deaths per day after reopening. I’d say 285 is a win for reopening

  22. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1181081

    WASHINGTON — Wisconsin Senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin are calling for a formal investigation by the U.S. Postal Service into its handling of absentee ballots for Tuesday’s election, ballots that many voters say they never received in the first place.

    The Republican Johnson and the Democrat Baldwin made the request in a Thursday letter where they cited widespread reports of concerns from across the state. They cited one report that three tubs of absentee ballots were discovered at a USPS center after polls closed, and concerns from the Milwaukee Election Commission about voters saying they’d never received the ballots they requested.

    1. Why don’t we just make election day a national holiday? Or spread out voting over a few days including a weekend?

  23. As New Lockdowns Loom, How Did We Get Here Again So Quickly?

    Let me count the ways.

    The typical American attention span is running out on BLM, plus some of the spinoff shows like “So you wanna tear down a statue?” and “Law and Order: not for you” are starting to poll in the negative numbers.

    Our Dear Leaders have not only moved the goal posts but changed the game rules several times. Flatten the curve? Spare the hospitals? Build the ventilators? Increase the testing? Now its Count the people who have it but don’t know it because they have no symptoms.

    Oh, and its STILL an election year.

    1. Law & Order: BLM Unit. /L&O intro with confused Det. Benson face with make up laid on thick and crooked and Ice Cube roughing up whypippo.

    2. All I know is that it was not the one kind of protests. That much has been made abundantly, scientifically clear in all the reporting. That other kind of protests is fair game to peg as a cause.

      1. If there is one good thing about this pandemic, it is that shows like L&O haven’t been filming, which has kept us from seeing most of the terrible “Ripped from the Headlines” leftist takes on all this nonsense.

  24. Peterson’s voice is sorely missed in 2020:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djSuS1psglQ

  25. https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/06/28/screenshot-wapo-global-opinions-editor-deletes-vile-tweet-warning-white-women-of-revenge/
    Karen Attiah, the Washington Post’s Global Opinions editor, just deleted this that said, “White women are lucky that we are just calling them ‘Karen’s’. And not calling for revenge”:

    The lies & tears of White women hath wrought:

    -The 1921 Tulsa Massacre
    -Murder of Emmet Till
    -Exclusion of Black women from feminist movements
    -53% of white women voting for Trump.

    White women are lucky that we are just calling them “Karen’s”.

    And not calling for revenge.

    — Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah)

    1. She is calling for violence against white women. It is a good thin Twitter enforces it’s standards evenly. Right?

      The Trump campaign should send this bitch a thank you note.

      Dear Ms Attiah,

      We have been really worried about our support among suburban white women. Thank you so much for letting them know how much the left hates them and how their only choice is to vote for Trump. We greatly appreciate this in kind campaign contribution.

      1. Oh stop it John you snowflake.

        1. What is that old story about the Holocaust survivor who was asked what he learned from the experience? When someone says they are going to kill you, believe them.

      2. The rub here is that 3/4 of the rioters have been white liberals.

    2. And yet her name is Karen.

  26. On Saturday, the state of New York saw its lowest daily deaths from COVID-19 since March 15, with five new deaths.

    No more federal COVID-19 grant money available, huh?

  27. That lawyer couple out in the St Louis area was perfect. The BLM mobs walked by, as this couple had their weapons drawn and ready. Guess what? The mob behaved and nothing happened.

    So the moral of the story is more guns = more peaceful? 🙂

    Sooner or later, churches and synagogues will make use of armed guards to protect their premises. Or there will be volunteers. Out in CA, we already had a crazed BLM mob desecrate a synagogue in the Fairfax section of LA.

    1. Sooner or later, churches and synagogues will make use of armed guards to protect their premises.

      Some already do because of past mass shooters going after them as “soft targets.”

    2. Yea, but the leftists have now doxxed them and called for their lives to be ruined
      The Left is a hate cult

    3. Except that here, in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of New Jersey, the 2nd Amendment is as dead as a parrot, who’s pining for the fjords.

  28. During the peak of the pandemic in April, nearly 800 people were dying a day from coronavirus.

    Thank you, Mr. President, for turning New York around in spite of its local leadership.

  29. I’ve read that some 60,000 people traveled to Houston for the George Floyd funeral. The surge of COVID-19 cases in Houston is so large that the hospitals there are now refusing to report data–for fear of causing a panic–because the number of COVID-19 cases has exceeded the number of hospital beds with ventilators.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/504957-houston-hospitals-stop-reporting-covid-19-related-data-after-reaching-base

    I don’t care if that surge in COVID-19 is because of people traveling to Houston and bringing the virus with them or it’s just that people traveled to Houston, were infected there, and went home to spread it in Florida, other parts of Texas, and elsewhere–public gatherings are either a disease vector or they aren’t. The reason the crowd is there doesn’t make any difference at all to the virus, not even if the crowd is there to protest against racism.

    People from all over the country traveled for protests in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Washington DC, too. They congregated and then went home to places like Florida and Texas using all available forms of transportation. Why isn’t that a likely contributing factor to the upsurge in COVID-19 cases?

    The outbreaks along our southern border, meanwhile, are likely attributable to infections raging on the other side of the border in Mexico–and if that’s the case–and you’re against President Trump’s border wall, the surge in COVID-19 infections is still attributable to people traveling back and forth across the border anyway.

    For all we know, illegal immigration and protests may be a significant contributing factor to the recent upsurge is COVID-19 cases, and–if that’s the case–and the left can’t defend their support for immigration and support for the protesters in spite of the additional risk of those things spreading COVID-19, then their support for immigration and protesting is weak, weak sauce.

    I support gun rights despite mass shootings; I oppose torture and privacy despite terrorism; I support the First Amendment despite Scientology and revenge porn; I support capitalism despite global warming; I support free trade despite China’s authoritarianism; and I support immigration and the right to protest despite COVID-19.

    Principles never require us to ignore facts. If the fact is that protests and immigration are contributing significantly to the surge in COVID-19 cases, then it is what it is and ignoring the facts won’t do anything but destroy our credibility. And our critics will be right! Principles are what you hold to despite the downsides. Anyone who claims to be principled while ignoring the downsides really is a liar.

    1. “I oppose torture and [support] privacy despite terrorism”.

      —-Ken Shultz

      You knew what I meant!

    2. /NPC bot shoves mask down Ken’s throat.

    3. Principles never require us to ignore facts. If the fact is that protests and immigration are contributing significantly to the surge in COVID-19 cases, then it is what it is and ignoring the facts won’t do anything but destroy our credibility. And our critics will be right! Principles are what you hold to despite the downsides. Anyone who claims to be principled while ignoring the downsides really is a liar.

      They are not so much liars as much as they are children. We have an entire society of children who think the world owes them an ideal choice and moral dilemmas do not exist such that they can go through life acting on their “principles” without ever acknowledging the cost of that or giving any moral legitimacy to objections to paying these costs. That is how children think.

      Adults understand that sometimes life gets very difficult such that the circumstances force you to compromise your principles to some degree. Adults understand that life is basically a series of competing values and interests and moral dilemmas of varying degrees. Most people in this country and certainly almost no one in the media or government are “adults” in that sense.

      1. Binary thinkers and not understanding tradeoffs. Many many dumb people want to see black and white because it makes it easy. Not to many want to see the world for what it is shades of grey.

      2. There was a piece I read the other day about a Bishop who was dedicating a church to St. Peter. One of the parishioners wrote in to protest, saying, “How can you consecrate a church in the name of someone who denied Christ three times?”. He wrote back something about how her own parish church was dedicated to Mary Magdalene, who had demons driven out of her, for goodness’ sake.

        I’m reading that thinking–cancel culture comes for St. Peter?! You take all the flawed people out of the church, you’re left with an empty building!

