We should be thanking China, not pointing fingers at them.

Misinformation across the web about coronavirus is rampant. Even things on the CDC webpage have been generalized and not helpful for this outbreak. But some things are clear and deserve to be posted:
(1) This is not a biological weapon. No country--China, the USA, or E-Swatini created this virus. As of yet, none of the coronaviruses found in any animal match this one with 99% of a DNA match, so we don't even know where the transition occurred from. Covid-19 could have even already existed in our population and just happened to be identified this year. We only know that several people who came down with the virus all worked at or visited a seafood market in China, Wuhan province. These are the first identified cases.
(2) Many Chinese people died from this virus, but their deaths have helped the rest of the world deal with it better. The death rate in China was elevated, but the overall death rate is now only 2.4%-3.9% depending on the source (and probably the country). In South Korea, the death rate is only 0.77%, less than the flu most years.
(3) American leaders are botching things, which is increasing the spread across the USA. --The CDC developed its own test, but it could not effectively process the test fast enough. Hospitals who tested sick people sent them home, only to call them back into quarantine 2-3 days later when they received the results of those tests. Everyone in the US is now entitled to a free coronavirus test, but some states, such as Oregon can only process about 45 tests a day--for the entire state! To make matters worse, this test only applies to people who can afford to see a doctor in the first place. With all the stupid HSAs in place the government is asking poor people to cough up the cash to pay for a visit to the doctor when many of them will only ever experience a low-grade fever and mild cough. The well-off will of course rush to their doctors in droves and pressure them to order the test. And, now China is so mad at us for blaming them for the outbreak (even though it was just a few stupid media outlets), that they are not going to help supply the chemicals needed for the kits, and these are running low.
(4) Even the CDC has admitted that closing schools at this point will not stop the spread of the virus and will increase the risk of older/at-risk individuals developing it since 40% of all children live with grandparents. Despite this, schools in many states, even those with as few as 10 infected individuals, have closed.
(5)Everyone is acting like this is the end of the world. Many people cleaning out stores are not doing it from their own fear, but instead they are doing it from greed--they want to make a buck selling the stuff online. Thankfully, at least some stores, are putting limits on the number of items you can buy.
(6) Cronavirus is subsiding in China, and WHO has produced a report that all policy makers should read to see how it happened there.
(7) According to WHO raw data, this is what the coronavirus looks like as of today. The red line is number of deaths per day (new) and the blue is newly reported cases each day:

Based on this, we should expect another slight jump in number of deaths per day in a couple days or so of this post. The only reason for the jump is that the number of people officially diagnosed has jumped drastically (probably due to improved global testing measures). However, many of these newly diagnosed people are probably mild in the symptom range (based on China's experience). If the spike on the left is not simply mild cases, than we will see a spike in about 8 days on the death chart.

(8) In the new coronavirus stimulus bill, there is evidence that Congress is planning to allow states to quarantine us 12 weeks without pay--since that number seems to be prominent. If it passes in the Senate, there will be no reason for states to not do this because our jobs cannot fire us during this absence. However, after 12 weeks of being closed, there is no guarantee that our jobs will still exist. 

(9) The current restrictions on the size of public assemblies that can meet are illegal based on past Supreme court rulings. Should people who are at greater risk attend public gatherings or go out frequently in public places--no. But government implemented restrictions on this are in violation of 1st and 14th amendment rights. In addition, if the government tried to implement a quarantine at this point, it would be difficult to prove the benefit (since quarantines increase the chance of transmission among families), and it would also be difficult to prove that a disease with a less than 0.77% fatality rate when handled correctly and when accurately monitored (ie both mild and severe cases are recorded instead of only the most severe), is severe enough risk for any quarantine. Note: the President and Congress cannot enact quarantines according to past Supreme Court cases, only states can do that, but they can only do it in times of extreme necessity--i.e. during illness with high mortality rates. .77% or even 3.9% is not a high mortality rate.

