Coronavirus

Infection Rates in Neighborhoods With Low Voter Turnout, Many Bars, Few Trees Could Slow California's Reopening Under New 'Equity Metric'

California's new approach to combating coronavirus layers on yet more requirements for counties looking to reopen businesses.

|

Starting this week, California will require counties to meet certain equity requirements before they're permitted to reopen more businesses and social activities.

Proponents of this equity-focused approach say it is necessary to prevent the most vulnerable communities from being left behind as the state digs its way out of the pandemic. Critics call it a deeply flawed and potentially illegal means of determining which areas are safe to reopen, and they argue that it will only slow California's recovery.

"Our entire state has come together to redouble our efforts to reduce the devastating toll COVID-19 has had on our Latino, Black and Pacific Islander communities," said Acting State Public Health Officer Dr. Erica Pan in a press release. "This isn't just a matter of higher cases in these communities—it is an issue of life and death that is hurting all Californians."

"Even if we are talking about issues of genuine inequity, there is no justification for the governor to wield emergency powers and restrict the most basic liberties of citizens for purposes of equity," counters Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R–Folsom). "It is an extremely dangerous thing to impose these restrictions that are only supposed to exist for genuine emergencies, genuine public health purposes, but instead use them for a social agenda."

Since August, reopenings in California have been dictated by the state's Blueprint for a Safer Economy. This blueprint places counties in one of four tiers based on the local severity of the pandemic, as measured by the number of new cases per 100,000 people (the case rate) and the percentage of coronavirus tests coming back positive (the test positivity rate).

Counties that show improvement in their case and test positivity rates over a two-week period are allowed to move into a less restrictive tier, where more businesses and activities are permitted. Backtracking on these metrics can kick a county back into a more restrictive tier.

Starting Tuesday, counties' reopenings will also hinge on the test positivity rates in their most disadvantaged neighborhoods, as defined by the state's new equity metric, and on whether counties make targeted public health investments in those neighborhoods.

If those communities' test positivity rates lag behind the county's overall rate, they'll be prevented from moving into a less restrictive tier. On the flip side, this metric could potentially allow some counties to reopen more quickly. If their test positivity rates are low enough in both disadvantaged neighborhoods and the county as a whole to meet the requirements of a less restrictive tier, they're allowed to proceed with reopenings, even if their case rate is still too high. Counties cannot be bumped back a tier for backtracking on the equity metric.

Needless to say, it's a pretty complex formula. The idea, according to Mark Ghaly, California's health secretary, is to ensure that counties with localized hotspots don't reopen too hastily, thus allowing those hotspots to spread.

"The disparate levels of transmission within a single county can really lead to problems for the entire county, as the level of mixing, while we reopen more of our business sectors, occurs," Ghaly told NPR. "This is not just a focus on the race and ethnic impacts of COVID, but really a strategy to make sure we address transmission in a wise and thoughtful way across our state."

In one sense, this is similar to the approach taken in New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo's "Cluster Action Initiative" sets reopening conditions on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood level, based on their proximity to identified hotspots.

Kiley and other elected officials from the Folsom area praised that approach in a letter this week to Gavin Newsom, California's Democratic governor, saying county boundaries were an arbitrary and imprecise means of determining which areas should be allowed to reopen.

But California's approach differs from New York's in a couple of important ways.

For starters, while local hotspots could prevent counties from moving into a less restrictive tier, reopening conditions are still being set at the county level. Moreover, local hotspots only make a difference in whether a county is allowed to reopen if they occur in disadvantaged communities, or if they are large enough to throw off countywide numbers.

Critics charge that this weakens the justification of the equity metric as a means of controlling coronavirus clusters before they get out of hand.

"If that were the concern, the straightforward response would be to require a showing of investment in addressing whatever localized hot spots a county might have, no matter what their racial or socioeconomic composition," writes Water Olson of the Cato Institute.

"We know that over the course of the pandemic many hot spots have emerged in places that were not especially disadvantaged economically—ski resorts, college towns, places with many international business travelers, and so forth," Olson continues. "Apparently it's going to be fine for a county to reopen in California if it's got localized hot spots in categories like those, so long as its overall countywide numbers are satisfactory."

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has been waging a low-level war against house parties in the city's wealthy West Hills neighborhood on the logic that the potential for superspreader events in richer neighborhoods could still endanger the entire city.

Also controversial is how the state identifies disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The equity metric defines disadvantaged neighborhoods as the 25 percent of census tracts in a county that score the lowest on the state's Healthy Places Index. That index uses a weighted measure of 25 different individual indicators to score tracts on a range of demographic factors, including unemployment levels, rates of car ownership, high school graduation rates, number of alcohol outlets, tree canopy coverage, and voter turnout.

"All of these things are put into this formula that then spits out a number," Kiley tells Reason. "And your reopening is conditioned not even on achieving public health goals in some objective sense but actually on the relative performance of different parts of your county that are divided up in an arbitrary fashion."

State officials have pointed to the higher case rates in these low-scoring census tracts to justify its new approach. The California Department of Public Health's website notes that the bottom quartile of census tracts, as ranked by the Healthy Places Index, holds 24 percent of the state's population but has experienced 40 percent of California's reported COVID-19 infections.

How impactful these new equity requirements will be on the pace of reopening remains to be seen. According to data put out by the California Department of Public Health this week, 23 of the state's 58 counties are hitting their equity metric targets, including Los Angeles County. Twelve others, including San Diego, San Francisco, and Orange counties, are not. Another 23 counties are exempt from the state's equity metric because their small population size makes accurately measuring test positivity rates by census tract impossible.

Only Humboldt County in Northern California meets the criteria for accelerated reopening under the equity metric.

Another concern is that the state government will use this new metric to strongarm counties into adopting policies that have little to do with fighting the pandemic.

"It's particularly troubling that Gavin Newsom has explicitly stated that he is hoping to use coronavirus crisis to create a new progressive era and change the way we do business and change the way we govern," says Kiley.

Olson expresses the same concerns in his blog post, writing that "one hopes that what is going on here is not a threat to restrain economic activity that would otherwise be recognized as low-​risk as a way of obtaining leverage with which to push counties into 'equity' initiatives that go beyond criteria of sound disease control."

