Jo Jorgensen on lockdowns

Jo Jorgensen was the 2000 Libertarian Party candidate for VPOTUS, and the 2020 Libertarian Party candidate for POTUS. The following is from her 2020 campaign website:

Dr. Jo Jorgensen pledges to sue states for unconstitutional lockdowns that harm low and middle-income families | Jo20.com

"Democrats like Joe Biden constantly promise to harm the wealthy for the benefit of low and middle-income families. But so-called income inequality was actually falling between 2016 and 2019, according to a report by the Federal Reserve. In fact, low-income families gained the most, and high-income families gained the least. But now this progress has stalled. Why? Because of the COVID-19 shutdowns, most of which were illegal.

"As President, I would use the Attorney General’s office to sue state and local officials who impose COVID-19 mandates. Such mandates violate the 14th Amendment, which says 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”'The shutdowns were dictated by governors without due process. That makes them unconstitutional acts of aggression. Some court rulings have already confirmed those, others have disagreed, and some are still pending. I would add the weight of the federal Executive Branch to these cases."

https://jo20.com/dr-jo-jorgensen-pledges-to-sue-states-for-unconstitutional-lockdowns-that-harm-low-and-middle-income-families/

UPDATE, January 3 - I have expanded the page by adding part of an interview NPR did with Jorgensen in May.

Libertarians Name 2020 Candidate: Meet Jo Jorgensen | NPR: 

May 30, 2020 - "After four days of online campaigning and speechmaking, the Libertarian Party has selected its nominee. NPR's Scott Simon speaks to Jorgensen, an activist who teaches psychology at Clemson University....

SCOTT SIMON, HOST: The Libertarian Party has nominated their candidates for president and vice president online. Jo Jorgensen, a party activist who teaches psychology at Clemson University, is the 2020 Libertarian candidate for president. She joins us now from Greenville, S.C. Dr. Jorgensen, thanks so much for being with us.... You've been critical of the federal government's response to the coronavirus crisis. What would a Libertarian administration do?

JORGENSEN: Well, the Libertarian administration first wouldn't have put everybody under house arrest. We believe in individual freedom and that people should be able to go about their lives as they choose. And I'd like to point out that part of the problem that we had is that people weren't tested to know if they were contagious or not, if they had the virus or not. If people who had the virus knew they had the virus, then they would have been able to know to stay home or not go about their daily lives. But the people who are healthy or who have already had the flu let the economy go on and don't destroy the economy in the process.

SIMON: I want to follow up on your use of the phrase house arrest. I doubt any governor or mayor who declared that people should stay at home would consider that to be house arrest.

JORGENSEN: People who want to go out and go about their daily business felt like it. And in fact, I know here in South Carolina, I was told I could only leave the house to go to work, medical emergencies and other things. And within my city, if there were more than three people outside, then there was a possibility that we would either be fined $100 or that we would go to jail.

SIMON: But isn't - in the middle of a pandemic, isn't that just wise?

JORGENSEN: Of course, it's wise to stay at home during a pandemic, especially if you've got other conditions. My problem, though, is that the government is the one who decided it and not the individual person. And in fact, when they did a survey - what? - maybe about a month ago and they asked people, should we be opening up the economy, something like 60 to 80% of the people said no, it's too soon. We should still stay at home. OK, so that just shows that people have enough common sense to stay at home without the government telling them to.

SIMON: There are now more than 40 million unemployed people in the United States. You have opposed, I gather, the stimulus bills that have been passed to provide unemployment benefits and other forms of relief. Why?

JORGENSEN: Because what we're doing is we're letting the bureaucrats spend the money how they want to. And it's going to the large corporations and not often to the people who need it. So I say that private charity always works best. What happens when you give money to the government, and let's say they don't spend it wisely? Nothing happens. Taxes get raised, but it's not like people get fired. There is absolutely no accountability. And one of the things that brought me into the Libertarian Party is the idea of voluntary cooperation, of how people working together can do a better job.

SIMON: But when 40 million people are unemployed virtually at once, I mean, how can you begin to raise the amount of charitable capital? Particularly, by the way, I believe one of the stories we keep doing is that individual donations are way down because 40 million people are out of work.