(10) Since 99% of all the deaths occur in people over the age of 50, the "at-risk" groups are people over 50 with those ailments (at least 99% of the time). I have not seen a break down anywhere on age and pre-existing conditions, but it would be interesting to see this kind of graphic to get a real idea of how a pre-existing condition combined with age affects the outcome of the disease. For example, of the ten people who died in the UK during this report, 8 were not only men (one risk factor) over the age of 80 (another high risk factor) but also had pre-existing diseases that increased their risk. In addition, the UK is no longer monitoring mild cases. They are letting the virus take its course. 

(11) There have been reports that coronavirus has a higher mortality rate and is more easily transmitted than influenza. This is simply not true, according to everything WHO has published. At the beginning of March, the mortality rate was estimated at between 3-4% (most papers misprinted this as 3.4%) They have stated as more mild cases (which usually go undiagnosed) are confirmed, this number will become lower. In places like South Korea, where they have been monitoring everyone at the rate of 10,000 tests per day, the mortality rate is 0.77%. I have also seen the news reporting that the mortality rate of flu is "only 1-3%" (at the beginning of the coronavirus scare) to now reporting the mortality rate is only 0.1%. The problem is that we can go back and look at the 2017-2018 report on the flu season by the CDC here. Although coronavirus does not really affect children, 20% of the children who had been vaccinated that year died from the flu. The overall mortality rate for the flu for that season was 10% (ten percent). It was the 8th biggest killer of people in the US and killed 55,627 people. In fact, if we take the worldwide numbers of 3-5 million cases of flu each year and a death rate of 290,000-650,000 deaths and do the math we get 6-21% (six to twenty-one percent) mortality rate. 

The Problems With Mayor Pete for President

When Pete Buttigieg announced he was running for president, I thought it was a joke. Locals went crazy (and are still going crazy)--"We know him!!!" 

Now, I certainly wasn't excited when Pence was given the vice-presidency. I felt he had ridden the wave of his predecessor and he also was weak on some things that he should not have been. Nothing irritates me more than a wishy-washy leader. 

But now we have "Mayor Pete" making a bid for the presidency and that boarders on ludicrous. I remember when Mayor Buttigieg was first elected (make no mistake, he wasn't "Mayor Pete" until his run for the presidency). It was 2011, the middle of the Recession, and he announced everyone on the city council was going to get a raise. My husband hadn't had a raise in several years and the city council of South Bend was getting one. The city GDP had already started an upward trend after the depths of 2009, but after Mayor Pete was elected, it dipped again. Now it is up, but nowhere near pre-recession rates and it isn't set to get back there any time soon. "Mayor Pete" has continued to give his inner circle raises, though with the most going to potential supporters.

He also hired people to do his job. He didn't feel he should personally talk with the head of the police department so a liaison did that for him. With so much support, it was no wonder he was able to serve active duty as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan. The city was already running itself. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that South Bend statistics are usually combined with those of Mishawaka. South Bend is the 4th largest city in Indiana, but Mishawaka is the 2nd largest retail center (and South Bend is not even close to being first). Mishawaka has a bad section, but that is comparable to some of the decent sections of South Bend. Mishawaka and its surrounding town/communities improve South Bend's statistics, but should not be attributed to Mayor Buttigieg since each has its own government.

How safe has Mayor Pete made South Bend (keep in mind it is barely large enough to be a city with only a little over 100,000 people). Well, it is safer than 3% of other cities. There are 10 violent crimes  and almost 50 property crimes per every 1000 people. For comparison, Mishawaka has 2 violent crimes per 1000 people. As you can see on the map in the link, most of those violent crimes occur on or near the South Bend/Mishawaka border. If we look at other cities that have almost the exact same population (+/- 1000 people) across the US, Renton WA, Vista CA, Las Cruces NM, Woodbridge NJ, Davenport IA, Edison NJ, and Lakewood NJ, South Bend has more violent crime than all of them, in most cases South Bend's violent crime is double that of these cities. South Bend's violent crime rate is equal to that of Chicago and their property damage rate is higher than that of Chicago. 