At present, California's approach to reopening doesn't appear to give the state a huge amount of additional leverage to force local governments into adopting policies unrelated to the pandemic.

The most notable new tool it has is the requirement that these local governments file reports detailing the "targeted investments" they're making to correct for disparities in disadvantaged neighborhoods. But the Department of Public Health's website says these investments should be spent on things like "augmenting testing, disease investigation, contact tracing, isolation/quarantine support, and education and outreach efforts for workers," all of which sounds pretty closely linked to virus suppression.

Also, the money counties would have to spend on those activities will come out of funding from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity program.

California as a whole has received about $500 million from that program during the pandemic. Individual counties' awards have been much smaller still, amounting to less than $1 million in some cases. Adding strings to that money doesn't give the state too much added authority.

But given the extraordinary powers California's state government has claimed for itself during the pandemic, it's entirely possible that these requirements will grow more stringent and be linked to other pots of money.

More concerning than the metric's specifics is the fact that government in California, at any level, is still using emergency powers in an attempt to micromanage what kinds of activities are allowed during the pandemic. Ultimately, we should be leaving these decisions up to businesses and individuals. If it is still appropriate for the government to restrict some high-risk activities, the decision to do that should be made on the most local level possible, not through a complex, confusing, and centralized formula laid down from the state capitol.

Advertisement

NEXT: Promoting On-Campus Discourse: Recommendations

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. Olson expresses the same concerns in his blog post, writing that “one hopes that what is going on here is not a threat to restrain economic activity that would otherwise be recognized as low-​risk as a way of obtaining leverage with which to push counties into ‘equity’ initiatives that go beyond criteria of sound disease control.”

    Yeah, and one must have been smoking crack if one hopes that.

    1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me,GFv so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

      ============► Click here

    2. The 60s and 70s brought violence to the political class in response to oppression. Maybe that will happen again.

      1. to clarify:
        I don’t advocate for that and I hope it doesn’t happen, but historically this kind of government overreach doesn’t end well.

    3. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and qkstart making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website………Click here

    4. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have rwoeceived exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website………Click here

  2. The only thing holding back California is democrats.
    But they got voted in, so everyone that voted democrat is getting what they deserve. Everyone who did not vote democrat, and did not move out of state is getting what they deserve.
    What’s that? The primaries are rigged so that only democrats get on the ballot? Move.

    1. Now that Microsoft is requiring 50% of it’s workforce to work from home expect them to move in droves. CA will lose all it’s tech workers but keep all the homeless and downtrodden. The tax revenue will leave but the tax burden will remain.

    2. Yes, by all means move. Where to? That place where everyone thinks like you and every action by decision-makers is compatible with your personal preferences. The place where Longtobefree lives.

      1. You are absolutely right, Mr. Tibbs. For the sake of democracy, we must have interior visas, and migration for racist reasons must be punished as a war crime, or at least as grounds for involuntary mental evaluation.

      2. As the handle suggests, I do not live in that place.
        Most folks around here don’t think like me. But, like me, they don’t want to force everyone to think alike. My personal preference is just that “the decisionmakers” make far fewer decisions alleged to be in my interest.

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and JOY I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Click here

    3. Better we start getting rid of all these progressives.

  3. Yep make the metric of reopening so complicated that no one knows if they meet the criteria unless Newsom says so today, the next day who knows since he literally changes the metrics week to week. its all theater by Newsom

  4. Lockdowns are by their very nature arbitrary tyranny. It is one thing to quarantine those who are sick or thought to be sick. It is quite another to claim everyone must be treated as if they are sick. That is tyranny and is necessarily arbitrary. You can’t lock everyone in their homes. Some things have to be done. So, you end up allowing “essential services”. What is “essential”? There is no objective way to define that. So, it winds up being whatever the government decides it is because fuck you that is why.

    None of these restrictions in any of these states even pass the rational relationship test. They are all contradictory and arbitrary. In my state for example, bars can be open but you can’t sit at the bar and they must serve food with alcohol. What, do you not get the virus if you are eating? Is there something special about a bar that keeps the virus alive where it wouldn’t stay alive on a table? Why is it that way, because some dumb ass in the state government liked it that way. It is not even internally consistent.

    All lockdowns and restrictions must end and end immediately. Return state health powers to the power to quarantine those found to be sick and nothing else. Without some probable cause to think a person is sick the state should have no power to restrict their movements or actions at all. And the states should not have the power to have any general restrictions on gatherings and such at all. They can only quarantine individuals. That is how public health law worked for over 200 years in this country. It was never and was never intended to be a trap door out of which every restriction on government power falls out of the Constitution because someone decided there was a pandemic.

    1. “None of these restrictions in any of these states even pass the rational relationship test.”

      It’s the worst kind of religious thinking. In the middle ages, the Catholic church would have prohibited the consumption of meat during lent.

      That was less restrictive than what California is doing today.

      1. The Church told people to not eat meat during lent out of respect for God. They didn’t do it thinking it would stop the plague. So, this is actually even worse.

        1. It’s the same mentality both are seeking salvation.

          1. It’s also the same in that they think forced sacrifice by itself is holy.

            1. We even have indulgents in the form of essential vs nonessential permission slips.

          2. There is a big difference between telling people “drugs are bad for you and you should not take them” and making them illegal.

            It’s the same with the Catholic church telling you not to eat meat vs making something illegal.

        2. The point here is that they are using completely superficial and unscientific measures to keep themselves safe. Whether it is keeping god happy, or avoiding Apollo’s Plague Arrows, there is no attempt to understand the actual mechanisms driving infections.

          The other morning, as I walked my kid to school, the teacher outside told her to put on her mask.
          Me: She’s right, sweetie. Only the penitent one may pass.
          Her: Peni-what now?
          Me: Penitent one. A penitent one is humble before government. A penitent one wears the mask. WEAR THE MASK!

          My wife at least got the reference. The teacher, bless her young heart, was very confused.

          1. I just pulled my kid OUT of in person schooling because the vast amount of protocols were making him very depressed. The results of the mitigation are worse than CV would ever be to a kid.

            What they’re doing to kids should be considered abuse.

            1. take all the kids out of schools. they will learn more and be better adjusted.