JORGENSEN: Right. Well, don't forget, if the government hadn't shut down the economy, people wouldn't have lost their jobs in the first place. So this is typical where the government breaks your leg and then thinks that you should be grateful that you're getting a crutch from them. If the government doesn't break your leg to begin with, you don't need the crutch.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/30/866059206/libertarians-name-2020-candidate-meet-jo-jorgensen

Also read: Libertarians oppose all the mandates

Maine state legislator Andrews joins Libertarians

Oxford County representative leaves GOP, is 1st Libertarian to serve in Maine Legislature | Bangor Daily News - Caitlin Andrews:

December 14, 2020 - "A representative from Oxford County left the Republican Party on Monday to become only one of two Libertarian state legislators in the country after expressing dissatisfaction with his former party’s leadership in the chamber. 

"While the departure of Rep. John Andrews of Paris is unlikely to change the State House calculus — he is an arch-conservative member — it is a boon to Libertarians as the third party makes yet another attempt to organize here after fits and starts in recent years.... It first tried to gain recognition in 2015 and won official status in 2016. But it then lost it in 2018 after not having enough registered voters. Secretary of State Matt Dunlap certified the party to begin pursuing party status on Friday, meaning interested residents — including Andrews — can register.

"Andrews, a second-term lawmaker who represents his hometown plus Hebron and Buckfield, confirmed he unenrolled Monday after he learned he would not be returning to the committee overseeing voting, gambling and liquor laws, which he served on during his first term. Andrews said the placement 'just didn’t make sense' and that he had enjoyed the work. He is set to instead serve on the innovation and economic development committee. In a Saturday post on Facebook, he targeted House Minority Leader Kathleen Dillingham, R-Oxford, over his placement, saying it was 'obviously punishment for something' and said she was unfit to lead. 

"'It’s a new day and a new party, and I’m just hoping to get some good work done,' Andrews said.

"His decision erodes the Republican minority to 66 seats after a largely unexpected strong showing for the party in the 2020 election. There are four independents in the chamber plus Passamaquoddy Tribal representative Rena Newell, who can vote only in committees.... There have only been two third-party legislators in Maine history, both from the Green Party.... 

"The Libertarian Party in Maine has sued Dunlap’s office over the state’s process of delisting parties, parts of which a federal judge have deemed unconstitutional. A trial in that case is set for early next year."

"Andrews will be the first Libertarian to serve in the Maine Legislature and is one of only two in the entire country. The other is Marshall Burt of Wyoming, who beat a sitting Democrat in the 2020 election and is one of only five Libertarians state legislators ever elected. Outgoing U.S. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a former Republican, joined the party in April to become the first Libertarian member of Congress."

Read more: https://bangordailynews.com/2020/12/14/politics/oxford-county-lawmaker-leaves-gop-becomes-1st-libertarian-to-serve-in-augusta/

German lockdown fails so govt locks down harder

Germany to close shops and schools in Covid Christmas lockdown | The Guardian - Philip Oltermann:

December 13, 2020 - "Germany will close most shops from Wednesday until 10 January and ban the sale of fireworks for New Year’s Eve, after Angela Merkel and state leaders agreed to impose a national lockdown in order to regain control of rising coronavirus infection rates before a 'very difficult Christmas'.

"Non-essential shops, excluding food retailers, pharmacies and banks but including hairdressing salons and beauty parlours, will have to close their doors from 16 December. Schools and nurseries will also be required to offer only emergency care for essential workers for the last three days before the start of the scheduled Christmas holidays, with parents asked to look after their children at home 'whenever possible.

"Under the terms of the national lockdown, which Merkel and the leaders of Germany’s 16 federal states agreed in under an hour in an emergency summit on Sunday morning, employers are urged to either release workers for early holidays or allow for more generous remote working arrangements. 

"Restrictions on social gatherings will now be relaxed for a shorter period than previously announced, from 24-26 December, allowing each household to be visited by four family members above the age of 14....Tighter rules will come into force for New Year’s Eve, banning the customary firework displays in large public squares, the sale of pyrotechnics for personal use and the outdoor consumption of alcoholic drinks....

"Germany has been in a 'soft lockdown' mode since 4 November, with bars and restaurants closed, while stores and schools have remained open. But the compromise arrangement has failed to make a significant dent in the daily coronavirus rates, with the number of new infections reported by country’s disease control agency holding at about 20,000 cases.

"Germany is the only major country in Europe in which the number of people dying of or with Covid-19 has been steadily climbing since November, surpassing the peak seen in the spring."

