Enough

Many people are starting to resist the host of ever-increasing tyrannies being imposed by the government. Several states (including Pennsylvania) have protests planned.

The media is casting this as “Protests to re-open the economy" (and by implication choose more sickness and death over making money).

As usual, the news people get it wrong.

This is resistance to government overreach. Return to work is one of several expectations.

We have placed large elements of life on hold. We have enabled tiny tyrants who feel “empowered” to slap, punch, yell at others who deviate from the “guidelines.” We’re hostage to models that have proven wrong in every way (every model has been adjusted continuously. That’s not a “model” — that’s a guess).

Governors have issued decrees on what is “essential” and who is “non-essential.” We’re told where we can go, who we can associate with, what we must do.

We've had enough.

The American people are not insisting that the “economy open.”

The American people are not choosing "the economy" over "lives."

The American people are insisting on a return to rule of law under the Constitution and Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

A Reasonable Demand

April 15, 2020

 [Government Elected Official name and address]

 [Your Address]

 I’m writing today as constituent and concerned citizen. Over the last several weeks the combination of media hyperbole and “expert” predictions have been not merely incorrect, but disastrously wrong. Our country is currently in a state of induced coma. Our churches, schools, museums, libraries, and nonprofits are deemed “non-essential” and are ordered closed. Tens of thousands of people cannot work remotely and are without employment. Hundreds of thousands of others are on the brink of economic disaster.

Meanwhile, fatalities directly caused by COVID-19 are nowhere near projections. Models (with margin of error variabilities exceeding 400%) are adjusted daily without any reference to baselines which would immediately demonstrate the poor predictive capabilities of these same models. Comorbidities are ignored, while risk populations remain unclear, and transmission rates, viral loads, and susceptibility are deemed unimportant.

The Models Have Been Poor Predictors

At the end of March, we were warned of "2.2 million US Deaths" from COVID-19. A week later the estimate was revised to "200,000 fatalities." The latest claim is "60,000 by August." Not a single model used as impetus for emergency mandates has been correct. (The British Medical Journal concluded: “[The] proposed models are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic.” See https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328)

Yet, even these numbers are skewed, as the figures only count people who seek medical care. COVID-19 displays a wide range of presentations from asymptomatic to a mild cold to severe pneumonia. In addition, CDC guidance has been that mild cases should stay home. Thus, many cases are never tested and thus never counted.

Suspect Infection Rates

We’ve been told otherwise healthy people coming within six feet of a COVID-19 asymptomatic person will likely be infected. Yet there were over 4,000 passengers and crew on the cruise ships Rotterdam and Zaandam that docked in Miami on April 2. There was a grand total of nine confirmed COVID-19 cases. Over the course of the cruise, 97 passengers and 136 crew presented with influenza-like symptoms that were not assessed as COVID-19 (see https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article241740696.html). Four people died of COVID-19, yet we still don’t know the age, sex, or other underlying conditions of those who perished. Nevertheless, these enclosed, floating involuntary test sites suggest the transmission rates are nowhere near the worst-case claims.

Suspect Input Data

Limited testing and inconsistencies in the attribution of the cause of death means that the COVID-19 fatality rate is not accurate. How can we continue to impose the most crushing (and unconstitutional) mandates in history based on flawed data?

Data Inconsistency

The COVID-19 fatality rates of confirmed cases run from a low of 0.96% (SD) to 5.8% (MI). Nationwide the average is now 3.8% with the majority of states 2% or less. New Jersey reports 99.54% of all COVID-19 as “tested positive,” while the average in the US is 15^, and the range drops as low as 2.6%. How can these wildly variable numbers be used to assess anything? Is New Jersey testing people who are already known to be positive? Then why test? Or is the test protocol so broad that anyone exhibiting any symptoms (which are common for a wide range of maladies) decreed as “positive for COVID-19”? This variance makes no sense -- unless the input data is inconsistent (which is the most likely explanation -- see Occam's razor).

The CDC’s Reporting Guidelines require hospitals to categorize as “HOSPITALIZED” all “Patients currently hospitalized in an inpatient bed who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19.” Fatalities are reported for those “Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who died in the hospital, ED, or any overflow location on the date for which you are reporting (see: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/covid19/facilityqrg-508.pdf)

The problem here is a COVID-19 fatality using this definition does NOT ascertain whether a person died from the virus – instead, the data comingles confirmed and suspected COVID-19 infection with every other cause of death. Therefore, a person who suffers a heart attack after years of hypertension is listed as a COVID-19 fatality. Since the input data is flawed, the resulting statistics are skewed.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health recently commented that “Most people recover from the coronavirus but the health department does not offer statistics on how many recover.” Why not? Wouldn’t this be an essential metric to determine the danger posed by this particular virus strain? Or are we to be subject to draconian (and I would argue unconstitutional) restrictions based on flawed, incomplete, and ignored data?