        It’s a cult of victimhood, where rights are earned through victimization, and no one’s rights should be respected otherwise–unless they’re perfect in certain ways. The model of average people they’re putting up is incompatible with reality and, thus, unsustainable. I swear, they claim it’s all about historical context and the flaws they find in people’s personal histories, but the same thing is happening all over the world and the only thing consistent about any of it is the purge itself–and the economic anxiety.

        We’re looking at a cultural revolution just like they had in China, and the Cultural Revolution was also precipitated by economic disaster in the form of the Great Leap Forward.

        1. No. The Great Leap Forward happened before the Cultural Revolution. The Great Leap Forward was in the late 50s and early 1960s after China broke with the Soviet Union and Mao decided that the USSR was no longer communist enough and China had to surpass it. It was more or less from 58 to 62.

          The Cultural Revolution came after the Great Leap Forward. Basically, the Cultural Revolution was the result of the Great Leap Forward being complete insanity that resulted in the starvation of in excess of 40 million people. Mao being a no shit psychotic could not have himself or the party held responsible for the failure of the Great Leap Forward. So, he blamed the failure on reactionary, revisionist, and non Marxist forces within society. Mao then launched the Cultural Revolution to eliminate these forces which had caused the Great Leap Forward to fail.

          1. “The Cultural Revolution was also precipitated by economic disaster in the form of the Great Leap Forward.”

            “Precipitated by” means the Great Leap Forward happened before and helped make the Cultural Revolution happen.

            The economic disaster happened first and helped cause the Cultural Revolution to happen.

            I don’t see where we disagree on that point.

            1. We don’t. I just misread your last sentence. My mistake.

        2. We’re looking at a cultural revolution just like they had in China, and the Cultural Revolution was also precipitated by economic disaster in the form of the Great Leap Forward.

          I’m actually genuinely concerned about this after seeing a couple weeks of total hysterical insanity grip the culture. People renaming “master bedroom” to “primary bedroom” and at the same time tweets from major newspaper editors threatening “revenge” against all white women… renaming “Squaw Valley” for fucks suck. Changing the name of their band to “Dixie Chicks”. Cops caught on tape about how they hope for a race war so they can shoot all the ‘n*gga*’. Old white people in golf carts shouting ‘white power’ at each other when they clearly aren’t even whtie power types. Absolute madness gripping everyone.

          it’s insane and presages a cultural revolution i dont’ want to be around for.

          1. edit: from “dixie chicks” to “the chicks”. Silly and ludicrous but also scary that they felt they needed to do that.

    4. For all we know, illegal immigration and protests may be a significant contributing factor to the recent upsurge is COVID-19 cases

      The number of illegal border crossers apprehended by CBP is at a three year low.

      https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

      What was that again, Ken?

      1. And the number of COVID-19 cases is at an all time high.

        1. So the data seem to suggest that immigration, at least illegal immigration, is not responsible for the spike in coronavirus cases.

          1. Your response seem to suggest that you’re one of those weak-minded immigration “supporters” who couldn’t support immigration if it were a significant contributing factor to the surge in COVID-19 cases. I, on the other hand, support open borders even if the surge in COVID-19 is a significant contributing factor, and you, by way of comparison, seem to just be a poseur, who ignores facts rather than accounts for them.

            1. I am the only person in this discussion who has actually brought forth facts and figures in this discussion. You on the other hand made the giant leap of “there’s a surge in new cases in southern states, therefore immigration must be to blame!”

              I support immigration, I support relatively open borders. I support basically the same system that you support – immigrants should have to pass a basic background check and health check before entering the country, and then that’s it. No complicated bureaucratic nightmare for trying to come here.

              I also don’t support scapegoating foreigners for the nation’s problems. That is what Team Red currently specializes in. It’s the foreigners responsible for taking our jobs, flooding the streets with drugs, mooching off welfare, committing violent crime, destroying American culture, and now, the spreading a contagious disease. Enough already with the scapegoating. Foreigners are individual human beings just like Americans, some are good people and some are bad people, but shouldn’t be demonized and otherized just based on where they were born.

              You are playing into Team Red’s fearmongering playbook when you do shit like that, Ken. We already have Jesse and John here to serve as Team Red’s mouthpieces, they don’t need yet another one.

              1. “I am the only person in this discussion who has actually brought forth facts and figures in this discussion.”

                My support for a constitutional amendment to allow Mexican citizens to come here without a visa doesn’t rest on whether the surge in COVID-19 cases is attributable to immigration.

                You’re citing irrelevant facts as if they mattered because you’re unprincipled.

                1. You’re forgetting stupidity will suffice. This IS jeff.

                  1. Thanks for the reminder.

                    I keeping thinking it’s like batting practice, but it’s more like deprogramming.

                2. You’re citing irrelevant facts as if they mattered because you’re unprincipled.

                  Oh really? Who was the one who said this?

                  For all we know, illegal immigration and protests may be a significant contributing factor to the recent upsurge is COVID-19 cases

                  It wasn’t me, Ken.

                  And who was the one who pointed to actual facts and figures which cast doubt on this claim?

                  Oh yeah, that was me, the supposedly ‘unprincipled’ one.

                  But sure go ahead and be a water carrier for Team Red. See how far that will get you.

                  Next up: A 5,000 word essay from Ken explaining why he must now, regrettably, support a border wall and support limitations on immigration in order to stop the Cultural Revolution from Team Blue and their noted Marxist radical, Joe Biden

    5. Here is the Department of Transportation database of monthly totals for (legal) border crossings at ports of entry.

      https://www.bts.gov/content/border-crossingentry-data

      Look at the data yourself. The most recent data that I saw was from April, and for all of the ports, the numbers are way down. And the travel restrictions due to the coronavirus are still in place.

      Do not fall for this right-wing scapegoating of blaming foreigners for America’s problems.

      1. Your ability to rationalize any fact away isn’t persuasive. In fact, the more of these rationalizations you pile on, the more it exposes you as unprincipled. In other words, your willingness to lie to yourself doesn’t make your principled. It just makes you devoted, which isn’t persuasive at all. Moonies are also devoted.

        And, anyway, the point was, is, and will continue to be that I support a constitutional treaty to allow Mexicans citizens to come here without a visa regardless of whether immigration is a significant contributing factor to the spread of COVID-19., and if you think the rationale for allowing Mexican citizens to come here without a visa is forever destroyed if COVID-19 is a significant contributing factor to the surge in COVID-19 cases along our border, then you’re a phony.

        1. Ken, based on the data, has immigration been responsible for a surge in coronavirus cases? Yes or no?

          If you answer yes, be prepared to cite your data that supports your claim. Because I have already cited data that suggests the answer is ‘no’.

          If you continue to insist that immigrants are responsible for surge in coronavirus with zero data or facts to support your claim, that makes you no better than the xenophobic right wingers who blame ‘furriners’ for every problem under the sun.

          Just pull the mask off already and come out as a Republican.

        2. P.S. For any spectators . . .

          The point of open borders in this sense would be that if Mexican citizens could come across the border by simply showing an ID, they wouldn’t spend a bunch of money on a coyote or traipse through miles of desert in the middle of the night. They’d just go through a checkpoint.

          It would be much easier to identify and keep out people who showed obvious symptoms if they were coming through a checkpoint rather than sneaking through the desert at night, and, eventually, when there is vaccine, we can require certain vaccinations are tied to their ID. We would also, for instance, require certain vaccinations in order to qualify for the ID in the first place, and other vaccinations could be added as conditions require.

          Regardless, inviting people to come through a checkpoint make more sense from a disease prevention perspective than what we have now–where thousands of people come across the border without anyone pointing a light at their head to see if they have a fever. If the only people sneaking across the border at night were the known criminals and people who would be restricted from crossing, they would be much, much easier to catch.

          1. I completely agree with this viewpoint, Ken.
            Immigration should be quick and easy, not the bureaucratic monstrosity that we have now.

            1. You’re an embarrassment to the cause of open borders. If we ever get open borders in this country, it will be because idiots like you finally shut up.