But everybody agrees "Mayor Pete" made some visible changes to the city. For example, he decided to slow down the streets of South Bend. He stated that people passing through town who are forced to go slower will now stop and visit shops. In my opinion, most people traveling will simply take the bypass around the city. The South Bend Tribune did a nice before and after drive-thru showing the change to the streets only added about 5 minutes drive time one way. However, they did this comparison at a time when there was practically no traffic. People who live here now avoid downtown South Bend like the plague because it is bumper to bumper traffic during the rush (and no passing lanes to get around the crush). In many cases you are making left hand turns at your own risk. Prior to the change we had 3 lanes of traffic going one direction for every 2 lanes we now have. The mayor called this return to old-fashioned two-way streets with landscaped dividers "Smart streets." I will give the mayor this--people avoid downtown so much that it is now easy to find a parking spot. He may counter, "But I added parking spots!" However, he added parking spots just before entering the main downtown area and those are always abandoned. If I wanted to go to the county-city building and get a close spot before the street change, it could take up to 10 minutes of circling the block. Now, I don't even have to go around once despite the same number of parking spots there.

What has Mayor Buttigieg done for South Bend? I give him full credit for bringing expensive apartment housing complexes into the city. Prior to Mayor Buttigieg, no one would have picked downtown South Bend as an ideal place for gentrification. South Bend already has several expensive neighborhoods in the heart of the city. Many are bohemian historical neighborhoods. Living there means you will be subject to more crime, but the neighborhoods are exclusive. Mayor Buttigieg took this idea and ran with it- he was able to attract several real estate investment companies to the area. Downtown South Bend storefronts are still mostly abandoned, but there are also several upscale restaurants there now. Most of the apartments that have already been built are still not full even though it has been a couple years and it meant selling off city property, but they are there. Who knows what will happen in the next 5 -10 years? But there certainly hasn't been a dramatic turnaround that everyone seems to be bragging about and attributing to a mayor was given the best chance of success since he took office during a worldwide recovery from recession.

Mayor Pete follows the standard Democrat platform-there is nothing new or interesting about him. He is running on the platform of "I am a LGB... tolerant Mike Pence." I am sure his presidential bid is actually a dream to be vice president since he seems to be targeting barbs at Pence more than Trump. But as one homosexual friend said, "Being homosexual doesn't make you a good president" (or vice-president). To make matters worse, he is playing on the "gay gene" "I was born this way" platform. There is no gay gene. Period. In 1993, "research" was published that a male gay gene was found on the X chromosome. This research was later debunked. In 15 years, not only has that "research" been debunked, but also no other gene has been proposed to cause homosexuality even male homosexuality. In fact, twin studies show we are more likely to find a "divorce" gene than a "homosexual" gene. If you are homosexual-that is your choice. I don't tell people about my sex life and I don't want to know about yours. If Mayor Pete wants to run on a homosexual platform, why not explain why everyone should be allowed to have consensual sex with any adult they want instead of saying he couldn't help the way he is?

Mayor Buttigieg is not Mike Pence. Mike Pence fell into his position and rode its wave. I don't think he had any higher aspirations than governor--he might not have even aspired that high. he is perfectly happy to remain in Trump's shadow. Pete Buttigieg has extremely high aspirations. Little changes in Indiana- after Mayor Buttigieg's first term, it was no surprise he was re-elected. Only after homosexual marriage became the popular thing when it was before the Supreme Court did he came out publicly, find a partner (he was single before that time), and marry his new partner. Mayor Buttigieg states that as he was growing up he wished there was a "pill" to take away his homosexual desires. Well, there are plenty of unofficial treatment programs for people who don't want to be LGB... anymore. But I think Mayor Buttigieg does want to be homosexual right now. That is the one thing that he is betting will get him into the White House- that and is evangelical "conversion."