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/13/germany-to-close-shops-and-schools-in-tightened-covid-lockdown

Clapton & Morrison team for anti-lockdown song

Music Legends Eric Clapton, Van Morrison Team for Anti-Lockdown Single ‘Stand and Deliver’ | Variety - Naman Ramachandran:

November 27, 2020 - "Music legends Van Morrison and Eric Clapton have announced a new single, 'Stand and Deliver,' in support of Morrison’s Save Live Music campaign. The blues track was written by Morrison and is performed by Clapton. Morrison, best known for songs like 'Brown Eyed Girl,' 'Domino' and 'Wild Night,' as well as seminal albums Moondance and Astral Weeks,released three songs protesting the U.K. lockdown over September and October, titled 'Born To Be Free,' 'As I Walked Out' and 'No More Lockdown.'

"Proceeds from 'Stand and Deliver' will go to the Morrison’s Lockdown Financial Hardship Fund, which helps musicians facing difficulties as a result of the coronavirus and resulting lockdown measures.

"Clapton — the only three-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame — called the dearth of live events due to lockdown restrictions 'deeply upsetting.' 'There are many of us who support Van and his endeavors to save live music; he is an inspiration,' Clapton said. 'We must stand up and be counted because we need to find a way out of this mess. The alternative is not worth thinking about. Live music might never recover.'

"'Eric’s recording is fantastic and will clearly resonate with the many who share our frustrations,' said Morrison. 'It is heart-breaking to see so many talented musicians lack any meaningful support from the government, but we want to reassure them that we are working hard every day to lobby for the return of live music, and to save our industry'....

"'Stand and Deliver' will be available for download and streaming from iTunes, Amazon Music, Deezer and all other outlets from Dec. 4."

Read more: https://variety.com/2020/music/global/eric-clapton-van-morrison-lockdown-single-1234841031/

Britain's and Sweden's Covid responses compared

Original title: "Lawson's vaccine jab at lockdown sceptics"

by George J. Dance

Early in the month this blog announced the world's first government permission of a Covid-19 vaccine, the UK's emergency authorization to Pfizer/BioNTech, by quoting an article from the Lockdown Sceptics site. The Sceptics author quite rightly applauded the vaccine as "a medical breakthrough and, on the face of it, good news." However, like a sceptic should, he mentioned reasons for doubting that it is the deus ex machina deliverance from the plague that so many are anticipating. 

First, many Britons are themselves sceptical about the vaccine. According to the Mail Online, 20% of Britons are 'not confident' or 'not very confident' that the jab is safe, while 43% are still only 'somewhat confident'. The 27% who were 'very confident' in its safety would probably all be vaccinated by Christmas (if that were possible), but they would be nowhere near enough to end the pandemic.

Second, those 63% have grounds for scepticism. Health authorities do not normally approve new vaccines in less than eight years, much less eight months. Nor are they approving these vaccines, but merely allowing their emergency use. Until the new vaccines are generally used in the population, there is only so much we can know for sure about them. The article quoted a former Pfizer CEO, Mike Yeadon, who highlighted a number of risks that need study; one that bothered me was Dr. Yeadon's claim that the Pfizer antibodies may respond to "syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals" – which sounded to me as if women with the antibodies possibly might be unable to bear children. 

Searching the web later for more information on that topic, I found a mention of both lockdown sceptics and Dr. Yeadon in a Sunday Times article by Dominic Lawson, "This vaccine needles the lockdown sceptics." Eagerly I clicked, scrolled down, and found that, yes, Lawson had dealt with my concern: 

Yeadon added that “in particular” the vaccine developed by his ex-employer, Pfizer, could cause “infertility of indefinite duration ... in vaccinated women”. Any argument will do. 

I did not find that rebuttal reassuring, or even particularly logical; but I then read the whole article and understood it better. In Mr. Lawson's mind, no rebuttal was needed, because the only argument that counts, the one over lockdowns is, now over. Lockdown sceptics have lost it; the coming of a vaccine proves that "they were wrong" to have opposed them. Furthermore, lockdown sceptics know they have lost the argument, and they are simply reacting to their loss "with churlishness, even outright hostility" like the sore losers they are.

As Lawson sees it, in March Britain faced a choice between two competing strategies of epidemic control. The first was to copy "what [was perceived] to be Sweden's approach: to go for 'herd immunity' via naturally acquired infections (whatever the cost in lives)." It would be more correct to call Sweden's approach the normal 'mitigation' strategy used in flu epidemics – I suspect that, like Tomas Pueyo, Lawson calls it a 'herd immunity' strategy because that sounds nastier. The second was to "clamp down with legislative force now when infections threaten to proliferate exponentially, in the belief that a saving vaccine was likely to arrive by the year’s end." That is often called a 'lockdown' strategy; but, as a Clash fan, I would like to use Lawson's term and call it a 'clampdown' strategy here. 