              1. If we ever do get open borders, it won’t be from people like you hopping into bed with Team Red.

                They will be happy to accept your vote and then throw you away the moment they get more power so that they can build more walls and vilify more foreigners.

                1. My views.

                  The virus is worse in the US than almost any other place on earth in infectivity. Death rates have been more stable because we have a very robust medical system.

                  I could care less about politics in this. Help or get out of the way.

                  Next thing is people are, bless their hearts, you cannot control behavior beyond a limited level.

  30. For the “The Protests Caused The Surge in Coronavirus Cases!” crowd:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/06/19/so-far-george-floyd-protests-not-behind-surges-coronavirus/3226033001/

    The United States has seen new cases climb from about 21,000 a day the last week of May to nearly 23,000 a day this week. Positive tests and, in some places, hospitalizations have spiked, too, leading many to wonder if a change in behavior caused outbreaks in states such as California, Arizona and Florida.

    But neither protests nor more people leaving home explain the surge of new COVID-19 cases, a USA TODAY analysis of counties with at least 100 cases has found. Residents of counties with growth of 25% or more over the previous two weeks left their homes at the same rate as people in counties without a surge of new infections, according to cellphone location data compiled by the company SafeGraph.

    1. https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-no-spike-cities-despite-protests-big-surge-in-states-that-reopened-20200627.html

      COVID-19 has not surged in cities with big protests, but it has in states that reopened early. Here are some possible reasons.

      States in the South and West that reopened their economies early and with few precautions are now grappling with huge surges in daily case counts, hospitalizations, and deaths.

      Yet Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other cities across the country have not seen the sharp, sustained spikes that were expected after hundreds of thousands of people gathered for protests against police brutality. Daily demonstrations, some capped by riots, began about a week after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police on May 25. The maximum incubation period for COVID-19 — the time between getting infected and showing symptoms — is believed to be two weeks, so any fallout should be clear by now.

      The leading theory to explain this paradox is that being outdoors is safer than indoors. Numerous studies support this. Japanese researchers, for example, found the odds of indoor transmission of the coronavirus were about 19 times greater than in the open air.

      But a new study funded by the National Bureau of Economic Research offers another explanation: The protests prompted an overall increase in people staying home, which mostly offset any impact of transmission among protesters.

    2. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/us/coronavirus-cases-protests-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html

      Despite warnings from public health officials, new research suggests Black Lives Matter protests across the country have not led to a jump in coronavirus cases.

      A new study, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, used data on protests from more than 300 of the largest US cities, and found no evidence that coronavirus cases grew in the weeks following the beginning of the protests.
      In fact, researchers determined that social distancing behaviors actually went up after the protests — as people tried to avoid the protests altogether. But obviously, these demonstrations caused a decrease in social distancing among actual protesters.
      “Our findings suggest that any direct decrease in social distancing among the subset of the population participating in the protests is more than offset by increasing social distancing behavior among others who may choose to shelter-at-home and circumvent public places while the protests are underway,” the report reads.

    3. http://archive.is/e1J8l

      Early Data Show No Uptick in Covid-19 Transmission From Protests

      Early coronavirus testing data from a handful of U.S. cities and states suggest that recent protests against racial injustices haven’t yet led to a marked uptick in new cases. Public-health officials warn that the data is still preliminary, however, and protest-related cases could still rise.
      In Minnesota, where the police killing of George Floyd led to protests there and across the country, 1.8% of test results have come back positive as of Monday among 3,200 protesters who were tested at community sites, the state’s health department said. An additional 8,500 Minnesota protesters have been tested through their health-care providers or at other sites, with a positivity rate of 0.99% so far, according to the department.
      “We’re delighted that we are not seeing a huge increase in cases,” Kris Ehresmann, the infectious disease division director at the Minnesota Department of Health, said at a media briefing on Wednesday.
      New York City, where thousands have attended protests, made Covid-19 diagnostic testing available to anyone, and government officials have encouraged those who attended protests to get tested. The seven-day rolling average of the percent of positive coronavirus tests in New York City has been below 3%, and has trended flat or downward since June 5, according to city health department data. Cases and hospitalizations have also continued to decline.
      During a press conference Wednesday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said the impact of the protests might not be evident until this weekend or early next week.
      Officials in Seattle and Chicago said they have not yet detected an uptick in cases from protests but continue to monitor the situation.
      Ms. Ehresmann and others warn that the data is still too preliminary to draw any conclusions, and protest-related cases still could increase. “We want to be cautious,” she said.

      1. Early Data Show No Uptick in Covid-19 Transmission From Protests

        OK, done deal. Large public gatherings, even haphazard and violent, don’t spread the disease.

        1. It can, but it doesn’t lead to this exponential growth that can cause a surge in new cases. At least that is what the data so far suggests.

        2. “OK, done deal. Large public gatherings, even haphazard and violent, don’t spread the disease.”

          Yep, according to the tin-pot-dictator wannabes, large gatherings didn’t cause the rise, therefore they will outlaw them. Well, *some* of them; the ones which were legal before…
          This is the same sort of ‘logic’ which drives JFree, jeff ODL and other ignoramuses to claim that the economic shut down would have happened anyhow, which is the reason Newsom and fellow petty tyrants should have shut down the economy

          1. Large public gatherings *outdoors*. There’s difference between a protest outside and a crowded bar inside.

            1. Large public gatherings *outdoors*. There’s difference between a protest outside

              And people watching a fireworks display outside

              And people watching a parade outside

              And people celebrating Independence Day outside

              Because THAT’S verboten.

              But screaming about media created lies and historically ignorant assholery coupled with setting fires, smashing windows, tearing down statues and shooting people is just fucking fine.

    4. “For the “The Protests Caused The Surge in Coronavirus Cases!” crowd:”

      Did you read that article? Man, you make it so hard to defend your behavior around here. First you disappear when things aren’t going your way, and then you show up CONSTANTLY when the data seem to track with your ideology.

      But never mind. The point of that article is that peoples behavior- whether due to reopening or due to protests- doesn’t explain the outbreak. They are suggesting that the outbreak is happening in places that, shocker, haven’t had outbreaks yet.

      1. The point of that article is that peoples behavior- whether due to reopening or due to protests- doesn’t explain the outbreak.

        That’s right. So I don’t understand what the argument is exactly.

        If protests were causing the coronavirus surge, we’d expect to see a surge in places like NYC, but that isn’t happening.

        And I’m not compelled to comment on every article. I comment on articles that interest me. Frankly, most of the time around here it’s a dumpster fire of right wing nonsense.

        1. “That’s right. So I don’t understand what the argument is exactly.”

          Stop playing coy. You just posted articles insisting that the cause of the outbreaks was states reopening early. This article directly refutes that. So is the science good or is it bad? Because if it is good science then you are wrong to insist that the outbreaks are caused by Reopening. Because the methodology of the study shows no change in behavior in reopening counties OR protest counties.

          1. I am not arguing in favor of any particular cause of the current spike in coronavirus cases.

            I am casting doubt on the claim that the current spike in cases was caused by the George Floyd protests.

      2. Yeah, we went through all those studies on Friday.

        There were big protests in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Washington DC, and if protesters going there from all over the country didn’t cause a spike in cases in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Washington DC, that doesn’t mean all those protesters didn’t get infected congregating in those cities–and bring it back to Florida, Texas, and other places where they’re seeing a big spike in cases.

        And my reading of those studies, from Friday, is that they’re saying that the locals reacted to the protests by practicing social distancing so that it didn’t spread locally–not that these protesters didn’t spread it back to their communities when they dispersed.

        ChemJeff is rationalizing. He’s looking for any explanation that will take the heat off the protests because he supports the cause of the protesters–and he can’t imagine being intellectually honest. He can’t imagine both conceding that the protests may have been a significant contributing factor AND defending their right to protest anyway. And that’s because he’s intellectually dishonest and unprincipled at a fundamental level. He doesn’t even know the difference between persuasion and rationalizing.