Hospital Capacity

There are 931,203 staffed beds in 6,210 hospitals in the USA (data from 2019. See: https://www.aha.org/statistics/2020-01-07-archived-fast-facts-us-hospitals-2019). There are currently 562,506 known COVID-19 cases in the US (13APR2019. See: https://www.bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates) Only between 5 and 15% will require hospitalization. In fact, current guidance from both Federal and Commonwealth authorities is to stay home if symptoms manifest that are “not life threatening.”

Yet, even if every person who tested positive during the “peak” were to be hospitalized, that would leave a buffer of 40% capacity. If we use 10% of the total cases number as requiring hospitalization, that’s only 6% of all available hospital beds (this does not include emergency hospital beds such as those provided by the US Army and Navy and charitable organizations such as Samaritans’ Purse in NYC).

The Quarantine Orders are Too Broad

The CDC’s Recent study on hospitalization rates of COVID-19 patients states: “Most of the hospitalized patients had underlying conditions, some of which are recognized to be associated with severe COVID-19 disease, including chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus.” (See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm)

This means there are identifiable vulnerable subgroups who most certainly should be protected from infection using a variety of protocols. But there is no justification for treating the entire population as  susceptible or even infected when there is very little data to support such an assertion.

The State’s Definitions of “Essential” and ‘Non Essential” are Arbitrary and Pointless

Ever since the Governor’s list was issued (and revised several times), not one official has been able to explain the criteria used to determine “essential” or “non-essential” other than broad brush categorizations that are ambiguous to the point of futility.[1] The most egregious example is the final line in the Governor’s List (“Private Households: May Continue Physical Operations: No”).

The “Shelter in Place” orders are Useless and have Extended too Long

First, the exception provisions are so broad no one was truly quarantined. All a citizen need state is that he or she was “gathering essential supplies” or “caring for a minor or elderly person” and an exception would apply.

Second, we are long past the incubation periods where asymptomatic carriers were potential virus time-bombs. In a study on 181 confirmed cases, COVID-19 had an estimated incubation period of approx. 5.1 days (95% confidence interval is 4.5 to 5.8 days) (Lauer et al.). This analysis shows 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so in 11.5 days (95% confidence interval is 8.2 to 15.6 days). If this is the case, why are we extending this order more than two weeks?

Finally, doesn’t it make sense to focus amelioration protocols on susceptible populations rather than the entire population?

False Choices

In 2017, 647,457 Americans died from heart disease, 169,936 died from accidents, 160,201 died from Chronic respiratory disease, 146, 383 died from stroke, 121,404 died from Alzheimer’s disease, 83,564 died from diabetes, 55,672 died from influenzas and pneumonia, and 47,173 deaths were self-inflicted suicide. In 2018 there were 67,367 Drug Overdose deaths in this country. Divided by 365 that’s 185 deaths every day of the year. (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf)

The fatality rate of all humans remains 100%, with time the only variable. It is a false dichotomy to suggest it’s “people dying or the economy.” Humans are defined by the pursuit and sustainment of life which REQUIRES “economic” activity. The reductionist "lives or the economy" claim ignores the impact a faltering economy has to health in the short, mid, and long term. Unemployment has jump from 3.5% to 4.5% in a month. 401k gains over the last two years have been wiped out. World markets have lost $25 trillion in value. The CARES act has added $2 trillion dollars to the national debt. Thousands of businesses will not survive the shutdown. Meanwhile hospitals are far under capacity and proposed emergency field hospitals have been cancelled. (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-cathedral-coronavirus-patients-st-john-the-divine-canceled-today-2020-04-10/)

We’ve established that the data have been sloppy, undependable, suspect, and in far too many cases completely absent. Should a national and state emergency exist with this level of sloppy reporting, variable assessment, unclear mitigation, and dubious transmission modalities? We're supposed to keep guessing or will there be some hard, actionable data at some point? The prevailing “Safety First” mindset is trite an indefensible. Life is filled with risks. Every person faces risks each and every day. Those who live long quickly become adept at assessing and mitigating those risks and then moving on with life in the face of varying odds. So be it – this is life on Earth. No one expects (or should expect) Government at any level to allay all fears and mitigate all risks. Therefore, I vigorously urge you to remove the restrictions, restore the foundational freedoms Americans have defended, suffered, and died to keep, and defer to the will of your true overlords, the American people.