        3. I’ve long heard it was brought about sometime in the Middle Ages to augment the fishing industries of certain Italian city states. Of course that may just be an anti-catholic myth, the likes of which we will be hearing soon at a judicial confirmation hearing.

          1. The Pope at the time, along with his family and community, had a financial interest in the fishing industry.

      2. Also, angels on the heads of pins.

    2. And the states should not have the power to have any general restrictions on gatherings and such at all. They can only quarantine individuals. That is how public health law worked for over 200 years in this country. It was never and was never intended to be a trap door out of which every restriction on government power falls out of the Constitution because someone decided there was a pandemic.

      That’s just not true. The same authoritarian measures – mask mandates, banning large gatherings, forced closure of private businesses – were undertaken for the Spanish Flu Pandemic in 1918.

      1. No as usual Jeff, you have no clue what you are talking about. There were never any mask mandates in 1918. What there were were short term closures of schools and businesses in particular town where the outbreaks were bad. There was never entire states much less the entire country closed down or anything approaching what we have now. Moreover, not only were those things limited in area, they were limited in time to a few days or weeks not months.

        I don’t mind explaining things. But you have made it clear on numerous occasions that you have no desire to learn. You like being ignorant and won’t listen to any facts that disturb that. So do everyone a favor and GO AWAY.

    3. And California wants to use these new powers to force companies to have 60% of their workers working from home, even after the pandemic is over.

  5. “Proponents of this equity-focused approach say it is necessary to prevent the most vulnerable communities from being left behind as the state digs its way out of the pandemic. Critics call it a deeply flawed and potentially illegal means of determining which areas are safe to reopen, and they argue that it will only slow California’s recovery.”

    There’s a California Democrat on the Biden ticket, who will probably take over as president at some point during old man Biden’s term. If you want to see this kind of shithead thinking implemented nationally, be sure to vote for the Biden ticket.

    Are there working moms in California who won’t be able to send their kids to school, won’t be able to go to work, and won’t be able to make their house payment–because poorer people in poorer districts have fewer “advantages”? The correct answer is almost certainly “yes”.

    What about those Californians who care more about themselves and their children than they do about poor people? Hell, there may be a religious argument against forcing people to make sacrifices for others on the basis that they’re selfish.

    1. All true Ken. I can’t figure out if the average Democrat just refuses to believe that or they believe it and think it is a good thing.

      1. They believe it is a good thing.

      2. My guess is most think it’s a good thing.

    2. “The idea, according to Mark Ghaly, California’s health secretary, is to ensure that counties with localized hotspots don’t reopen too hastily, thus allowing those hotspots to spread.”

      This is bullshit, or they would have a metric based on HOTSPOTS, not disadvantaged neighborhoods.

      1. I’d like to know more about these hotspots too. Are people actually sick, or are they clusters of positive test results?

    3. Don’t forget the poor living in any district that are less likely to be able to work from home. At least they won’t catch a cold.

    4. “Are there working moms in California who won’t be able to send their kids to school, won’t be able to go to work, and won’t be able to make their house payment–because poorer people in poorer districts have fewer “advantages”? The correct answer is almost certainly “yes”.”

      The majority of the support for Karen Harris and the other democrats comes from affluent couples- white collar, white, educated and rich. Many are stay at home moms. Others are two income families who have been working from home for the past 7 months. They are frankly having the time of their lives. The worst sacrifice is some stress with the kids there. But they are not struggling to make ends meet.

      Then there are the poor people. Wanna know what they do? They leave there kids at home to maybe possibly figure out how to learn online, while they try to work and put money on the table. Because that is the only fucking option they have. I know these families and try to get their kids back and forth to school lunch.

      It is fucking criminal what these rich affluent people have inflicted on the poor here in this state. They would be eternally ashamed of themselves if they didn’t have the super ability to transfer all of their accountability onto Trump and other conservatives who have been out of power in this state for 2 decades.

      1. if they didn’t have the super ability to transfer all of their accountability onto Trump and other conservatives who have been out of power in this state for 2 decades

        Yeah – the ability of California Democrats to blame the state’s problems on Republicans is pretty staggering.

        1. “…the ability of California Democrats to blame the state’s problems on Republicans…”
          All three of them.

    5. “Selfish” is the new buzzword.

      I predict its almost entirely Identity Politics engineering this nonsense. The moment such idealistic simpering becomes reality (Less money in their bank accounts, less fun, less, less, less) they’ve wake up from their “woke” dream.

  6. Mission creep at it’s finest.

    1. It’s only mission creep if you think the mission was to flatten the curve or some such nonsense.

      If you realize the mission was to vastly expand government powers and get everyone to accept it this is just moving the mission forward.

      1. It’s like the 30’s again.

      2. The mission was to be seen as “doing something”, then when millions of people didn’t die, to claim credit for saving their lives. Even though millions were never going to die.

    2. This is just starting wait till the watermelons get in on this scam.

  7. This is going to become about living in harmony with the environment in next week, they just haven’t come around to that argument yet.

    1. We can’t open up until all the poor people have electric cars.

  8. Which counties have the highest per capita rates of woodchippers?

  9. I’ve said it a thousand times, reason’s lack of moral courage on this issue from day one is giant moral stain that I’ll never forget. The TDS is one thing but the fact of the matter these actions were the greatest infringement of civil liberties in my lifetime and the fact they weren’t screaming from the roof tops in article after article about the implications of this and how horrific the damage this was going to do in real time is just disturbing to me.

      1. Trump put tariffs on on like two products from China and deported some people by revoking their temporary status.

        It is all about priorities and knowing what is important.

      2. Government should not have health care plans. Period.

    1. Exactly. I won’t describe them as SUPPORTERS of the lockdown. Sullum and a few others at least voiced “concerns” and discussed “troubling trends”. At most, Sullum has suggested that the data doesn’t really support many of these mandates. As if some different data could justify locking healthy people in their homes.

      This should have been met with a reflective, visceral skepticism, and after 2 – 3 weeks, with an “OMFG, why aren’t we arresting these tyrants!”- remember, back in January, this was a rag that advocated for impeaching Trump over possibly asking someone to investigate his opponent. Not imprison an entire state in its home- investigate an opponent.

