Seasonal Flu Statistics Irrelevant

Mr Chapotone’s recent letter to the Daily Star is a prime example of the confusion individuals still have regarding the implementation of the country shut down in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.  It’s the same confusion our President initially had in the early stages of the onset.

 

It is irrelevant to ponder the decision for the country shutdown by quoting the number of cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and the number of states involved in a typical flu season.

The shutdown was implemented due to the RATE of hospitalizations over a short period of time.  In a typical flu season hospitalizations are pretty much spread out over a six month period from October to March with a peak usually occurring in February.

COVID-19 on the other hand has had more U.S. hospitalizations during one month than the typical flu season has during its peak month.   Additionally more than 25% of those hospitalized have ended up in the ICU.

To once again bring people up to speed, it was never about the total number of cases of COVID-19, but instead about the rate and severity of the hospitalizations due to its highly contagious characteristics.

Simply put, our entire healthcare system became overloaded from the high rate of infection over a very short period of time, and hospitalization admissions needed to be slowed, thus the “self-distancing” and “shut down”  paradigms.

Sadly, many individuals, like Mr. Chapotone, keep throwing around 6 month seasonal flu statistics in an attempt to show that the COVID-19 is not as serious by comparison, and hinting that perhaps the shutdown measures were unnecessary.  Fortunately, for all, the President came to his senses and realized the rate of hospitalizations needed to be slowed.

In closing, if these individuals who roll out seasonal flu statistics are patient, I predict they will be proven wrong when the same 6 month seasonal flu time frame statics are calculated for COVID-19.   So far during COVID-19’s three month run in the U.S. there are now over 50,000 deaths compared to 61,200 deaths for the entire 6 month 2018-2019 U.S. flu season.   I suspect COVID-19 will surpass every recent seasonal flu statistic, for there is no vaccine available like there is for seasonal flu.

Reopening the French Quarter

This past weekend a full page ad from several business leaders appeared in the Times Picayune as an open letter to the Mayor of New Orleans requesting that the city and, in particular, the French Quarter, be immediately reopened for business.

While it’s easy to rally around this “Open The City” ad, it’s quite another task to instill a sense of infection protection security in potential visitors.  To put it bluntly, before Covid19 hit, the French Quarter was never noted for its sanitary or cleanliness qualities.   Simply reopening the city will not instill a trust among potential visitors that it is indeed free from a high risk of infection.

The city is financially broke and cannot afford the measures necessary to even remotely alleviate visitors’ fears.   Do these businessmen calling for the reopening have a plan and are willing to provide the capital necessary to give tourists and residents assurances that they will have a reduced chance of infection?

To reopen the French Quarter without a plan is foolish and could lead to a total boycott if visitors perceive that nothing changed in its operation to help  protect them.

The N.O. tourist groups are always worried about the crime perception in the Quarter and its effect on potential visitors.  They address it with added police whose presence is visible and reassuring to individuals.

How do they plan to address the Covid-19 perception in the Quarter?

Perhaps the businessmen who posted the “reopen ad” need to post an additional one detailing what they intent to do to help change the sanitary culture of the Quarter, for It would certainly serve a better, more reassuring purpose.

Perception is the controlling factor in the successful return of tourists to the French Quarter.  Simply reopening it without a cultural change may not produce the desired surge in economic revitalization which these businessmen expect.

Not Consumer Friendly Tort Reform

As we approach a new legislative session in Baton Rouge our Republican legislators have made it very clear that one of their  major agenda items will be tort reform in our state.  Particularly as it relates to automobile accidents.  They want to limit one’s ability to sue insurance companies, and claim that such measures will lead to lower auto insurance premiums.

However, what all supporters of tort reform intentionally failed to address is there is NO guarantee that such reform will lower auto insurance rates.  Supporters outside the insurance industry just assume that the big state auto insurers will out of the kindness of their hearts lower their rates as a reward for hindering one’s ability to bring a legal suit against them.