        1. Ken, it is possible that the protests are the cause for the spike in coronavirus cases. But if that’s the case, where is the data to support this assertion? If the large protests were in DC and NY, then why aren’t there spikes in cases in DC and NY? So it was only visitors from Florida and Texas who didn’t practice social distancing at the protests, everyone else did? This is kind of ridiculous.

          In this case you are the one accepting the right-wing narrative as fact (“the protests caused the surge!”) and then straining to find rationalizations to justify that narrative even if it contradicts the data.

          1. You are a pernicious knid. Because it ALREADY spiked in DC and NYC.

            1. It did? Do you have a source for this?

    5. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, Click For Full Details.

  31. Why the surge in cases? Easy answer: Dipshits not taking basic precautions such as wearing as mask and social distancing. Not complicated.

    1. Yup. Where I live, only about 1/3 of the people really took the pandemic seriously even during the height of the ‘lockdown’. Now that the stay-at-home orders are lifted, it is business as usual even though the virus is still here. Go to a grocery store and you’ll find maybe only 10-20% of the people are wearing a mask. Half of the time, the employees are wearing their masks wrong.

    2. I’m sure that plays a part to some extent. But hardly the whole picture I reckon.

      I don’t wear a mask. Come get me pussy.

      1. Why don’t you wear a mask?

        1. Because it is idiotic and unnecessary and unlikely to be effective if it were. The CDC does not recommend masks for the ordinary flu. And this virus isn’t that different.

          No one knows for sure exactly how likely you are to transmit the virus if you have no symptoms. But it is known that people with no symptoms have very low virus loads in their nose and throats and since they have no symptoms are unlikely to expel even those small virus loads. Moreover, there is a very strong correlation between the virus load that infects the person and the likelihood they are going to develop serious symptoms. The people that die or end up in the hospital not only usually have other health issues, they also have larger initial viral loads when they get infected. This is why so many healthcare workers have had serious symptoms, they get big loads of the stuff when they get infected and likely why so many of the public get it without symptoms. The public gets a small load initial that essentially acts as an inoculation.

          So, the long and short of it is this; you are likely not accomplishing anything by wearing a mask. The best thing you can do is take your temperature and stay inside and away from other people if you are sick. If you are sick and go out, unless your mask fits very tightly and is a N95 one, you are still a danger to those around you. Meanwhile, if you are not sick, you likely are not even if you don’t wear a mask.

          1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200403132345.htm

            Wearing surgical masks in public could help slow COVID-19 pandemic’s advance

            The study was conducted at the University of Hong Kong as part of the dissertation research of the lead author, Dr. Nancy Leung, who, under the supervision of the co-senior authors Drs. Cowling and Milton, recruited 246 people with suspected respiratory viral infections. Milton’s Gesundheit machine compared how much virus they exhaled with and without a surgical mask.

            “In 111 people infected by either coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus, masks reduced detectable virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols for seasonal coronaviruses, and in respiratory droplets for influenza virus,” Leung said. “In contrast, masks did not reduce the emission of rhinoviruses.”

            1. Surgical masks, which almost no one wears and when they do almost never wear properly “could” help slow the spread. But event then the evidence is unclear. And certainly not as clear as staying home if you are sick.

              You just restated my point. Thanks.

              1. I see people wearing surgical masks all the time in public.

                And not everyone has the luxury of staying home even if sick, and not everyone even knows if they are infected or not.

                A mask helps in this case. No one said it is a magic barrier, just that it helps.

                1. “A mask helps in this case. No one said it is a magic barrier, just that it helps.”

                  Crawling in a hole and staying there helps much more. Please do so.

            2. *Could* is like when they say studies of a particular food ‘suggests’.

              It’s useless and certainly doesn’t justify making things mandatory or public shaming from pant shitters.

              N95 we know works. KF94 likely pretty effective. Anything beyond that like that is just theatre or for ‘psychological comfort.’

              And never mind the fact that athletes and celebrities push it should prompt people to conclude to do the opposite.

            3. I mean, seriously Chemjeff, are you even reading what you post?

              “”In normal times we’d say that if it wasn’t shown statistically significant or the effective in real-world studies, we don’t recommend it,” he said. “But in the middle of a pandemic, we’re desperate. The thinking is that even if it cuts down transmission a little bit, it’s worth trying.””

              That is him LITERALLY ADMITTING that the study’s data is not statistically significant. It is also a study on NON-COVID-19 diseases, taking place prior to the pandemic. You are posting an article that basically says “the data proves nothing, but these experts are telling us that anything helps!”

              1. No, I think you misread what the author is saying.

                He’s not saying that this study’s results aren’t statistically significant.

                He’s saying that, under normal circumstances, IF the results weren’t statistically significant, OR shown effective in real-world settings (not laboratory controlled settings), THEN he wouldn’t recommend the procedure.

                This current study that is being referenced here is under laboratory settings, not “real world” settings. Hence the tentative nature of the author’s conclusions.

                1. 1) The results are not statistically significant.
                  2) The results do not give ANY information about infection rates. All they show is the amount of virus passed in certain cases (none of those cases including COVID) was reduced.

                  If this is the best you have, then you are cherry picking. I’m sorry but you are. CDC themselves, and WHO posted a shit ton more studies prior to this showing that masks were only useful in very specific situations (closed spaces, with symptomatic people).

                  1. 1) The results are not statistically significant.

                    They aren’t? What is your basis for this claim?

                  2. And I’m not saying “it’s the best I have”. It is what I found after a 1 minute Google search. I’m sure there are far more detailed studies out there. The main point is to cast doubt on the claim that “masks don’t work”.

            4. Wearing surgical masks in public could help slow COVID-19 pandemic’s advance

              It definitely could have.

              But when it could have they were discouraging it.

              Now, COVID-19 is here. It will run it’s course. It will re-surge again and again until the population is inured to it.

              At that point, it will take it’s place with the other surviving coronaviruses.

          2. And John, one of the points of the mask is not just to prevent people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital, but to hopefully prevent people from getting sick at all, even if it is a mild case.

            Even those who recover from coronoavirus can suffer life-altering disabilities as a result.

            Also, John, I think of the mask as a courtesy to others. I try to picture myself in their shoes. What if I was an older person, or a member of a vulnerable population? Would I appreciate and be grateful for others trying to limit my ability for getting sick? In that sense, it is like holding open a door for someone. Sure it is “not necessary” but it is a courtesy to others.

            1. Wearing a mask doesn’t reduce the viral load you are exposing to other people if you don’t have symptoms. Moreover, you don’t spread the virus or any virus by breathing on people. You spread it when you cough or sneeze and expel saliva or mucus that has the virus in it. So, there is nothing that is accomplished by wearing a mask that isn’t accomplished just as well by carrying a handkerchief and covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough.

              The person standing next to you without a mask is not a threat to you even if they have the virus. They are only a threat to you if they sneeze or cough on you.

              1. So, there is nothing that is accomplished by wearing a mask that isn’t accomplished just as well by carrying a handkerchief and covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough.

                Well sure. But a mask makes it *easier* to prevent those cough particles from landing on someone else.

            2. Courtesy to others. Emotional manipulation. That’s the line they use to shame people.

              Fuck off.

              I can just picture one of these courteous heroes getting in their car with their mouth diaper on getting into a road rage incident.

              The world is divided into mask and non-masks wearers. The ones in them I view with suspicion and consider sheep.

              1. Do you consider it ’emotional manipulation’ if you are expected to hold open doors for strangers?

                Do you consider people to be ‘suspicious’ or ‘sheep’ if they attempt to be kind to strangers?

                This is just bizarre.

                1. You’re now just making stupidities up.

                  Are you seriously putting the two on the same level?

                  Jesus.

              2. What exactly is the fear in wearing a mask?
                That someone will see you wearing a mask and stop and shout HA HA LOOK AT THAT LIBERAL PUSSY SNOWFLAKE COWERING IN FEAR?????

                1. “What exactly is the fear in wearing a mask?”

