Sweden - the case of the COVID-19 curve

Sweden took a "light touch" approach to COVID-19, allowing much of it's population to be exposed to the disease and using primarily voluntary social distancing as the method to prevent the spread of the disease.  Experts in Sweden even said the approach was a mistake.  But the data, the graph does not lie:

Compare that to the response in the United States, and the resulting curve:

Obviously the geography is different in the United States. There's a much bigger land mass, and as the infection spread to new areas, new cases occurred.  So too, new deaths.  The United States has a much larger population than Sweden.  Taking the same approach as Sweden in the U.S. would result in a much larger death toll than otherwise, as Sweden did have the highest death rate from the disease in all of Europe.  As the Washington Post, favoring all things Democrat-panic as it relates to COVID-19,  pointed out:

Deaths in Sweden, though, have been eight times higher than in Denmark and 19 times higher than in Norway, even though Sweden is only double each neighbors’ size.

On the other hand, perhaps all Sweden has done is skip flattening the curve and taking the death toll  hit all at once. After all you cannot keep people isolated forever. It's very likely that Denmark and Norway will continue to see deaths and their death curves lag on for some time as they slowly revert to normal, or else see the lower rates indefinitely as their economies lag behind Sweden's over the longer term. 

It's apparent that there would be far too many deaths in the U.S. if it followed Sweden's approach, what's not clear is whether it would result in more deaths, or just more in a shorter period of time.  Only time and more data will tell.  This is one more example of my 50 Experiments Theorem that if different places try different approaches, it will yield a variety of results from which we can select the best option.  The alternative is one mandate for everyone (in this case in the entire world) and if it doesn't work, we're all going to be screwed.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it's proof

You get 1 shot, we get 50.

A lot of people both left and right have been claiming that the coronavirus is a trial run for martial law.  That's crazy, it's an existential threat and proper precautions need to be taken.  What the coronavirus actually is, is proof that decentralization works better than centralization.  It's proof of the argument against totalitarianism.  And the proof has nothing to do directly with China.

With Democrats arguing that president Trump needs to take radical action, evidence suggests otherwise.  Take centralization to the point of absurdity - one world government.  If there was a centrally planned response, in that scenario the world would have to pray that the response was the correct one.  Otherwise the fatalities and other impacts could be catastrophic to an epic degree.  Imagine that the world was run by Italy instead of South Korea.  The infection rate and fatalities would be far worse.

Years ago I was arguing what I called the 50 Experiments Theorem.  50 states trying 50 different approaches to combat the virus is better than the federal government mandating one approach for all - one approach that could very well be quite a bad approach. The idea is that the more things that are tried the more chances you have one of your experiments being successful, and everyone else having the opportunity to copy the successful approach and learn from the failed approaches too.   More broadly there are over 170 countries, so that offers a lot more experiments.  Those who are in favor of globalism and opposed to decentralization argue for political homogeneity (whether purposefully or accidentally).  They argue for one experiment in times of crisis.  That is an extremely high risk approach.  

Five years from now, scientist and planners will have learned what countries reacted smartly and which ones did not.  Those learnings can be applied more universally to the inevitable next outbreak.  That's a good thing, isn't it?

Decentralization means more chances to solve problems because it means more people trying more things and offers a higher chance of a successful result.  By extension, that is proof that capitalism will always work better than socialism to solve society's problems.  It always allows for more people trying more things because they have the freedom to try.  

Thoughts on the Florida school shooting and gun issue

Yesterday there was a mass shooting in a Florida High School.  Of course there is going to be an angry uproar about gun control.   Today Rush Limbaugh is talking about different states trying different solutions, which is a position I have always taken -- from anything from taxation, to schools to any other issue or problem.  50 different attempts to solve a problem are more likely to find a single solution than imposing a federal solution on all 50 states.  Why wouldn't you want 50 different chances to solve a problem instead of 1.  With 1 you need 100% success, with 50 attempts by 50 states you only need a 2% success rate which can then be replicated in other states.