      1. I wouldn’t say they support the lockdowns. Bailey might but I don’t think the rest do. But, I can’t say they are particularly upset about them or that concerned by them. And that they are not outraged and angry about them, if not at the beginning certainly now, says very bad things about what they really think is important.

        1. John, the problem is that they do not directly feel the pain. If Unreason writers felt the pain from the lockdown, they would squeal like stuck pigs.

          The same is true for public sector union employees, elected officials. If you expose them directly to the consequences of their terrible decisions, maybe they’d change their minds.

          1. I haven’t felt any pain either really. But that doesn’t stop me from being mad as hell about them.

      2. This should have been met with a reflective, visceral skepticism, and after 2 – 3 weeks, with an “OMFG, why aren’t we arresting these tyrants!”

        ^This x 1000.

        “Free Minds and Free Markets” no longer means anything here. It’s heartbreaking.

      3. Reason has at least reported on the court decisions in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania ruling that the lockdowns were illegal or excessive or arbitrary. But they seem to be upset about the governors and health czars not following the letter of the law, rather than condemning the whole exercise as a bizarre and counterproductive power grab.

    2. Yes. They have been a huge disappointment when it comes to the lockdowns, etc.
      Essential liberties and limited government are far more important than avoiding getting sick.
      But I’ve been so disgusted with people in general over this that it all just runs together.

    1. The City of San Francisco will pay Black and Pacific Islander women $1,000 a month during their pregnancies and after birth in a pilot program to study how the monthly support helps achieve better maternal health and birthing outcomes.

      I’m putting it down right now, in 15 months (9 months of pregnancy plus 6 months of post-birth care) you’re going to have a push to allow abortions up to 6 months after the child’s clump of cells’ birth. I fucking guarantee it.

      1. 75th trimester

      2. I think the more likely thing will be the scientific study proving that UBI really does Save the Children.

      3. Isn’t that racist to give cash to some people based on their race and not give it to others? Does the City of San Francisco have a Yelp page?

    2. Pregnant Native Americans, Mestizos and Filipinas wanting in on the government handouts can apparently go fuck themselves, however. They’re not the right oppressed races.

      1. Filipinos are Pacific Islanders not Asian. They are the ancestors of the Polynesians.

        1. But are relics of Spanish Conquest so they’re honorary white privileged.

        2. I thought Polynesians came from Taiwan.

          1. HUMANS CAME FROM AFRICA!

            *drops microphone*

            1. Yeah, well your mom came… something. Figure it out.

              1. Your mom came, then I went home.

        3. No Filipinos are not Pacific Islanders except in the very broadest sense of living in Islands in the South China and Philippine seas which straddle the area between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

          Polynesians are mostly Taiwanese Aboriginal origin with some Melanesian ancestry.
          See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesians#Genetic_studies

          Filipinos are largely unrelated and are certainly not Polynesian ancestors.

          1. The Austronesian People came from Taiwan through the Philippines to the Pacific.

            1. The Filipinos are mostly Austronesian.

              The majority population of Filipinos are Austronesians, a linguistic and genetic group whose historical ties lay in maritime Southeast Asia, but through ancient migrations can be found as indigenous peoples stretching as far east as the Pacific islands and as far west as Madagascar off the coast of Africa.[98][99] The current predominant theory on Austronesian expansion holds that Austronesians settled the Philippine islands through successive southward and eastward seaborne migrations from the Neolithic Austronesian populations of Taiwan.

  10. For California Socialists (but I repeat myself) the pandemic is like Christmas, the Boston Tea Party, and Bastille Day all in one and delivered with a magic wand.

    No wonder they can’t stop themselves.

      1. Fuck her. With an NVA anti-aircraft gun.

      2. Jane Fonda as atmospheric scientist and population nanny:

        She added that half of a degree change in the weather can kill millions of people.

        Cool.

        1. Hey, and her solution was to marry Ted Turner!

    1. It’s not just California. Nearly every state, red or blue, is giddy with their new found power. Finally, no judicial oversite? Governors and county and city officials can whatever the fuck they want, with no one to stop them!

      The Rule of Law is dead in this country, everywhere it’s arbitrary pronouncements, the whim of the ruler.

      1. Well, except Georgia.

        Georgia didn’t seem to be overly concerned with keeping their citizens locked up.

          1. If you’re pissing Vox off you’re probably doing something right.

        1. Don’t forget South Dakota.
          I don’t know too much about Kristi Noem, but I’d vote for her for just about anything right now. For the first time in my life I am a single issue voter. I will not vote for anyone who has not been strongly and consistently opposed to lockdowns, forced business closures and distancing and mask mandates.

        2. Yup. Georgia never had a lockdown and schools have been open for over a month.

          NO mask requirements, business restrictions, or party restrictions.

          The only major problem we had was when Atlanta cops murdered an unarmed guy at Wendys. Democrat run Atlanta.

      2. True, there is no clear red/blue line here. But it looks to me like in general Democrat governors have been the most excessive.
        My state’s Republican governor could have been a lot worse, but he did put lots of orders in place and still won’t end the state of emergency. But on the positive side, no mask mandate and stay at home and other restrictions were never enforced on individuals.

        1. Masks are now required across 28 states, as well as in businesses, cities and counties without statewide orders.

          Georgia has no mask mandates and all businesses are open. We have had decreasing daily cases since July 24, 2020. 7,300 deaths while infected in 7 months of this nonsense.

    2. Except they’re the British, and the French aristocracy.

  11. First, certain minority groups tend to ignore the COVID-19 guidelines and orders. Then it’s considered racist to treat members of those groups as if they’re more likely to be infected. Now a county that is mostly recovering is prevented from reopening because the disadvantaged groups don’t have the same recovery rate. California is doubling down on stupid.

    1. First, certain minority groups tend to ignore the COVID-19 guidelines and orders.
      Turns out they are the smart ones.

    2. Need more honky infections, STAT!

  12. > Only Humboldt County in Northern California meets the criteria for accelerated reopening under the equity metric.

    Yeah, the only rural county bluer than Sacramento. Even Marin is redder than Humboldt. So of course Newsome lets it reopen. His metric specifically targets the redder areas.