                  WHY DO LIBERAL PUSSY SNOWFLAKES COWERING IN FEAR ASSUME OTHER CHOICES ARE DRIVEN BY FEAR?????

                  1. Their perspective so conflicts with external reality that it’s pretty much all projection at this point

        2. because fytw. the New Religion can suck a dick.

        3. “Why don’t you wear a mask?”

          None of your business.

        4. I don’t have to explain it to anyone.

          But I did up top.

      2. Multiple studies have shown, and all health guidance says that wearing a mask, even a home made one, is effective in helping to stop the spread.

        1. ” all health guidance says that wearing a mask, even a home made one, is effective in helping to stop the spread.”

          Last I checked this is completely untrue. The experts I saw cited, other than the CDC said that masks were effective in very specific cases, not in general public use.

          1. belief in refutable science is faith. belief structured on faith is religion. covered faces in the name of religion is Saudi Arabia. no, gracias.

  32. People do understand that you have to be able to breathe to say, “I can’t breathe”, right? Police are not the brightest, but even they see the contradiction and continue to choke, apply pressure to the neck or chest, or otherwise ignore the person in custody. Saying “I can’t breathe” is part of the problem.

    1. You’re supposed to tap out.
      Everyone should know this

    2. “I can barely breath sufficiently to gasp these words, but not to continue in good health” while accurate requires much more oxygen.

  33. From Reason’s ‘Nothing to see here but our totally legitimate 2A advocacy’ department:

    Councilman Antonio Brown, who represents the district just west of downtown, was getting ready to speak in the virtual meeting when he told the chief: “I was just notified there was a young man who was just shot and killed at 377 Westchester Boulevard. Can you get a unit out there? He’s been on the ground and there’s no police who have come. He’s dead already, he’s on the ground and the residents have put a sheet over him and the police still haven’t arrived.”

    And over the weekend there was this headline: “6 injured in 3 overnight drive-by shootings in Atlanta.” One of the victims is a 10-year-old boy.

    Violence is off the chain in Atlanta.

    During the first three weeks of this month — May 31 to June 20 — 75 people have been shot in Atlanta. Last year during that period, 35 people were shot in the city.

    At this rate it’ll be 100 shot by July.

    Eleven people have been killed during that three-week period. Last year? Five.

    These are not police shootings. They’re civilians shooting civilians. They don’t carry the outrage and notoriety that a cop shooting someone will. But the victims are just as dead.

    Now, how many people did Loeffler kill? How many people did she personally remove guns from? How many people did she suggest having their gun rights removed?

    If Reason really wanted my money, they’d set up an event and charge admission to watch her personally knee Shackford in the groin.

    1. I know, right? How dare Senator Loeffler be criticized for trotting out the “scary black men with guns” trope, especially for being so publicly in support of the Second Amendment.

  34. >>”At this time, it is clear that the rise in cases is largely driven by certain types of activities,

    not the activities you’re basing your Order on, Governor Greg, but definitely certain types of activities yes.

  35. “… [V]oluntary measures taken by individuals and businesses can be an effective hex against government mandates. People taking precautions and proving we can socialize responsibly during a pandemic seems the best way to keep authorities from banning bars and barbershops, ordering everyone home, and making it a federal crime to leave the house without a mask.”

    As a lockdown dissident, that’s what I call regulatory victim-blaming.

  36. And to the ‘I-refuse-to-wear-a-mask’ crowd…

    If you don’t support mandated mask wearing, (understandable)
    and if you won’t wear a mask voluntarily,
    what exactly is the Libertopian plan to stop the spread of infectious disease?

    “Fuck you I can do what I want and if I spread disease to you that’s not my problem now go die in an alley somewhere” is not exactly a persuasive argument.

    There is a difference between individualism and narcissism. An individualist will do what is in his own enlightened self-interest without needing to be coerced or forced into such an action. A narcissist will do whatever feels good, frequently acting on impulse or emotion rather than a careful consideration of the circumstances.

    Libertarianism isn’t, and shouldn’t be, narcissism. Libertarianism should be enlightened individualism.

    1. “what exactly is the Libertopian plan to stop the spread of infectious disease?”

      The same as it was in 1968 when a virus of similar lethality was sweeping through the country. Be careful. Do what you need to to protect yourself. If you are young, maybe go to a giant fucking concert to peace out because the actual danger to you is probably lower than that acid your buddy next to you is dropping.

      Looking for some “libertopian” answer to Viruses is the same as looking to the libertopian answer to hurricanes, wolves and water cleaned of natural pathogens such as giardia. People can freely work together at a local level to mitigate impact in a voluntary way. However, acting like those people have a RESPONSIBILITY to act on someone else’s behalf, as you seem to, is not libertarian at all.

      1. People can freely work together at a local level to mitigate impact in a voluntary way.

        I totally agree. But what if people refuse to work voluntarily? That is part of the dilemma that I am posing.

        However, acting like those people have a RESPONSIBILITY to act on someone else’s behalf, as you seem to, is not libertarian at all.

        Why not, as long as that responsibility is obtained voluntarily?

        If I believe I have a personal responsibility to help the less fortunate by donating to charity, and that responsibility is not forced upon me but accepted voluntarily, what is unlibertarian about that?

        In fact, if we’re ever going to have a situation where voluntary private charity replaces the welfare state, I submit it will only be because a large number of people *voluntarily* choose to accept a responsibility of this nature. How else will it arise?

        I see the same sort of issue when it comes to public health. If we are ever going to have a situation where public health is managed from a voluntary perspective, rather than from a state-mandated perspective, it will only be if individuals voluntarily accept a responsibility to lower the spread of infectious diseases. It doesn’t have to be by wearing a mask, I am just commenting more on the FYTW attitude. If I reject state coercion as a means to solve public health problems, and I reject pleas to voluntarily assist with public health measures, then what exactly is Plan C?

        1. “I totally agree. But what if people refuse to work voluntarily? That is part of the dilemma that I am posing.”

          There is no dilemma. Let’s say you and I are neighbors. A stream runs through my property to your property. Upstream, there are a bunch of beaver dams and with those flat tailed rodents comes giardia, a nasty bug.

          How do we address this mutual problem? Maybe we stick to ourselves, and deal with it individually. I boil all my water, you boil all your water, and nobody worries about it. Very libertarian.

          But maybe that isn’t enough for you- after all, you have pets and kids, and they might accidentally ingest the water. Hell you want to swim there too, which means we cannot have the giardia in the water. So:

          1) How else could we voluntarily work together to limit the spread of this natural pathogen?

          2) What is the most likely way to get me to join you in this voluntary endeavor? Do you think declaring that I have some moral responsibility to limit the spread of this pathogen, and shaming me if I don’t agree is the way to arrive at a solution?

          1. 2) What is the most likely way to get me to join you in this voluntary endeavor? Do you think declaring that I have some moral responsibility to limit the spread of this pathogen, and shaming me if I don’t agree is the way to arrive at a solution?

            Sure, it could be. There are many methods of persuasion. The point though is that none of them are any less libertarian than another, as long as there is no coercion involved.

            If the high-minded moral argument doesn’t work, I could appeal to your pocketbook. Having a dangerous pathogen on your property that could be transmitted to others downstream could make you liable for their medical bills to some extent. It could cause you financial harm due to medical care, it could lower the value of your property.

            But whatever method of persuasion works, if it does work, then that means you have accepted a responsibility to lower the spread of giardia, however that is arrived at, and done so voluntarily. That isn’t unlibertarian, that isn’t wrong, that isn’t coercive.

            But what if none of those methods work, and you take a FYTW attitude? “I don’t give a shit about the giardia, only liberal snowflakes believe in that nonsense, go die in a fire if you want to shame me into doing something about it.” Then what?

            1. “But what if none of those methods work, and you take a FYTW attitude? “I don’t give a shit about the giardia, only liberal snowflakes believe in that nonsense, go die in a fire if you want to shame me into doing something about it.””