BUT,

These tragedies continue to happen, and if the Republicans are to not look like knee-jerk second amendment reactionaries, they need to propose a solution as an alternative to gun control.  Just leaving it to the states appears to be an endorsement of the status quo, which is unacceptable on both a political and moral level.  Americans rightly do not want children to continue being killed by mindless violence.  States' rights is not the entire answer.  Even if it does work, it does not work right away, and in this day and age, the expectation for everything is NOW. Do it now, take my order now, deliver my package now.  That's reality.

I have not thought about this long enough to propose a solution, but I will, every other conservative should do so too.  That's part of the 50 state solution scaled up to millions of thinkers.  If that doesn't work in this instance, we maybe don't deserve a nation endowed with states' rights.

SCOTUS lets down the Constitution in favor of constituency

There is a problem here BUT...

Let's not have a cow about gay marriage, there is a more important issue at stake in light of the Supreme Court's decision on the subject.  Firstly, no one is forcing you to get married to a gay person.  No one is forcing your church to officiate a gay marriage (yet at least) even if it goes against your church's or temple's or mosque's teachings.  No one is going to make you or your children attend gay weddings.  Is it an ideal ruling?  Far from it, but the real issue, is that this is supposed to be a conservative leaning court by a count of 5-4 justices.  Clearly, it isn't.

At least Chief Justice Roberts did not sell out on this issue by putting opinion before the Constitution:

"This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

"If you are among the many Americans - of whatever sexual orientation - who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision," Roberts said. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

With the original decision to allow for Obamacare's constitutionality and the more recent upholding of the constitutionality of the federal tax credits portion of the ACA, the Supreme Court is not a conservative body.  That should frighten conservatives - a lot. It becomes even more imperative to ensure that a Republican wins office in 2016 so the erosion of the tenets of the Constitution is stopped.  Liberals and progressives will continue poke holes in the levy protecting the Constitution until America is no longer what it was, or what it is ultimately capable of being.  You take your eye off that levy and your mind off of its importance and the country is doomed.

Perhaps you believe that outcome is inevitable anyway.  That would make you part of the problem, because America was not founded on defeatism, nor did it grow under that premise as much as it did not grow under the welfare state mentality.  Unless you want to follow in the footsteps of Greece - from enlightened democracy, to entitled socialists on the brink of economic collapse - wake up and take pride (no pun on gay marriage intended) in your country.

NOTE:  As an aside on how I feel about gay marriage, see this post (if you care).

The problem with the court's decision is the 10th amendment and the notion of states' rights.   Every state already had a position and legislation on the matter already (pro or con).  That's good.  By homogenizing the law nationally, you are taking away the idea of multiple laboratories.  I call it the 50 Experiments Theorem.  The more variability among the states in terms of policy, the more like there are outcomes that will thrive.  The less that legislation is nationalized the more chance (in fact 50 times more) there is that a successful legislative formula(s) will be found.

It's on of the greatest unheralded advantages the United States has over other so many other nations who have centralization as their governing philosophy. And the Supreme Court is enabling those who wish to purposefully or inadvertently abolish that competitive advantage. It's quite sad to see.  This is what a liberal court has allowed for decades and its effects, even if reversed will take decades to recede.

Colorado goes to pot.

Not exactly.

Quite literally, the state of Colorado is going to pot.  It's not just that they have lost some manufacturing, they are de-gunning the state.  That in conjunction with the new marijuana laws, has Colorado looking like it plans to gradually turn itself into a hippie utopia.

Firstly, the implications of the gun laws are more than just lost jobs but there is a direct implication (you might say unintended consequences) of the state decision.

Colorado responded to the mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., by passing new gun control measures last month. That's not sitting well with several gun-related businesses in the Centennial State, where four companies have announced plans to relocate all or some of their operations.

Erie-based Magpul Industries is the largest company packing its bags. The 200-employee business makes high-capacity magazines, which the Colorado Legislature voted to ban. In testimony before state lawmakers before the vote, Doug Smith, Magpul's chief operating officer, said the debate hurt the state's economy.

"Our plans to expand our operations in Colorado to a larger build-to-suit facility are currently on hold," he said. "If HB 1224 were to be enacted as law in the state, those plans for Colorado expansion would be canceled."

It's more than just not expanding.  Magpul is moving out of the state moving the headquarters to Texas and the manufacturing to Wyoming.