Despite what these companies would want you to believe, one of their biggest money makers is auto insurance.   Why would anyone be so naïve to assume that any change, that would allow them to make even more profit by limiting law suits, would be offset by them lowering their insurance  premiums?

Let’s see how supportive the auto insurance companies and the Louisiana Association of  Business and Industry, which is also pushing for change, would be of auto insurance tort reform if it was tied to a  mandated across the board 25% decrease in premiums charged.

This is the only type of tort reform that would actually benefit the consumer.  As tort reforms are now proposed, only the insurance companies benefit, and that’s just the way they want it.

Political Profiling

It’s pretty sad where we are today as a society regarding our obsessive needs to catalogue people based upon their perceived political beliefs.  And we follow this up with a complete dismissal of these individuals from our lives if their beliefs differ from ours.  Because of political beliefs we curtail contacts with family members, end memberships in organizations, break off long term friendships, and in extreme cases even end marriages.

A perfect example of just how damaged we are as a nation is the recent Garth Brooks’ concert which took place in Detroit.  Garth came out on stage wearing a football jersey with the number 20 on it and the name Sanders printed across its front.  Pictures of him wearing this outfit quickly made their way to social media where condemnation comments lite up.  They included such statements as “Brooks is a f..king liberal socialist,” “He needs to stop mixing his music with politics,” “I’m never buying anymore of his music”, etc, etc, and so on, and so on.

Actually Garth Brooks was honoring one of the great running backs of football, Barry Sanders, No. 20 of the Detroit Lions.  It was not a political endorsement for Bernie Sanders for the 2020 election!

Sadly, more and more of our everyday actions model what occurred at the Garth Brooks’ concert.  Our   behavior and speech are judged solely in political terms.  Coupled with this is an obsessive need to lump individuals in a “for” or “against” paradigm as it relates to our political schema.

We no longer care about the overall worth of a particular person as a total being , but instead simply cast him/her aside from our shared world based upon political beliefs.

When I once stated to a friend that I was friends with a certain individual, I was immediately questioned as to how I could interact with an individual that was so opposite from my political beliefs.  It was abhorrent to this individual that any such interaction could even take place.  He seemed shocked and totally confused when I replied that this person was a good individual and enjoyable to interact with in my life.  He was always somebody who I could count on to “have my back.”   We just don’t discuss politics.  Regrettably, this was beyond this questioning individual’s comprehension.

Stop obsessively reading the garbage on social media and stop “politically profiling” individuals to judge whether they are worthy to be in your life.

Family, friendships, and spouses are forever.  Political figures will come and go, and in reality almost all could never even remotely be considered your friends.

What Will It Take?

As the accusations of wrong doing continue to mount up concerning  our Commander–in-Chief, I can’t help but wonder just what it would take before his supporters take pause and consider that perhaps he is no longer worthy of their continued, unwavering support.  So far the accusations have run the gamut from adulterer, Stormy Daniels comes to mind, and sexual assaulter, victims Temple Taggart McDowell, Jessica Leeds, Kristen Anderson, Jill Harth, Cathy Heller, Karena Virginia, plus eight more; to swindler, Trump University and the phony non-profit charity, The Donald J. Trump Foundation, to cite just two examples.


In all 14 accusations of sexual assaults President Trump has chosen to put forth the defense of denial of any knowledge or contact with these individuals, which has served as an acceptable defense for his supporters.  Additionally, most just shrug off and attribute all these sexual assaults simply to “boys will be boys” and “we all make poor decisions during our life” even though some of Trump’s escapades, involving adultery, could be interpreted as counter to the teachings of the Bible; but then again, “boys will be boys.”


Sadly, his supporters also readily dismiss any accusations made against President Trump by rallying around the old and tiresome political propaganda mumbo jumbo that these accusers are all just a bunch of “anti-Trumpers and sore losers hoping to avenge their loss in the last election.”   I couldn’t care less about the last election for I voted for neither candidate, and felt all those who ran in both primaries were unqualified for the job, and that included Hillary, Bernie, and Donald.