              Are you familiar with the phrase ‘poisoning the well’? You’re good at it.

            2. “Having a dangerous pathogen on your property that could be transmitted to others downstream could make you liable for their medical bills to some extent”

              No, in fact it does not make me liable. It is a natural pathogen that would exist whether my property were there or not. Suggesting that I must morally or legally do something to mitigate risk to others is not libertarian.

              “But what if none of those methods work, and you take a FYTW attitude? “I don’t give a shit about the giardia, only liberal snowflakes believe in that nonsense, go die in a fire if you want to shame me into doing something about it.” Then what?”

              Then what indeed? We continue living in a society that, somehow, someway, has survived the scourge of giardia for thousands of years. And nothing else will happen. You could band with others to deal with Giardia- to make things safer for yourself. The point is, nobody’s rights have been violated. Nature is nature, and if you can work with another to mitigate its impact to you, great. If you figure out how to mitigate the impact to others, that is a benefit you have voluntarily given them, not a responsibility you owe them.

              Bring this back to COVID. A person wearing a mask is only limiting the spread of COVID if they happen to be infected with it. And if they are limiting the spread of COVID, *IT IS A FAVOR TO YOU*. They do not have a responsibility to inconvenience themselves on your behalf, and treating them otherwise makes YOU the asshole, not them.

              1. No, in fact it does not make me liable. It is a natural pathogen that would exist whether my property were there or not.

                Well I suppose it would depend on how strict the property rights regime was. I would imagine, in Libertopia, it would be stricter than it is currently.

                Suggesting that I must morally or legally do something to mitigate risk to others is not libertarian.

                I understand the legal part. But why not the moral part, as long as that obligation was acquired voluntarily? Why is that not libertarian in your view?

                Then what indeed? We continue living in a society that, somehow, someway, has survived the scourge of giardia for thousands of years. And nothing else will happen.

                The problem is, the rest of the world will see that what the world was like before government-run public health programs was a world that was continually wracked by epidemics of plagues of one sort or another. So currently the false choice that is presented is either (1) plagues everywhere, or (2) government-mandated public health programs. The libertarian way is supposed to be a third option: (3) voluntary collective action to reduce the spread of plagues, while minimizing the degree of government coercion necessary to keep the public healthy. But this requires a commitment on the part of the individual to actually take steps to reduce the spread of disease. If not, then we’re back to either (1) or (2). The FYTW attitude on the part of some libertarians around here virtually guarantees that we will get (2), since no one is really going to put up with (1).

                1. I understand the legal part. But why not the moral part, as long as that obligation was acquired voluntarily? Why is that not libertarian in your view?

                  You yourself are the one positing a hypothetical in which an individual does not voluntarily accept obligation. In fact, the individual in question explicitly disclaims obligation in your hypothetical. So the questions being put to you are, do you think that person is obligated despite their objections and what do you suggest should be done about it? If your answers are “yes” and “use force” respectively, then that’s not libertarian.

              2. A person wearing a mask is only limiting the spread of COVID if they happen to be infected with it

                Jeffy don’t play that way. If you don’t wear the mask, you must want him or his grandmama to die.

                if they are limiting the spread of COVID, *IT IS A FAVOR TO YOU*

                Jeffy is a passive-aggressive coward. Asking for favors makes him uncomfortable. You should just have to do it so he doesn’t have to ask or present a valid argument, and if you don’t, he should be able to call the police and have them violently arrest you. According to the twisted rules of the passive-aggressive coward, none of that violates the NAP.

        2. Furthermore, I claim there are ethical obligations to one’s fellow humans that goes beyond the mere legal requirements under a libertarian government.

          Mere libertarianism will not yield a decent society, and it is not inconsistent with libertarianism to judge others’ ethics and find them lacking.

          Libertarianism is a legal framework, but it matters a lot what takes place in the voluntary realm outside that framework.

          1. Show me the ethical framework where someone is ethically required to act in order to reduce the risk of a natural pathogen to you, and you have a collectivist framework that would ultimately justify forcing doctors to treat you for free. *shrug* No thanks.

            1. “…and you have a collectivist framework that would ultimately justify forcing doctors to treat you for free…”

              Scratch every new handle who shows up here claiming to be ‘non-partisan’ and you’ll find proggy blood leaking out.
              And every one telling us that their definition of ‘libertarian’ means we should do what they want.
              Or maybe we should be *forced* to do so.

            2. Show me the ethical framework where someone is ethically required to act in order to reduce the risk of a natural pathogen to you, and you have a collectivist framework that would ultimately justify forcing doctors to treat you for free.

              It can be as simple as property rights. If there is a deadly pathogen on my property, and I know about its existence, then wouldn’t I have some obligation to not permit my property being used to harm others?

              Or it can be as simple as a humanist framework. I may respect your individual rights and human dignity enough to feel obligated not to knowingly transmit a dangerous pathogen onto your property. And, I may also respect the individual rights and human dignity of doctors not to force them to treat people as if they were slaves.

            3. Seriously?
              Me: Ethically, I think you should voluntarily take the small bother to wear a mask to that big indoor gathering because it may save some old person’s life and it is no big deal for you to do it. The ethical framework I appeal to is contributing to a civil society with mutual respect for your fellow human.
              Overt: Collectivist!!!

              1. Ethically, I think you should voluntarily take the small bother to wear a mask to that big indoor gathering because it may save some old person’s life

                Funny, some far-left asshole tried that same appeal to emotion on me.

          2. Furthermore, I claim there are ethical obligations to one’s fellow humans that goes beyond the mere legal requirements under a libertarian government.

            That is the ONLY way it could work in practice. Otherwise Libertopia really would become a type of Mad Max/Somalian dystopia.

            The attitude of “I’m going to my bunker and fuck all the rest of you” will only work for a society of about 10 people.

            1. “That is the ONLY way it could work in practice. Otherwise Libertopia really would become a type of Mad Max/Somalian dystopia.”

              If that straw man is too heavy, your proggy buddy WK will be more than willing to help you haul it around.

              1. Let me guess. Because a leader of Team Blue wrote “wear a mask”, you’re going to be the oppositional defiant disorder poster child and refuse to wear a mask, right?

                1. No, I’ve never worn a mask because it’s fucking stupid and I don’t want to participate in the psyop trying to convince people that this virus is so dangerous that it justifies ceding all our civil liberties to totalitarian government.
                  I posted the link because Cuomo’s arrogance is astounding, and he’s rightly being called out throughout the thread for orders that directly killed thousands of people.

                  1. Putting aside the “it’s fucking stupid” language, I can respect if you aren’t wearing a mask because you are not convinced there is any science indicating a benefit to you or others. I cannot respect it, however, if your evaluation of the science is colored by what some political party said about masks.

                    1. The – virus – isn’t- special.
                      If you’re sick, wear the mask (or stay in).
                      If you don’t have any symptoms, wearing a mask is just social signaling.
                      That’s all there is to it. Treat it as what it is – a regular flu.
                      One which might actually be less severe than most, since all indications are that deaths have been overcounted and infections undercounted (though I’m skeptical as to the accuracy of testing, so I wouldn’t assume infection numbers, not necessarily cases, far off where they should be).
                      I do not think the mask is necessary.
                      I further think it’s actually harmful. It reinforces the irrational hysteria about this virus, and demonstrates compliance with authority; this not only is used to justify Top Men denying civil rights to pursue the nebulous collective “good”, and it indeed encourages such behavior.
                      The ratchet turns.
                      Precedent has now been set that government can, and will, exercise complete control of your movement and work.
                      Wearing the mask, knowing what we do about covid19, supports the exercise of that authority.
                      The infection rate won’t be slowed by masks – it is not an alternative to lockdown.
                      Many places already have mandatory testing – the government will at some point make that mandatory in many or most professions. And they’ll have a record…
                      And what’s to stop them from forces/required vaccinations? Your body, “society’s” choice.
                      What a tool for cronyism!
                      “Americans are citizens with inalienable rights… unless public health experts and the masses dictate otherwise.”

