Another Way To Handle The Coronavirus

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about how the coronavirus has impacted Sweden.

The article reports:

After months without lockdowns, school closures and other mitigation measures widely imposed across the world, Sweden’s coronavirus cases and deaths have fallen to such minimal levels as to revive the debate over its so-called herd immunity strategy.

Some Swedish officials are far from declaring victory, warning there could be a second wave and that too many elderly died in the country during its comparatively lax pandemic restrictions. The country’s population-adjusted death rate, meanwhile, is in the top 10 worldwide, but lower than the rates for Italy, Spain and even New York, where heavy lockdowns prevailed.

…Throughout March, as much of the Western world was shutting down large swaths of its economies and strictly limiting individual mobility with stay-at-home orders, Sweden opted for a much lighter touch, refusing to close down service industries, leaving schools largely open, and allowing its borders to remain open. It did restrict large gatherings for a time, while some schools were closed.

The article concludes:

Throughout the pandemic, Swedish authorities have insisted that their country’s approach was one rooted in years of epidemiological research and that much of the rest of the world abandoned that data in favor of panic and hysteria.

“It was as if the whole world had gone mad,” Tegnell said several weeks ago, citing the worldwide rush to lock down and quarantine. “The cases became too many, and the political pressure got too strong. And then Sweden stood there rather alone.”

The epidemiologist has several times argued that the true results of various countries’ approaches to the coronavirus pandemic will only become clear after several years’ worth of study.

I think it may be time to reevaluate our response to the coronavirus. Please follow the link to the article to read the entire story.

The Danger Ahead

There is a price to be paid for not carefully vetting anyone who wants to come to America to live. I understand that refugees need a safe place, but Americans also need a safe place. Ideally, we need to find a place in the Middle East where refugees from the wars there can safely live until peace breaks out. Knowing the Middle East, that may take a while, but I believe eventually everyone will get tired of fighting and someone will win. Meanwhile, Muslim refugees are flooding Europe and soon to be flooding America. So what are the consequences of this flood of people who have never been part of western civilization?

The U.K. Daily Mail  posted an article today that illustrates the consequences of the invasion of Europe by Muslim refugees.

The article reports:

An 18-year-old victim of the sex attacks in Cologne has described being surrounded by a group of 30 ‘angry’ men who groped her and her friends then stole their belongings as they fled.

The teenager, named only as Michelle, appeared on German TV to recount the harrowing ordeal she endured during the city’s New Year’s Eve celebrations last week.

Police say the wave of attacks – which has so far seen 90 women report being assaulted – were perpetrated by groups of ‘Arab or North African‘ men in the city centre.

Michelle’s shocking testimony comes as the city’s own council today admitted its town centre was now a ‘no-go area’ for women, while it has emerged similar attacks occurred the same night across Hamburg and Stuttgart.

Alarmingly, police in Dusseldorf fear the attacks may be linked to a known criminal gang comprising 2,000 North African men who use sexual assault as a means of distraction.

And while German media and authorities stand accused of covering up previous incidents to avoid stoking tensions, there are fears the upcoming carnival celebrations in Cologne will see a repeat of the brazen attacks.

Please follow the link above to read the entire story. It is chilling.

There are a few things to note here. The city council of Cologne is admitting that its town center is now a ‘no-go area’ for women. Is that acceptable? There were about thirty men involved in the attack on Michelle and her friends. These men are obviously bullies and cowards–they attacked as a mob so that they totally outnumbered their victims.

Western countries should not have ‘no-go zones’–for women or for men. There are places in America where Americans have been arrested for preaching Christianity because Muslims were offended and began to throw rocks. ( Western countries generally practice law and order. If immigrants to those countries are not willing to abide by the law, they need to be sent back to where they came from. They are creating the same lawlessness in the countries they have sought refuge in that they fled in their home countries. Let them be lawless in the lawless countries they fled.

Why We Shouldn’t Get Involved In Syria

On Tuesday, the Washington Post posted an article about the Syrian rebels. It seems that the rebels, which we are considering sending aid to, executed a fourteen-year-old boy because he insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

The article reports:

When a 14-year-old boy from the Syrian city of Aleppo named Mohammad Qatta was asked to bring one of his customers some coffee, he reportedly refused, saying, “Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won’t.”

According to a story reported by two grassroots Syrian opposition groups, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Aleppo Media Center, Qatta’s words got him killed. A group of Islamist rebels, driving by in a black car, reportedly heard the exchange. They stopped the car, grabbed the boy and took him away.

The boy was later brought back to the place where he was grabbed, and shot to death in front of his family.

The article concludes:

The influx of avowed jihadists and extremists is bad news for Syrians, and not just because those under rebel rule have to worry about sharing Qatta’s fate if they are perceived as insufficiently pious. The growth of these groups seems bound to exacerbate tensions between rebel factions, easing Assad’s military path to victory, and scaring off the Western powers that might otherwise be persuaded to lend the rebels greater support. Lots of people in and outside of Syria could get behind the idea of ousting a cruel and unpopular dictator and replacing him with something more democratic. But few things are more universally loathed than an al-Qaeda-allied group that executes children.

Unfortunately, there is no one we should support in the Syrian civil war. It is unfortunate that civilians are the victims in this struggle, but this is a struggle that will not have a happy ending–neither side supports any sort of freedom for the people of Syria. To further complicate things, Russia and Iran are working very hard to keep the current regime in place. Our involvement in the Syrian civil war would essentially put us in a proxy war with Russia and Iran. We have been in a proxy war with Iran for years, but I really don’t think it would be wise to add Russia to the mix.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Game Of Chicken In The Straits Of Hormuz posted an Associated Press report on recent tensions in the Straits of Hormuz. Iran is conducting military exercises in the Straits supposedly practicing closing the Straits, which the Iranians have threatened to do if Western countries impose economic sanctions because of Iran’s nuclear program. America has stated that it will not tolerate any disruptions to the Straits. Excuse my skepticism, but based on how America has handled the entire nuclear program in Iran, I am not sure how seriously America’s statement will be taken.

The article reports:

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices.

The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran’s central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.

Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.

The interesting part of the above statement is that Iran relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues. The question is simple–“Would Iran be willing to cut off 80 percent of its revenue in order to continue its nuclear program?” Are we leading up to a situation similar to what we had in Iraq’s ‘food for oil’ program, where the leaders on the country will live very well and the people will starve?

I am making no bets on who will blink first.



Enhanced by Zemanta