    1. I had a friend visit me here in Orange County. He lives an hour north of here in Los Angeles county. He could not believe how we would walk into a restaurant and sit down to eat- to take off our mask, and talk and get food. At first, he was clearly shaken to see people walking around outside, maskless until they got to a place where distancing was impossible. He was shocked to see that my kids have been happily going to camp for 4 months without dropping dead from Apollo’s Arrows- and for nearly a month they have been in school.

      Newsom cannot allow Orange County to show Angelinos that they are living in a paranoid delusion. So he is doing everything in his power to keep us from fully reopening.

      1. I am amazed at how terrorized the media has people. People really think this stuff is deadly rather than just being a bit nastier than the flu if you are of a certain demographic.

        1. And nothing more than a mild flu for the rest, if they have any symptoms at all.

        2. It’s more than just a bit nastier than the flu. It’s not ebola, to be sure, but neither is it the sniffles. In a bad flu year perhaps 40k people die. The flu is nothing to dismiss out of hand! But we’ve had 200k people die of COVID-19.

          Now you may argue how the collect the numbers, but it’s same people collecting the data for both diseases. Covid-19 is five times more deadly than a bad flu. Which is significant.

          But people who religiously get their flu shots each year whine about wearing masks. It’s nuts.

          1. However you want to look at that, it’s still a pretty minor risk for most people. Yet it’s not hard to fine people acting as if they are likely to become severely ill or die if they get it. When if you aren’t old or have something else seriously wrong with you, it really isn’t more likely to kill you than a typical flu. And if you are young and healthy, it is less likely to kill you.
            Also, people have gotten better at treating the serious cases. So the death rate is probably a good bit lower than it was when the epidemic was really raging in March.

          2. Getting a shot is not the same as walking around like a fucking zombie with a mask on everywhere. How can you see the two as being the same?

          3. 40k is not a bad flu. 80k is a bad flu. So, at most, COVID-19 is maybe 2.5 times as bad as a bad flu, if all of the people who died with COVID-19 truly died of COVID-19.

          4. As a medical doctor I can assure you that in a bad flu year 80,000 people die.
            Including 200 children
            Rest of the population either gets a flu shot or the flu

            1. Including 200 children

              Actually, this is an underestimate and makes COVID vs. Flu a true apples-to-oranges comparison. From about 2010 on, the flu killed 4-500 kids (under 15) annually, whether it killed 40K adults or 80K adults. COVID has killed 200,000 people and only killed 1-200 children under the age of 15.

              So, depending on your age (and health), it’s *not* worse than the average flu.

            2. I’ve had one flu shot in the past 30 years, and only had the flu 3 times (once the same year I had the shot, so it didn’t work.)

          5. It’s more than just a bit nastier than the flu. It’s not ebola, to be sure, but neither is it the sniffles. In a bad flu year perhaps 40k people die. The flu is nothing to dismiss out of hand! But we’ve had 200k people die of COVID-19.

            It’s a true apples-to-oranges comparison. The a larger portion of flu sufferers know they’ve contracted the flu, not so with COVID. The flu kills people in a more linear fashion across the age range whereas COVID is more exponential.

            In terms of absolute number of deaths (assuming the current numbers don’t get adjusted down as it’s revealed fewer people have died of other causes), yes, COVID has been deadlier than the last several years of the flu (but not necessarily deadlier than previous flu pandemics). However, in terms of years of life lost, the flu is more deadly. Moreover, as time progresses on and COVID culls the susceptible population, it will get less deadly while the flu will continue killing several hundred kids a year (even with vaccinations) for decades to come.

          6. “But we’ve had 200k people die of COVID-19.”

            No. We. Have. Not.

            We have had 200,000 people die, who also had COVID when they died. Those two statements aren’t the same thing. Goddamnit, someone like Tony may not know better, or would never admit it if he did, but I’m pretty sure you do.

            Again, HHS choosing to pay hospitals more for every diagnosed COVID case irrevocably fucked any chance we had of accurately tracking who died of what.

          7. Not the sniffles?

            I was taking Benadryl for the past week because I thought it was my ragweed allergies acting up.

            Got tested.

            No allergies.

            COVID positive.

            I am no spring chicken and I thought my COVID was allergies.

            Just my two cents.

            1. Are you typing from your death-bed?

          8. Getting a flu shot has yet to lower my O2 saturation into the danger zone.

    2. In Humboldt County, a disproportionate number of cases show up in the Hoopa Reservation. As with almost any reservation, the inhabitants qualify as disadvantaged.
      Also, with Humboldt State mostly closed, the county is now sort of purple.

  13. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1313874157210349568

    Biden Surrogate Jane Fonda Calls Covid ‘God’s Gift to the Left’

      1. ?? This is the only reference to ‘Fonda’ or ‘God’ here. Did you mean the Roundup?

        1. No, I posted the link, but I didn’t reference anything about it in the text.

          Diane Reynolds (Paul.)
          October.9.2020 at 12:13 pm
          You’re not far from the truth.

          1. so, old news then?

            1. Quick fingers.
              I scooped Ken last week…

    1. What a massive cunt.

      Being on the left is a mental disease, gladly celebrating death and the destruction of our economy, and all because OrangeManBad.

  14. “It’s particularly troubling that Gavin Newsom has explicitly stated that he is hoping to use coronavirus crisis to create a new progressive era and change the way we do business and change the way we govern,” says Kiley.

    A commonality I heard from left leaning persons I know is that there have to be rules; you see, people don’t do what they are supposed to do [in the interests of themselves as well as others] and there have to be rules, and they must be made to follow them.

    This is said with a perfectly straight face and in all sincerity. Of course, authority is all fun and games, as long as it is only directed toward those who don’t like or agree with.

    1. “It’s particularly troubling that Gavin Newsom has explicitly stated that he is hoping to use coronavirus crisis to create a new progressive era and change the way we do business and change the way we govern,” says Kiley.

      I guess when I think about this in relation to California, I wonder what was wrong with the old progressive era.

      1. It was a blueprint whose time has come.

    2. I just wish Gov. Tiresome was up for reelection this year.
      He’s probably the most hated man in California.

  15. The thing that pisses me off the most about this shit is the dumbasses that think Newsom (and the other governors like Whitmer and Cuomo and Walz and Murphy) are making these outrageous demands so that we can return to “normal” without realizing that they have no intention of a return to “normal”. If you didn’t twig to the goalpost-shifting when they went from “flattening the curve” to “lowering the rate”, you damn sure should have noticed when they goalpost-shifted from “lowering the rate” to “until we have a vaccine”.