                  2. In other words, oppositional defiant disorder. Got it.

                    1. chemtard loves it when governors seed nursing homes with infected patients.

            2. “That is the ONLY way it could work in practice. Otherwise Libertopia really would become a type of Mad Max/Somalian dystopia.”

              No this is exactly wrong, and this is why, Jeff, your leftism will always lead you away from libertarianism. You are basically saying, “without some framework that says people *must* do X, X will not happen”. And before you disagree with “must” I will remind you that you were agreeing with a much stronger word- “obligation”.

              And yet we see day in, day out, that people do stuff because they WANT to do it, not because they MUST do it. Some people engage in charity because they feel (according to their God) that they MUST. Others do it because they WANT to. I give significant funding to my local schools, not because I am obligated to. I do it because I want to. No law requires me to do this. No “ethical obligation”.

              And this is your problem. You see an obligation among other people to limit risk to you by wearing a mask. I do not. If I see someone wearing a mask, I see someone who is engaging in an act of charity, not fulfilling an obligation. And thus, when I do not see a person wearing a mask, I do not feel like they have done anything wrong. At most they are acting in a completely neutral way.

              You will never be a libertarian, because you don’t understand the difference between obligation and choice. You may be willing to say that the government cannot FORCE you to obey an obligation, but you still see that obligation, which will always lead you to turn a blind eye when such force is used.

              1. You really don’t understand the concept of voluntary, ethical obligations?

              2. I give significant funding to my local schools, not because I am obligated to. I do it because I want to. No law requires me to do this. No “ethical obligation”.

                I am about 99% positive that this is wrong. There has to be some reason why you choose to voluntarily give money to your local schools. I’m willing to bet it isn’t mere whimsy or superficial reasons. Maybe you believe that your local schools are delivering a superior product and you wish to reward them. Maybe you believe deeply in the importance of educating the next generation of citizens. Maybe you are helping your local community by supporting quality schools. There is some reason behind your choice. And whatever reason that is, it is part of some ethical framework that you have chosen FOR YOURSELF that you have decided to *obligate* this money to be spent on schools, instead of on, say, more self-indulgent pleasures like pizza and beer.

                When you choose to spend money on schools, instead of choosing to spend that money on beer, you have made an ethical choice about priorities in your life. You did not need to be forced or coerced into that choice, you chose to do so yourself. That is the sort of thing I am talking about when it comes to public health. If more people could be persuaded voluntarily to make the type of choice that you made – support the goals of public health generally instead of this immature FYTW attitude – then there would be no need for coercive state measures to keep people healthy. But it only works if people are open to be persuaded to spend their time and money to keep people healthy, including themselves, just like you were persuaded somehow to spend your money to educate kids instead of spending your money on pizza and beer.

                Think of it this way. Imagine that there were no public schools at all. How would kids get educated? Well parents would find ways to educate their kids via homeschooling, private schools, co-ops, etc. But *only if* those parents voluntarily created an obligation on themselves that educating their kids was more important than spending that time and money on pizza and beer. If there are no public schools, and if (somehow) parents do not give a shit about educating their kids and are content letting them grow up ignorant, then what will inevitably happen is that we will wind up with coercive state schools “for the sake of the children”. That is what we want to avoid. Same with public health.

                1. “There is some reason behind your choice. And whatever reason that is, it is part of some ethical framework that you have chosen FOR YOURSELF that you have decided to *obligate* this money to be spent on schools, instead of on, say, more self-indulgent pleasures like pizza and beer.”
                  […]
                  “When you choose to spend money on schools, instead of choosing to spend that money on beer, you have made an ethical choice about priorities in your life.”

                  This is absurd and it completely rewrites the meaning of ethics and obligation, unless you feel that ethics should guide your every decision.

                  While ethics are the rules you choose to live by that help you make decisions, *not* every decision requires ethics. Let’s set aside school vs beer. If I choose Fat Tire over Sam Adams Lager, is that a decision based in ethics? I mean, I am sure that some people may desire to live their life by certain rules. If I cannot ethically justify supporting a company owned by an international brewing company, I might decide not to choose the latter. But then, if I ethically cannot justify supporting the city that is home to the fucking Patriots, I might choose the former.

                  But then there are people like me. I have a simple set of ethics based on the NAP. There is no ethical obligation on me to support or refuse either beer. And so I might choose Fat Tire today and Sam Adams tomorrow (but even so, Fuck the Patriots).

                  Likewise school. I have ZERO ethical obligation to support them. I might support them because I believe on net it is a good way to earn a tax deduction, or because I like how they treat big donors. And next week my preferences might line up different, such that I decide to put my money elsewhere. And guess what? My ethics won’t have changed ONE BIT.

                  And this is why I sincerely mean it when I say that you are incapable of being a libertarian. You do not understand the difference between obligation and preference. Like many leftists, you have so politicized every single decision in the world that I wouldn’t be surprised if you DID somehow rationalize how one would be “obligated” to choose Sam Adams over Fat Tire.

                  1. “You do not understand the difference between obligation and preference.”

                    And, FWIW, this is not just a Jeff problem. I have met so many CEOs and smart people who simply do not understand the difference between preference and obligation. I worked for a millionaire who dropped $80k on a persian rug, and would say you were a fool for paying any less. And that same guy felt it was simply criminal that anyone could charge more than $80 for a bottle of wine.

                    For this guy, his preferences weren’t preferences, but rules- logical outcomes of a logical world- of course you pay a lot for a rug because it is super important to get the right quality, and of course you were a fool for paying too much for spoiled grapes. If you had different preferences, you weren’t just different, you were WRONG.

                    The joy of becoming libertarian was being able to let that shit go. My first step in deciding whether or not to get judgey about someone’s actions is to ask myself to what extent I should even give a fuck.

                    In the case of Masks, it is clear to me: I should give very few fucks. People do not owe me some sort of protection from a virus. If they have very good reason to suspect they are infected, then they must avoid spreading the infection. But absent that, anything they do to mitigate the spread is a mere preference.

      2. Bingo. Sometimes there isn’t an answer or at least not a good one. People like Jeff cannot comprehend that fact.

        1. Going back to what prompted this discussion, sometimes there is a simple, voluntary action one can take — like wearing a mask while out in public — that would help other people.

          Claiming that a call to voluntarily wear masks is oppression or “bowing down” is dubious libertarianism.

          1. “Claiming that a call to voluntarily wear masks is oppression or “bowing down” is dubious libertarianism.”

            Scratch every new commenter or sock who shows up here claiming to be ‘non-partisan’, and you’ll find a lefty hack:
            Claiming a mandated action is voluntary makes that pretty clear.

            1. In California mask-wearing may be mandatory, but in most other places, it is voluntary.

              And absolutely no one in this discussion is advocating for making mask wearing mandatory by the state.

                1. I know there are some places where it is mandatory, but in most places, it is not.

              1. “And absolutely no one in this discussion is advocating for making mask wearing mandatory by the state.”

                Strange, but that is *exactly* the claim made by Newsom before he decided to make it mandatory.
                You’ll forgive my kicking the nose of that camel.

                1. This may be difficult for your reactionary brain to understand, Sevo, but if more people voluntarily assumed a responsibility to prevent the spread of infectious disease, there would be no need for mandatory orders from the state to compel mask wearing.

                  That ought to be the goal here – people cooperating voluntarily and willingly for a common goal without having to be forced and coerced into doing so.

                  1. If people would just voluntarily do what you feel they are obligated to do, we wouldn’t have to mandate it?

                    Do you even see what you are writing? You cannot call something voluntary if you are going to mandate it if I choose not to volunteer.

                    If only people would voluntarily stay at home, we wouldn’t have to shut down businesses. If only people would voluntarily go with that cop who arrested them on phony charges, they wouldn’t have to kill them. If only people would voluntarily stop using drugs, we wouldn’t have to ban them. If only people would voluntarily stop having abortions, we wouldn’t have to ban them.