Sweden and Britain took different paths. The former stayed with mitigation, not knowing how soon a vaccine would arrive and, therefore, how long the epidemic would last. In Lawson's view, that has led to a clear disaster: "They’re worried now. More than worried. Over the past two weeks Sweden has recorded way more deaths from Covid-19 than Norway or Finland have had in the whole year: more than half the patients in Sweden’s intensive care beds are coronavirus victims [sic]." 

In contrast, after a brief experiment with mitigation, Britain's government opted for a clampdown, a "strategy of (intermittently) strict enforcement of social distancing until the arrival of a vaccine." The government's hope was that the right mix of interventions would keep deaths low until the vaccine showed up, which they gambled would be soon. Health Secretary Matt Hancock told Lawson that gamble was "a judgement based on facts;" and an early vaccine was in fact forecast by some scientists. For example, Lawson reminds us that Sarah Gilbert, 

the head of the Oxford University vaccine project (partnered with AstraZeneca) declared in April that it was “possible” their product might be ready as soon as the autumn. 

Dr. Gilbert's "prediction" (as Lawson calls it) has not yet come true, but she still has more than a week of autumn left to make it good. Meanwhile, another vaccine has arrived, with others on the way. That last is enough for Lawson to call the pandemic over, and declare victory for the clampdown camp. All those deaths in Sweden are for him enough to show that mitigation was the wrong strategy. "But rather than admit that Gilbert (and Hancock) had proved their no-alternative-to-herd-immunity-through-naturally-acquired-infection strategy wrong, prominent 'lockdown sceptics' have instead cast doubt on the vaccine approved by the MHRA."

Certainly there is some truth in all this. Sweden's chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, did reject a clampdown in favor of mitigation, in part because he did not believe society could be locked down until a vaccine arrived; he opted for less stringent measures that could be maintained over a longer time period. It is theoretically possible that Sweden could have clamped down for eight months; that latter option might have saved lives (resulted in less deaths), and would have been the better option if it had. Since that is what the British government did opt for, gambling on a quick vaccine, then its gamble can  be seen as a success – if and only if it had resulted in less deaths than the Swedish strategy. It is at this point that Lawson's narrative falls apart; for Britain's clampdown has not resulted in less deaths than Sweden.  

As of December 11 (per Worldometer's coronavirus dashboard), Sweden had suffered 7,514 deaths from or with Covid, while the United Kingdom had 63,507. The UK had suffered more than 8 times as many dead as Sweden. Of course those raw figures alone can be misleading, as the UK has more than 6 times Sweden's population. Adjusting for population size gives the UK 933 deaths per million (933/M) versus Sweden's 742/M. Per capita, the UK has had roughly 25% more Covid-related deaths than Sweden. 

But what of Lawson's "past two weeks"? In the two weeks ending December 5 (the day before the publication of Lawson's article), Sweden had 705 deaths, or 70/M. In the same time, the UK had 6,388 deaths, or 94/M – 34% more than Sweden. Not only has clampdown Britain consistently had more Covid deaths than "go for 'herd immunity' via naturally acquired infections (whatever the cost in lives)" Sweden, but the gap is widening.  

Does this prove that clampdowns or lockdowns cost lives? Not by itself; it is only one comparison, and there are other factors that may explain the difference. What would be needed to make such a judgement is a comparison of all clampdown vs. non-clampdown countries, and a look not only at their death tolls but at all the possible reasons for the difference. This comparison is only enough to show that the two countries' experiences, the subject of Lawson's article, provide no support at all for his belief that Britain's clampdown strategy saved any lives.  

Again, there may be other reasons why Britain had so many more Covid deaths than Sweden; Lawson lists a few possibilities, which may or may not be significant. (He provides no evidence that any of them are.) And he does point to other examples to support his belief. To show that Sweden lost more lives through mitigation, he ironically cherry-picks Norway and Finland (both of which, like Sweden, have rejected a clampdown or lockdown strategy this fall). And to show that Britain saved lives through its clampdown, he compares it to an imaginary Britain: 

Try to imagine what would have been the outcome if the UK, much less advantageously placed [than Sweden] in all these respects, had adopted the same approach. 

Britain’s lockdown sceptics never attempted that act of imagination 

I doubt that lockdown sceptics are unable to imagine possible outcomes. Perhaps, like me, they were just sceptical that acts of imagination produced anything other than imaginary evidence or proof – which is all we have seen from Lawson and his ilk to date.  