    And if you think “until we have a vaccine” is as far as they can shift the goalposts, you’re a fucking retard. The goalpost shifting is only getting started, they intend to keep this up until we also have a vaccine for the flu and the common cold, until we have a vaccine for all communicable diseases including syphilis, gonorrhea, and herpes, until we have a cure for all diseases including childhood obesity, racism and white privilege, until everybody has a government chip implanted that can track all your movements in real time. And don’t ask why the government chip includes your bank account information, your Twitter password and your browser history. It’s science! There’s no “return to normal”, there’s only the boot stomping on the face.

    1. And, most importantly, until we have equity, racial, gender, and non binary parity. If it “worked” for a virus, then we must be obligated to apply the same cure to all of our ills. And those goal posts will shift as often as is deemed necessary.

    2. I agree. They have no intention of ever giving up this power or allowing life to return to normal. I don’t think they even have a goal anymore if they ever did. They just love the power. They are absolutely intoxicated by having the power to restrict every aspect of people’s lives. It has nothing to do with their desire to accomplish anything. I don’t even thing they want to use it to steal and reward their cronies. It is beyond even that. It is almost sexual with them at this point, like a fetish.

      1. This is the shit that should be truly terrifying to people, but because it doesn’t come with mean tweets and poor rhetoric, it gets a pass.

        1. It terrifies me. I admit. I didn’t freak out over this when it started. I figured it couldn’t last. Boy was I wrong. This is the first time in my life I have ever really feared for the future of the country.

          1. I figured the lockdowns would be for 3 weeks (the virus has a max 2 week incubation period) and then things would go back to normal. That was 7 months ago.

        2. As someone I know sent out a notice about and upcoming event, “science and guidelines, I don’t understand but we just have to follow it”

          I will never understand this innate desire on the part of so many to be told what to do in so many aspects of public life

          1. I will never understand this innate desire on the part of so many to be told what to do in so many aspects of public life

            If you surrender your power to make decisions for yourself, then you can’t be blamed for outcomes. It’s quite comforting, really.

          2. All you have to do in this day and age is don a white lab coat, and Democratic politicians will immediately place you on a throne and start bowing to you as a God.

            1. as long as you don’t question the consensus, or bring up contradictory evidence. then you’re banned from YouTube.

    3. “Until we have a vaccine.” obviously translates to “Until everyone who needs vaccinated is vaccinated.” and, subsequently, “Until everyone is vaccinated.” and, again obviously, “Until everyone is regularly vaccinated and/or proven to be protractedly immune.”

      Even if the ruse isn’t transparent yet, the longer they cling to it, the more it wears thing and the more transparent it becomes even to people who are only passively glancing at it.

  16. Lots of bitching and moaning and outrage and anger about the lockdowns and the quarantines. I get it, there is a lot to be outraged about. The authority that the state has used, too often, goes too far, is too arbitrary, and is tyranically imposed.

    But the sad truth of the matter, is that what’s needed is more than just outrage, it is a plan for what to do about a pandemic from a libertarian perspective. And quite frankly there are no real good answers. Because dead people no longer have liberty. “The state does nothing” is how you get things like the Black Death. “The state only quarantines the visibly sick” does not take into account how these viruses spread – healthy people can spread the virus too. “The state gives stern warnings and recommendations only” is really just a prisoner’s dilemma – while individuals and businesses might feel like they ought to obey anti-pandemic recommendations, the ones who don’t get to profit at the others’ expense. So the economic incentive at least in the short term is to ignore the recommendations, as the bars and restaurants that don’t close would profit at the expense of the bars and restaurants that do.

    Since dead people don’t have liberty, if the idea is to maximize and nourish liberty in the face of a pandemic, then the libertarian response should be about BOTH respecting the liberty of all, AND trying to reduce the spread of the disease. Focusing too heavily on one or the other misses the larger point. Ultimately it does boil down, regrettably, to a type of utilitarian calculus, depending on how one weighs the various risk factors, including risks to liberty. It would be interesting to see different libertarian arguments in this vein.

    1. Oh fuck you. What is needed is for authoritarian assholes like you to shut the fuck up and let adults have a rational conversation about the nature of risk and the costs of avoiding it.

      1. Not surprising you cannot have an intelligent conversation on the matter, only outrage and insults.

        The time for critique is over. It’s time for solutions.

        1. OUtrage and insults are all you deserve. You are just a fucking asshole looking to rationalize control over other people’s lives.

          1. Outrage and insults are ALL YOU HAVE.

            The time for critique is over. It’s time for solutions.

            Do you have anything? Anything at all?

            1. Yes, I don’t have any desire to offer bullshit rationalizations for the government to shut down society in the name of safety. You are right.

              You don’t offer anything. None of these “sollutions” make any one safer. It is just cargo cult science used to give morons like you a false sense of security and to justify the real goal with is state control of every aspect of people’s lives.

            2. Solutions to what? If a virus comes along that is going to kill a large part of the population, then that’s probably what will happen. I think that is a very low probablity event.
              For viruses like this one, we do what we have always done. Bury the dead and get on with life. If people deem the threat serious enough, they will change their behavior. And we should keep improving medicine and getting better at helping people who do get sick. That’s the one thing that works, and why the black death isn’t likely to happen again.

              1. If people deem the threat serious enough, they will change their behavior.

                ^ This. Force only engenders resistance.

                1. Yes, force does engender resistance.

                  But, resistance to the *legitimate* use of force should not constitute a “resistor’s veto”.

                  So the real question is, how much force may be legitimately applied in this case?

              2. Solutions to what?

                Well, the optimization problem that I described above. If the idea is to maximize individual liberty, one ought to focus not just on preserving the liberty of the living, but also try to prevent vulnerable people from dying, because dead people no longer have liberty to protect. Obviously we don’t want these authoritarian lockdown orders that imprison healthy people with little justification. But I can’t accept the completely “do nothing” approach either, where a small amount of prevention could preserve a lot of liberty in terms of some susceptible individuals not dying.

                If people deem the threat serious enough, they will change their behavior.