A concerned citizen, taxpayer, and voter,

[your name]

---

[1] The Governor’s own cabinet making business is deemed essential, however, as it’s critical that lifesaving Corian be installed to help stem the tide of Grim Death (see https://www.inquirer.com/business/spl/pennsylvania-coronavirus-wolf-home-products-essential-business-life-sustaining-20200330.html)

Carrying Concealed: Some Considerations

I’ve carried for over 20 years (gasp!), but still remember the transition from casual carrier to dedicated carry.

First, you need to get over the discomfort (yes, it’s supposed to be “comforting, not comfortable” but if you’re miserable you won’t carry. So get a firearm and holster that work for YOU. Don’t fall prey to the carry mode du jour).

Second, after confirming the clothing and carry combination do not advertise, stop worrying that “everyone knows I have a gun.” They don’t and won’t IF you worked through the carry mode that works for your body type and clothing.

Third, carrying regularly forces you to consider proficiency. If you don’t go through the day wondering “If x happened, would I be able to make an effective shot?” You’re not serious. Get training, get proficient, and remain proficient. A box once a year shooting bullseye won’t cut it. Move, shoot, move. Draw and fire. Practice emergency actions. Practice strong and support hand. Practice at unknown ranges. Toss out the bullseye targets and hang t-shirts on target placards.

Fourth, realize that the unlikely gunfight will be followed by an inevitable legal fight. Get educated on the law of self defense. Learn the expectations of what is “reasonable” in whatever locale you carry (it varies). Behave in a manner that is not provocative, hostile, prideful, or otherwise stupid. If you go looking for trouble it will find you, and your use of a handgun won’t assure a happy ending (bad guys are armed, too. And even a bad shot hits the target once in a while).

Fifth, subscribe to YouTube videos that review gunfights captured on security cameras. It’s cheap learning and will force you to stop mentally templating gunfights according to movie plots (which are invariably wrong).

Finally, assess yourself before you go out armed. If you’re on meds, angry, upset, inebriated, or otherwise distracted, leave the firearm at home until you can get yourself squared away.

One more finally: drop all “jokes” about “offing people” or double tapping or other nonsense from your vocabulary. If you’re ever pleading self defense in legal proceedings you don’t need an acquaintance testifying under oath about your cavalier attitude about killing. That isn’t considered “reasonable” by The Average Jurist and my tip the scales of justice against you.

Carrying a firearm should make you a more serious, less volatile, more mature, and more careful. If not, leave the gun carrying to others.

New Zealand's Experiment

New Zealand ended a national gun buyback program after failing to achieve its dubious objectives:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern banned semi-automatic weapons and launched a gun amnesty and buyback scheme earlier this year, after a March shooting in Christchurch where a suspected white supremacist gunned down 51 Muslims in two mosques.
More than 56,346 prohibited guns have been removed from circulation so far, within the range estimated by consultancy KPMG in an independent report, Police Minister Stuart Nash said in a statement. “However police have consistently warned the problem is we just don’t know exactly how many guns are out in the community,” Nash said.

Gun buybacks are favorites of clueless politicians who want to use taxpayer money to "do something" about "illegal guns."
The problem is, many of the guns turned in are non-functioning or worse, have been used for a crime but are then eliminated from evidence after the typical "no questions asked" gun is exchanged for money or gift certificates.

The New Zealand case is instructive, for certain firearms were declared "prohibited." Once that is done, anyone who continues to possess a "prohibited" firearm is by definition a criminal.

The National Police Minister Stephan Nash declared: “Those in breach of the law face risk of prosecution and up to five years jail, as well as the loss of their license..."

The pattern is clear:

1. Offer a "voluntary gun buyback" for "prohibited" firearms
2. Act surprised when the buyback is not 100% effective
3. Warn those who don't comply with the once "voluntary" system

This approach links the term "prohibited" with an entire class of firearm (in the NZ case, all semi-automatics). Law-abiding people equate "prohibited" with "criminal."

Congratulations on now branding a significant portion of the population criminals.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shooting-guns-idUSKBN1YO05B

What Are We Defending?

Churches present unique security concerns. While a church must protect against harm to people and damage or loss of property, a church’s testimony is a unique quality subject to loss or damage. Businesses consider reputation and good will as assets, but it’s likely that a church’s testimony is its only asset, as congregational members change over time, buildings change, but ultimately the testimony of the church endures.