The company says it is leaving because it disagrees with the new gun laws on philosophical grounds.

Then, there's the new marijuana laws. AllahPundit at Hot Air opines that there is one cogent argument against it that carries some water:

Yeah, booze is mainstream while marijuana is countercultural, and that carries all sorts of baggage. There are endless examples of successful, respectable people openly enjoying alcohol (starting with your parents, in all likelihood), but because it’s been verboten to openly enjoy weed, the stoner subculture dominates the popular imagination — even though the last three presidents all partook in their youth. The real innovation in what Colorado’s doing is giving pot a shot to go mainstream. Maybe it won’t work; maybe, after the first surge of curiosity, the bulk of the consumer base will indeed be dudes in sandals and sweatshirts made out of hemp. There’s a reason, though, that the man given the distinction of being the first legal buyer in the state is an Iraq War vet who suffers from PTSD. (Footage of his purchase is in the second clip below.) Advocates are desperate to normalize this by expunging the stoner association as much as possible.

What's next, free love?  AllahPundit makes a good point - my visceral gut reaction of "No" is not something that doesn't in itself equate to an argument.  Indeed there a lot of libertarian friends of mine who would say that laissez faire government has no place regulating drug consumption.  But illicit drugs do have a societal impact that will not simply disappear because it suddenly becomes legal.  Legalized alcohol consumption doesn't stop people from driving drunk.  Therefore there are laws surrounding consumption if not banning it. The laws are not 100% effective though.  People die from alcohol and people die from illegal drugs.  The question is what does legalizing pot accomplish?  Colorado will indeed be a test case for this experiment.  As AllahPundit points out, this really is a test:

Believe it or not, Colorado is the first jurisdiction in the world to allow marijuana to be sold lawfully for recreational purposes. (The Dutch tolerate it but it’s still technically forbidden there.) As one pro-legalization activist put it to the Denver Post, “Today, there will be people around the country buying marijuana. But only in Colorado will they be buying it in stores like this one.”

If it remains a test until some tangible results and their implications can be seen, then like libertarians I have no qualms with the idea.  I think the experiment will ultimately fail and be proven to be a bad idea.  But the danger is that this is not the likely scenario, it will be more of a domino effect as other liberal states loosen their laws as well without waiting to see what the laws have done to society in Colorado, given the attempts at cultural mind shifting that are ever present in the liberal attack on morality.

50 Experiments: Taxes

Some time ago I posted about the 50 Experiments Theorem and it's impact on health care and on education in America.  It looks like we are going to be seeing an example in the near future,  of two experiments on taxes.  New Jersey versus California and paying down state debt using no tax increases (New Jersey) or billions in new taxes (California, thanks to the Democratic state legislature).  The solutions will take years to work or fail, but no one should forget that this is a great head to head comparison on paying down state debt, or at least stopping the increases by taxation versus a budget freeze.

You know who my money is on.

Obama, Schools and the 50 Experiments Theorem

Dynamism. The goal of a nation and the goal of an individual (at least a driven one) is to be moving forward at all times. Complacency begets second place. And then third place, along with acceptance of the new standing. President Obama sees American education as crucial to keeping America strong. Score one for the idea of not trying to deliberately wreck the country. So far so good. Along with his notion that socialism or government run anything is better for the country than the free market (not good), he's got some other ideas. One of his ideas is about making schools better so that American students can continue to develop and compete dynamically with an emerging educated class in China and India, as well as the coming generations in other developed countries (like those in Europe). Again, so far, so good. In contrast with what I call the 50 Experiments Theorem though, the President, in classic 'liberal elite' fashion, believes he has THE answer to the problem. 

Are We Punishing the Immobile Among Us?

There are those who favor nationalized health care.  There are those who favor national standard testing for students in the realm of education.  These are but two examples in the drive towards nationalization that are often espoused by liberals, and in some instances even conservatives.  Those who promote a levelling of the playing field across the country (nationalization) argue that by not doing so, we are punishing the immobile among us. In other words, they argue that those unable to move to where better health care exists (for example), are stuck with the ersatz local health care they can reach.  They argue that nationalizing things ensures that everyone will have access to the best. But they are wrong. Indeed they are not just wrong but catastrophically wrong, for three reasons.