                    1. chemjeff isn’t going to mandate anything. ENB isn’t going to mandate anything.

                      They are saying if we libertarians voluntarily do things to protect our fellow humans, then someone else, who is inclined to mandate things, won’t mandate things. chemjeff and ENB are making a *practical* argument.

                    2. No, they’re making an ideological/moral argument.
                      They’re just subbing the word “should” for “must” – and with progressive government, “should” always becomes “must” eventually.
                      The fundamental values of the approaches are identical.
                      And those values are ultimately collective

    2. what exactly is the Libertopian plan to stop the spread of infectious disease?

      Like it’s being stopped now…

      1. With coercive stay-at-home orders and involuntary shuttering of businesses?

        1. edit: As if it’s being stopped now. should have been more clear.

    3. … that’s not my problem now go die in an alley somewhere” is not exactly a persuasive argument.

      Yeah, but, you aren’t looking at it from the perspective of a sociopath.

    4. “…Libertarianism isn’t, and shouldn’t be, narcissism…”

      Lefty hacks shouldn’t be attempting to define libertarianism.

  37. But all of this is so much trivia as compared to the news that SARS-CoV2 was present in Barcelona sewage in March of 2019! What possible restrictions on spread could be relevant if it’s gotten around for the past 15 months?

    When it was just old, sick people dying of pneumonia, that wasn’t news. When it was supposed to be a new thing going around that could kill ya, that was news. It’s turning out to have been fake news.

    There are different kinds of fake news. One kind is lies. The other kind is truths made to appear as if they’re news, when they’re olds. Viral pneumonia was given a new face, a nationality (Chinese, which may now be turning out to be an adopted one), and urgency.

    Why weren’t we wearing masks for the past century? Why were we allowed to gather, even hug and kiss? It was known to be possible to pass some agent that could eventually settle in an old, sick person and kill hir.

    2 years ago when I got parainfluenza B bronchiolitis and nearly died (from a combination of a pre-existing condition and overtreatment), nobody was interested in tracing my contacts or making sure I didn’t pass on the infection. I didn’t even have to wear a mask in the hospital.

    1. You do understand, though, that there’s a difference between “fake news” and reporting what was known at the time, and that new information has come to light over the course of time. You do understand that, right?

      1. What was known at the time were fake models and the median age of death being around 80

        1. And Fauci admitting he only told us not to wear masks so that hospital workers could get them even though he KNEW masks were helpful. Supposedly. the whole thing stinks.

          1. It’s ALL bullshit.
            There’s no point to debating the utility of masks or lockdowns, because by doing so you’ve already admitted the false premise and conceded the field.
            It’s bullshit fear mongering and totalitarianism.
            Full stop

  38. Apparently Adam Silver will allow the NBA players to put soshul juzztizz messages on the back of their jerseys when the league resumes playing.

    Wonder when Philadelphia changes their name to Eight-FortySixers.

    1. Why did you spell it, “soshul juzztizz”?

      1. Because it’s a religious cult and not deserving of respect.

    2. They are a private business that must respond to their customers. This makes perfect sense and really doesn’t bother me at all.

      1. Maybe they can do XFL-style nicknames like “Whitey Hate Me”.

        1. “The Lakers win on a buzzer beating 3 from He Hate-Crime Me!”

          1. “Nothing but net for Fake Noose!”

            1. “No Justice No Peace fouls out, and White Privilege is up off the bench”

    3. playing for the Sixers a hate crime in itself.

  39. “The European Union is now thinking about excluding Americans from people who will be allowed to start traveling to countries there.”

    Trump was the driver that started this race against COVID-19 with all of the advantages pole position (good early intel warnings and geographic separation), the best pit crew (medical experts and infrastructure), and the best car (America); and he is so inept that he is in dead last place.

    America has long suffered with the most cases and the most deaths in the world and now this disastrous resurgence of this dread pandemic, while many countries of the world with decent drivers lap Trumpy the Clown. Even the “shithole countries” with their marginal drivers have solid leads on Trump.

    1. and he is so inept that he is in dead last place.

      You think this is a competition between leaders on how to best control their population? this shows a lot about how you think.

      Trump has nothing to do with it. Literally nothing. But you want a strong man daddy in the white house so bad you can’t imagine what else could be to blame here. Is that it?

      1. And the same people who today are whining about Trump not being a strong man were in February calling him a racist for cutting off travel to China.

        And the same people who are today bitching about the economy being so bad were the same ones who in March were demanding it be closed and claiming Trump was murdering people for not forcing the governors to do it quickly enough. Yet, today they blame Trump for the foreseeable consequences of the policies they demanded be implemented and criticized him for not sufficiently supported.

    2. America has long suffered with the most cases and the most deaths in the world and now this disastrous resurgence of this dread pandemic, while many countries of the world with decent drivers lap Trumpy the Clown. Even the “shithole countries” with their marginal drivers have solid leads on Trump.

      Every single word in that sentence is a lie. The US is nowhere near the worst in terms of per capita deaths or per capita number of cases or hospitalizations. And the US has never been in any danger of its medical system being overwhelmed the way they were in China and Italy.

      You need to get better talking points that are not so obviously and easily proven to be false.

    3. “…Trumpy the Clown…”

      Why do fucking ignoramuses spend half their lives proving they are by making up nicknames which embarrass the average 1st-grade kid?

      1. and then losing their shit over a harmless word-play joke like “Kung Flu”.

        Apparently it’s racist to refer to or mention the geographic origin of the virus.

    4. the best pit crew (medical experts and infrastructure), and the best car (America); and he is so inept that he is in dead last place.

      Trump isn’t setting policy in my state and city. A democrat who polled in the primary below “other” is and the Weakest Mayor in America is.

  40. The European Union is now thinking about excluding Americans from people who will be allowed to start traveling to countries there.

    Strategy: Fly to Syria, and arrive in Europe from there.

  41. Iran has just issued an international arrest warrant against President Trump for the murder Qassem Soleimani. They’re asking for help from Interpol.

    This seems ridiculous, but President Trump really should avoid travel outside the United States–especially after he leaves office. The left worldwide wants to lash out at populists like him, and the Europeans, especially, would love to humiliate him.

    They’d do a Pinochet to him if they could, I’m sure.

    1. Is his wanted poster nailed up right beside Salman Rushdie’s?

    2. I’d just like to take a moment to thank Iran for reminding us that Trump obliterated Suleimani, Iran’s best general

    3. Which is how you end up with leaders who don’t want to leave when their term is over. I think you’re absolutely right about Trump’s safety, post-office. It’s likely to go almost exactly like Pinochet’s did but they’ll need another nation besides Iran to sign on.

      1. And just a quick reminder that the first major Roman civil war was kicked off by the Senate basically painting Caesar into a corner to either break Roman law to protect himself, or be forced into permanent exile and maybe even execution for crimes against the state.

        1. Let us know when you two are done with your fantasizing about Trump’s having a justification for not stepping down at the end of his Presidency.

          1. That whistling sound was the point sailing over your head.

  42. Not reading anything by ENB until she owns up to her support for the cancel culture and destruction of free discourse. I hope some of y’all join me in making this point.

  43. The relative of my Classmate procures $530 each hour on the net. He has been out of tough work for 5 months, however a month inside the past his paycheck became $ 18468, really chipping away at the net for multiple hours. examine extra in this website online, Click For Full Details.

  44. The pundits and powers-that-be slyly shifted the reporting and framing from hospitaliations and death counts to incidents of infections.
    The whole fukin point of the reports is supposed to tell us how dangerous it is, not how well it spreads.
    The more testing we do, the more “cases” will be detected. But cases don’t count if people are not getting sick. And even if some identifiable sub-portion of the population is getting sick (sicker than the seasonal flu that is), then the lockdown guidelines should apply to them, not everyone.
    Typical socialist thinking — if some people cannot handle omnipresent challenges, then they must impose restrictions on all people, irrespective of their capabilities.

Please to post comments