While new people can attend and buildings rebuilt, a poor testimony can condemn a church to a quick or slow death. Either way, the damage is deep and the results inevitable – unless God works a miracle.

Few churches have the resources to implement security access controls, and even if the resources are available, churches must remain open and welcoming to members, visitors, and strangers.

There are no clear rules for church security, as a “church” is simultaneously an assembly of individuals (some known to each other, some unknown), a place of business, and a corporation. Each definition carries different expectations for safety and security.[1]

Therefore, it’s critical that each church consider, document, and then adhere to security guidelines that comply with the jurisdictional law, the church’s ministry, and the testimony of the congregation.

Before implementing a security protocol, consider what you plan to protect and how. For example, you may want to implement a "no weapons on site" policy. But this will require installing metal detectors and guards at each entrance. What will this do to your church testimony? In some areas, this may bolster the church testimony. But in most parts of the United States, this would be considered extreme and would damage the church testimony. Would heavily armed, uniformed security guards hinder or help your church testimony? What would happen in the immediate aftermath of a civilian self-defense shooting on your property? What would be the best result? The worst?

Would security cameras be an asset or would it be off-putting?

While protection of people's physical security is important it is not binary (completely protected vs. untrammelled exposure to all hazards). It's a continuum, and you need to work through what is possible given the fiscal, physical, staff, capability, culture, and testimony aspects of each security measure.

---

[1] The ancient laws of sanctuary are not recognized by any state or federal law. Religious institutions don't have special permission to harbor criminals or protect them from the government.

Constitutional Carry in South Dakota

South Dakota recently passed legislation to eliminate permit requirements to carry a firearm ("Constitutional Carry").

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group, called the legislation "dangerous" and said it would have "devastating effects."

So -- how much time do we have to prove whether the effects are actually "dangerous"?

Gun-control groups insist every advance in 2nd Amendment rights will be "dangerous." And yet, violent crime has declined 49% between 1993 and 2017. 

Everytown claims "gun crimes" increased where permitless carry has passed:

States that have passed permitless carry legislation have seen a substantial increase in firearm violence.

• Since Arizona enacted permitless carry legislation in 2010, the annual total of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm in the state increased by 44 percent. That increase represents 1,519 more gun-related aggravated assaults committed in 2016 than in 2010.2

• After Missouri passed a permitless carry bill in January 2017, the city of St. Louis experienced a 23 percent increase in aggravated assaults with a gun in 2017 over the total in 2016. That represents 484 more gun-related aggravated assaults in 2017 than in 2016.

However, both examples ignore the urban centers in which such assaults occurred. They also ignore the fact that these assaults occurred by people who were carrying illegally due to prior felonies or certain misdemeanors. Finally, the data in the St Louis Crime Reports do not support EEGS claims of a "23% increase." Arizona's crime statistics also refute the conclusion that Constitutional Carry resulted in an increase in violent assault (14,264 violent assaults we other than a firearm, while 5,219 assaults involved a firearm).

FBI data shows large differences by state and city. In 2017, there were more than 600 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska, New Mexico and Tennessee. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont had rates below 200 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

Pittsburgh Mayor's Latest Dubious Political Stunt

Pittsburgh's Democrat Mayor Bill Peduto was joined by PA Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf, members of City Council and state Democratic lawmakers in proposing legislation that would ban semiautomatic rifles and certain ammunition and firearms accessories within city limits.

The problem with this latest bit of grandstanding do-goodery is that it's illegal, and has already been adjudicated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (1996), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, could regulate the ownership of so-called assault weapons. The Supreme Court explained:

"The sum of the case is that the Constitution of Pennsylvania requires that municipalities may not perform any power denied by the General Assembly. The General Assembly has denied all municipalities the power to regulate the ownership, possession, transfer, or possession of firearms. The inescapable conclusion, unless there is more, is that the municipalities' attempt to ban the possession of certain types of firearms is constitutionally infirm."

Of course, the message from the Pols is that it's "for our safety" as they leverage the sad story of a nutcase (political affiliation unknown) who decided it would be his cause to shoot up a synagogue.

So, in the same way that declaring bad things shall be banned has worked for heroin, murder, rape, incest, drunk driving, assault, burglary, and corruption, all law-abiding people will be compelled to accede to the demands of Democrats and stop carrying very bad firearms (which ones will be determined for you).

Since they know better.