However, a new twist has recently been added to the list of accusations against of our current president.  Lawyers representing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, have accused President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s and are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney last Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

Now most males accused of rape unanimously adopt the defense that the encounter was consensual, and sadly, usually prevail.  Ironically, President Trump has chosen to use his standard defense that he has no knowledge of this individual and never met her, and of course is refusing to comply.  Actually, this is a very clever move on his part because to use the consensual defense would be admitting to adultery.  Additionally, he is quite aware of the Department of Justice’s opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.

However, one has to wonder why, if truly innocent, President Trump doesn’t just provide the DNA anyway which could once and for all end the accusation and support his defense that he never even met the woman.  Why let it proceed in the media and the courts which obviously will impact him financially?   I guess the legal reasoning here is just to drag it out and ultimately, quietly pay off the accuser in an out of court sealed settlement which has been Trump’s mantra in so many other cases.

Either way as this case proceeds, I assume that President Donald Trump really has nothing to worry about, for as he once stated while campaigning for office, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue (New York City) and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

Besides, it’s like one of my friends keeps reminding me, “I didn’t vote for Trump because he was a choir boy.” So true, and the economy is doing great and our guns are safe so why should we concern ourselves about the ethical and moral character of the one that occupies the highest office in this nation?

  

But, then again, aren’t these the qualities we preach in our churches and try to instill in our children?

Let Majority Rule

The other day I was thinking about how during most of my life lots of decisions are made by majority vote.  I remember school class presidents, junior and senior prom kings/queens, school committee chairpersons, and sport team captains being elected by all the individuals associated with those entities.  Local school superintendents, school board members, city mayors,  city council members,  state governors, state officials, state representatives, federal legislators, and various state constitutional amendments are all voted on by the entire voting public.  I think you get my point.


Sadly, the majority approach doesn’t apply when we choose the highest office in our nation or when we have what I term “hot button” or major influential issues affecting our nation.  Just think of all the rhetoric, Facebook comments, and Tweets we could eliminate and instead have time spent time on actually accomplishing positive things in our daily lives.
  

If the ‘majority rule approach’ were adopted universally, we wouldn’t have Donald Trump as president, nor some presidents of the past.  And just think we could settle this impeachment issue once and for all.  The latest polls indicate that the majority of Americans favor impeachment of our esteemed leader in a survey conducted beginning Friday, one day after senators were sworn in for the trial, with 47 percent of voters in favor of Trump’s removal, and 45 percent opposed.


However, this is only a sample poll and we should settle the issue once and for all by letting everyone vote on it and instructing our legislators to simply abide by the majority’s wishes. 


Taking this approach a step further we could settle the gun control issues, pro-choice/pro-life issues, gay rights issues, transgender issues, etc.  The list goes on and on.


Obviously, if you haven’t caught on by now I am writing this with tongue in cheek, and have not completely lost my mind.   I am fully aware that my suggestion can’t be implemented.


But just consider how much wasted anguish, stress and emotional energy we could eliminate.  Think about it, what if maybe we could change some of the rules and implement some of it.

Hard Rock Building Collapse-What was City Hall's Responsibility?

I find it interesting to note that the Mayor of New Orleans has skirted the issues about the actual involvement of the city in the recent Hard Rock building disaster.  While it is difficult for the general public to get accurate information regarding the construction process of the building, it does appear that there was some city involvement with it.


Apparently some structural changes were made along the way that required approval by the appropriate department at City Hall.  It would also seem logical, that during the construction of such a massive building in the downtown historical section of the city, that city building inspectors would make random on-site inspections to insure the construction plans were being followed and up to code.


Yet, to date, the only information we have is that the actual workers in the building questioned some of its construction.


What was City Hall’s actual involvement in this ongoing construction?  Did they have any responsibility at all, or were they simply paper pushers blindly issuing permits and approving change orders?  Is this how ALL major construction is handled in downtown New Orleans?


It would seem prudent to get all the facts surrounding every entity’s involvement in this tragedy, including City Hall’s.