Hundreds in UK given wrong Covid test results

Hundreds get wrong results due to Covid test error | BBC News:

November 27, 2020 - "Hundreds of people have been wrongly told they have coronavirus by NHS Test and Trace after a laboratory error. More than 1,300 people who gave samples between 19 and 23 November received positive results, when the tests were actually void. All of those affected will be told to take another test, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said.

"Duncan Larcombe, whose daughter received the wrong result, said it was 'more than an inconvenient mistake'. The PR company director, from Maidstone, Kent, said his two children, aged 14 and nine, were both sent home from school to self-isolate and he was unable to work. He said his 14-year-old daughter had not left her bedroom for four days, with meals being left outside her door, until the family learned the result was void on Thursday.... 

"Mr Larcombe, a former royal editor at the Sun newspaper, said the mistake 'brings into question for me whether or not this testing system is competent. 'The entire economy is relying on the competence of the testing laboratories and if they are not doing their job they need to be held to account,' he said.

"DHSC said it was an 'isolated incident' caused by an 'issue with a batch of testing chemicals' which had affected tests taken across the UK. It is 'being fully investigated to ensure this does not happen again,' the department said....

"Asked if the 1,311 incorrect results would affect regional figures for infection rates, which are represented as the number of cases per 100,000 people, DHSC issued a statement saying: 'Any impact on regional figures would be minimal, but in any event this incident was taken into account when the tiering discussions took place.'"

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-55107272

Americans are wearing facemasks, but ...

 Americans have exceeded universal masking benchmarks, but it has not slowed or stopped the spread of COVID-19 | Medium - Jordan Schachtel, The Dossier: 

December 7, 2020 - One of the most common pro-mask arguments I’ve heard over the course of the past year, both from “public health experts” and your average citizen, sounds similar to the following statement: 'If only everyone would just wear a mask, we would be able to crush the virus and end the pandemic.'

"This line of reasoning is frequently espoused by lockdown governors and 'public health experts.' You see, the problem isn’t them, it’s you, the citizen, we’re told.... You’re the reason why the pandemic is still a problem in this country. Deaths up? Why aren’t you wearing a mask. Cases up? Wear a mask. Hospitals crowded? The problem is that not enough people are wearing masks, they claim....

"The Delphi group at Carnegie Mellon University [CMU] has developed a very informative, consistently updated mask compliance tracker. It shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans across the nation are wearing masks. And in virtually every major population center in the United States, especially in areas where COVID-19 cases are rising, mask compliance levels are off the charts high, with most major metro areas registering well over 90 percent compliance. "Early on in the pandemic, when the 'new science' told us that masks could stop the virus in its tracks (after the science of early 2020, espoused by the likes of Fauci and many others, rightly pointed to the reality that masks are useless outside of a controlled setting), the CDC and other 'public health agencies' claimed that we could essentially eliminate transmission if a large percentage of the population adopted universal masking.

"When lockdowns failed to 'stop the spread,' masking up at over 80% was hyped as a way to 'do more to reduce COVID-19 spread than a strict lockdown.'

"'Universal masking at 80 [percent] adoption flattens the curve significantly more than maintaining a strict lockdown,' a much-hyped, highly publicized study, which was treated by many in the scientific community as the gospel, proclaimed. 'We will not only be able to flatten the curve, we will be able to significantly reduce the spread of the virus and return to life as normal sooner rather than later,' De Kai [aka Dekai Wu - gd], a research scholar at Berkeley who helped develop the COVID-19 universal masking model, proclaimed.

"With the help of the CMU mask compliance tracker, let’s take a look at the current COVID-19 hotspots in the United States and the level of mask compliance within these areas.

• San Francisco metro area: 97% mask compliance
• New York City metro area: 97% mask compliance
• DC metro: 97%
• Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington: 94%
• Philly area: 96%
• Chicago: 95%
• Miami-Ft Lauderdale: 96%
• Seattle: 96%....

"Americans have overwhelmingly exceeded the masking compliance percentages needed to supposedly 'flatten the curve' and reduce transmission of the virus. The problem, of course, is that the models have not matched reality. Americans are wearing masks, but the hypothesis behind universal masking has not worked to stop the spread of COVID-19.

"Americans have adopted the recommendations of the 'public health experts,' but the 'public health experts' have failed to follow the science, which now shows that masks are useless when it comes to stopping the spread of COVID-19. Now we’re left with an overwhelming majority of Americans wearing masks for no science-based reason whatsoever."

Read more: https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/everyone-is-already-wearing-a-mask