                Yes, they will. But there is also the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ type of scenario that I described above. In the face of a pandemic, the businesses that operate “irresponsibly”, and remain open despite spreading disease everywhere, will profit at the expense of those that operate “responsibly”, and shut down (or otherwise make the experience less pleasant, like requiring masks) so as to avoid spreading disease.

                1. “…But I can’t accept the completely “do nothing” approach either, where a small amount of prevention could preserve a lot of liberty in terms of some susceptible individuals not dying…”
                  Assumes facts not in evidence.

                  “…In the face of a pandemic, the businesses that operate “irresponsibly”, and remain open despite spreading disease everywhere, will profit at the expense of those that operate “responsibly”, and shut down (or otherwise make the experience less pleasant, like requiring masks) so as to avoid spreading disease…”
                  Of course the customers, not being moral agents, would randomly pick one of the other, ignoring their individual chance of getting ill.
                  Aren’t you a wonderful person to be looking out for those poor people who must be far less intelligent than you!
                  Fuck off, slaver.

        2. “Not surprising you cannot have an intelligent conversation on the matter, only outrage and insults.”
          This is called ‘poisoning the well’. Jeff assumes, without a single bit of evidence, that his assertions amount to ‘intelligent conversation’.
          They don’t, Jeff; every one of your comments is based on assumptions that your ‘solutions’ are correct, and the only ‘intelligent’ response is to agree.
          No: Most often, your ‘solutions’ assume government activity since you assume you are smarter than hoi poloi, therefore…..
          You’re not.

          “The time for critique is over. It’s time for solutions.”
          OK, here’s the ‘solution’; end the lockdowns, the mask and ‘social distancing’ orders, and close orders; simply allow people, as moral agents, to make their choices
          And tell slavers like you to kindly fuck off.
          There’s your solution, you pathetic piece of lefty shit.

    2. “The state does nothing” is how you get things like the Black Death.

      Could you be any more of a tool?

      1. No he couldn’t. You can’t overstate what a asshole he is.

        1. John’s the guy who would rather infect everyone and let the body count fall where it may, than do anything at all.

          John’s the guy who imagines that this is the first time ever that authoritarian measures have been imposed to stop a pandemic. Here’s a clue, John, it hasn’t.

          When you are done fondling your outrage boner, why don’t you attempt to propose something serious about what the state ought to do in the face of a pandemic?

          1. I am the person who understands that we all have to face our mortality and risk. That is called being an adult.

            You are not that. You are a pathetic child who can’t face life as it is. And can thus be manipulated into doing virtually anything in the name of “safety”.

            When you are done fondling your outrage boner, why don’t you attempt to propose something serious about what the state ought to do in the face of a pandemic?

            Thanks for admitting you are not outraged by what is happening to those people. You can’t be bothered to even say what a shame it is. It never occurs to you. Because you read that story and think “that is just how it has to be”. Any human being with a conscience reads that story and is heartbroken and understands this insanity has to end. You are neither normal nor have a conscience. What you have is a set of rationalizations for your own sick fantasy world that you live in.

            There is no state solution to this. Asking the question is like asking if there is a state solution to gravity. Life is full of risk and assuming that risk is part of living a normal life.

          2. You see old people dying of loneliness and your response is “but this is for the best”.

            Think about what kind of horrible human being that makes you Jeff. That is who you are, an old person dying of loneliness while you cheer it on.

            1. You see old people dying of loneliness and your response is “but this is for the best”.

              You see old people dying of Covid and your response is “eh so what, they were going to die anyway”.

              1. If they chose to take the risk, then yes it is one of those things. You think you should make the choice for them. That is why you are a horribly immoral and awful person

                1. You mean a “risk” like going shopping? Why should going shopping be a death sentence?

                  1. “…Why should going shopping be a death sentence?”

                    Why should lefty shits like you assume anyone should respond to strawmen like that?

                  2. “Why should going shopping be a death sentence?”

                    So, using ‘shopping might be deadly’ logic shopping should be banned for all. But that is not realistic. The inherent risk in shopping is assumed by the shopper then. A shopper can shop ten times and on the eleventh time get the Rona. How does any measure in the shop or at the government level mitigate that risk? Answer – it cannot.
                    Government’s answer – Let’s then arbitrarily attempt to mitigate some risks in an arbitrary fashion that only we can decide for some shops but not for others.
                    That is hardly a solution.

          3. The state should advise people to keep calm and carry on. If there is a really dangerous disease that has a chance of being contained, it should try to contain it. The state is supposed to be the protector of basic rights and an arbiter of disputes, not the nursemaid of every individual.

            1. I think it helps to look at it from the two extremes, and then try to figure out where we are relative to those two extremes.

              In one extreme, you have very manageable illnesses, like the common cold. Nothing really needs to be done by the state. Individuals can manage this disease quite well without the state getting involved.

              In the other extreme, you have extremely dangerous diseases like Ebola. There, at least some degree of authoritarian measures to control the spread of the disease are very justifiable even from a libertarian perspective.

              So saying that the state should never do anything in any case, as John seems to be claiming above, is just not reasonable IMO.

              So when it comes to coronavirus, where are we in between these two extremes? I think we are closer to “common cold” than to “Ebola”, but again, that doesn’t mean it’s the same as the common cold and that nothing at all should be done by the state – it is more dangerous. I’m willing to look at serious arguments on this. I’m not so willing to look at outrage porn or grandstanding or just more bitching about lockdowns.

              1. I see what you are saying, but I think there is another aspect that you don’t mention as much, which is what is possible and practical.
                For something like Ebola, which is very nasty, but requires direct contact to transmit, it makes sense to go to great lengths to trace contacts, isolate the infected and perhaps impose quarantine on some infected individuals.
                FOr something like Rona, once it was clear that it had spread to every state and every country in the world, I think it was pretty obvious that it was going to run its course, whatever we do. And it looks to me like the data does not support the idea that lockdowns, forced business closures or masks made much of a difference to the general trajectory of the epidemic. In that case, unless it is killing or sickening so many people that the functioning of society is directly threatened, I don’t think there is much the state can do that doesn’t do more harm than good other than perhaps providing information and helping to ensure that people can get treatment and the healthcare system doesn’t collapse.

                1. “…In that case, unless it is killing or sickening so many people that the functioning of society is directly threatened, I don’t think there is much the state can do that doesn’t do more harm than good other than perhaps providing information and helping to ensure that people can get treatment and the healthcare system doesn’t collapse.”

                  And if so, it is up to the governments to make that case in terms honest enough to get agreement.
                  Which does not include ‘not enough honkies are sick!’

              2. It is also necessary to read between the lines on how the information is delivered. Deaths were a big factor in reporting initially. We no longer hear about daily death counts and the curve has progressed in a very typical, influenza like fashion. Next, why the ongoing tally of cases? Cases, cases, cases! What does that really tell us except adding to the number makes it seem like it is growing exponentially. Reality – There is some measurement of recovery, but not all of the ‘Cases’ are remeasured later when recovered. And why not subtract that number then? Is the idea that eventually every single one of us will get it? There is no escape? Therefore noone is safe! Sounds incendiary and designed to instill a constant sense of fear and inevitability in spite of the data.
                And everyone knows now the total death number is a lie and the death rate to cases is falling everywhere. Hence the shift in focus.

          4. infect everyone and let the body count fall where it may

            Everyone is going to get infected. Everyone is going to die. John isn’t obsessively worried about where the bodies are going to land.

            1. So why not anarchy? So what if some murderer cuts your life short. You’re going to die anyway, right? Why should murder be illegal again?

              Yours is a facile response to a serious problem.

              1. You false equivalency is reflective of your dishonesty or your stupidity.
                Or both.

    3. I stopped reading at “[b]ecause dead people no longer have liberty.”

      1. Well, what do you expect when the commenter has no brains?

    4. “But the sad truth of the matter, is that what’s needed is more than just outrage, it is a plan for what to do about a pandemic from a libertarian perspective.”

      The sad truth is that lefty adolescents like you think libertarians have to have some “plan”.
      Here’s the “plan”: learn what you can about the disease and take what YOU think is the appropriate action.
      And fuck off.

    5. Assuming you’re not trolling, please start by reading the Great Barrington Declaration.

      It comes first down to acknowledging the science. The virus is dangerous to a specific subset of the population. For everyone else, it’s less dangerous than driving a car.

    6. How about “the state communicates the best scientific data on the virus and how it spreads and how to avoid it”, and people take their own precautions, or not, based on their self-interest.

      Because there was a lot of data by April showing that people who are young enough and healthy enough to be working full time jobs were at very little risk from COVID-19. So there was no reason to stop them from working.

  17. Left CA for a small town in Idaho three years ago and have never looked back. They’re insane.

  18. You realize, right, that we just had 56,000 new cases yesterday. We are heading in a very bad direction.

    But you’ve got your test case in Florida. Everything pretty much wide open with a couple exceptions. And the idiot governor, who already screwed this up once, said he’s not going back. Infections, deaths, hospital overload and an even worse economy be damned.

    Let’s see how that works out for the herd immunity crowd, Libertarians.

    1. How many deaths? “Cases” just means positive tests. Not a good measure of what is really happening with the disease.

      1. Positives don’t mean cases don’t mean you’re infected or contagious.

        This whole thing is either a planned scam or very stupid incompetent people are in power.

        Or worse.

        Both.

        1. It’s both…

  19. Crossing my fingers that our “tree canopy coverage” is adequate to open back up!

  20. Newsome is just another hoodlum extortionist Organized crime by other means.

    I shut you down arbitrarily and if you want me to allow you to open up here are some rules.

  21. OK, let’s get some honkies lined up to catch the ‘rona, starting with Pelosi and her nephew Newsom.
    Add his wife, her husband, start working through the legislature; we’ll get the numbers we need, and with any luck, some helpful deaths

  22. Just reason number 889,201 to get out of that screwed-up, Democrat-controlled cesspool. I can’t fathom why people still keep electing these idiots.

  23. Of course the customers, not being moral agents, would randomly pick one of the other, ignoring their individual chance of getting ill.

    Sure, some customers might stay home, or they might not. But a store that stays open will generally get more business than a store that stays closed.

    What might affect things is if shopkeepers were liable if their customers got sick. After all, in Libertopia, the reason why shopkeepers would act responsibly would be out of fear of being sued by their customers if something bad happened. So why not apply the same incentive for shopkeepers during a pandemic? That would reduce the whole ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ scenario.

    1. “Sure, some customers might stay home, or they might not. But a store that stays open will generally get more business than a store that stays closed.”
      Woosh!
      None of your business, slaver. Fuck off.

      “What might affect things is if shopkeepers were liable if their customers got sick. After all, in Libertopia, the reason why shopkeepers would act responsibly would be out of fear of being sued by their customers if something bad happened. So why not apply the same incentive for shopkeepers during a pandemic? That would reduce the whole ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ scenario.”
      Go ahead; PROVE you got the ‘rona at my establishment and expect a counter-suit, slaver.

      1. BTW, you seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase ‘personal responsibility’, and piles of lefty shit like you are typically so confused.
        It is not the job of you or other slavers, working through the agency of the government, to take responsibility for my life or actions, other than how they might (actively) cause harm to others.
        Your assumptions that you are smarter than me, and therefore correct in coercing my actions in a pandemic are wrong twice, right there: Above, you whine about ‘not getting an intelligent discussion’, but you have yet to show that you could understand one. Which leaves you, by default, failing on your second assumption.
        I take personal responsibility for my actions and resent actions by presumptuous, simple-minded busybodies like you to tell me what to do.
        You might try growing up and doing the same one day.
        Or, you could simply fuck off.

    2. “What might affect things is if shopkeepers were liable if their customers got sick.”
      Yeah, wouldn’t be any frivolous lawsuits around that premise…

      1. Yeah, I mean how hard can it be to prove you got the Communist Chinese Virus from one specific place you were in the last two weeks?

  24. HERE► Even Brendan is a transphobe, radfem kind: see his focus on “M2F are a threat to women, they’re potential rapists like all the men” while totally ignoring the existence of F2M (actually the majority among the younger transitions). He also doesn’t care about children transitions issue: he prefer to talk much more about the alleged plights of adult lesbians.
    And if you do not agree he spout “misogyny!” to silence you. Click here.

  25. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====Go For More Details

Please to post comments