So what of that conversion? Well, having lived in the area during Mayor Buttigieg's political reign, I have not heard anything about his religion or religious views in the media until he made his bid for president. Now, he is claiming he was raised Catholic, but is currently an evangelical Christian--a member of the Episcopal Church. His religious influences are "the early St. Augustine, James Martin, and Garry Willis." But, "Mayor Pete" is not very well versed in his religion apparently. First, the Episcopal Church is not evangelical. Granted, the leap from Catholic to Episcopalian is easy since there is little difference between the two. That is probably why Mayor Buttigieg made the change--people can ask him questions about his faith and he will probably get the right answer, but he needed to move a little father from his comfort zone if he wanted to be evangelical. The other problem is his religious influences... they are all Catholic. St. Augustine of Canterbury is the Episcopal saint (i.e. not the "early" one, St. Augustine of Hippo who wrote "Confessions"). I suppose he could say that was a misprint by the Washington Post, but why name two other catholic writers: a Jesuit priest and a Catholic historian? There is nothing wrong with being Catholic, but when you are a Catholic claiming to be an evangelical Christian simply to get the nomination, there is a serious problem. Where is Thomas Beckett? Or William Tyndale? Or even Julian of Norwich or any of the other lesser known Episcopalian saints? If you are going to be running on the platform that your faith is better than someone else's, you should know what your faith is.

Indiana: The State That DOESN'T Work

I laugh whenever I see the motto, "Indiana, a state that works!" Hopefully by now those of you who are democrats realize the world isn't going to end under the new President but merely move forward, same old same old. And those of you who voted Republican to repeal Obamacare are coming to the realization that the elected officials have no desire to get rid of Obamacare, instead you will be getting Obamacare 2.0 (or Trumpcare if you please). Next time maybe you will listen to me when I say both parties are the same and perhaps we could finally elect a third party in four years.

However, in the mean time, those who think the poor will be getting a logical healthcare plan that "works" like the one in Indiana had better be warned. Indiana's HiP 2.0 doesn't work. We currently have FIVE appeals going for different reasons because Anthem refuses to accept our payment or even acknowledge we have a payment due, the state refuses to use our 2016 income as our actual earned income for the past year and instead is projecting what we will be making in 2018 and using that, the state agencies have NO CLUE about the programs the state has and although my husband should have been transferred to a program that would protect him from the "You have insurance this month" "You lost your insurance this month" "You have insurance this month" ups and downs of regular HiP 2.0 health insurance, they have just dropped him from insurance altogether (this month), and finally, because although the State Insurance sent a letter to my son at our home address, they are denying him medication because they do not know where he lives. I kid you not. If the letter did not contain personal information, I would upload a picture of it.

Welcome to Obamacare 2.0 America. The biggest irony in this insurance craze is that people support everyone having insurance because when a poor person without insurance walks into a hospital and can't pay, the hospital has to raise prices and everyone pays for him or her. So here is the irony: With Obamacare and any other forced insurance program, if a poor person walks into a hospital (with state insurance) guess who pays for it? That's right- everyone else.

Poor people DO need insurance. That is the bottom line. Because they don't have a choice: they can't afford to pay for medical care and doctors don't take chickens or allow someone to do their laundry for them anymore in exchange for service. But everyone in America doesn't need insurance. If they can pay for medical care, let them do it out of their pockets. If they can't, then everyone else is going to be paying for it no matter what.

SB 101- The law that wasn't.

Many people claimed SB 101 would "discriminate." However, it would have protected minorities from having to do things against their religious beliefs, such as these Muslims. The Indiana government amendment has stripped business religious freedom rights from its language and is setting itself up for a quagmire like what is going on in Colorado right now. You see, northern Indiana is a hot bed for KKK activity and all it would take is a KKK member to walk into a bakery and ask for a cake for a hate rally. The KKK member, acting in light of his/her religion, can now legally sue the bakery, since SB 101 no longer allows you to deny services for a very long list of reasons.

So far, all the bakeries, caterers, florists, wedding venue providers, and photographers who have been successfully sued in states that did not have a version of SB 101 in place NEVER denied services to homosexuals in general. They more than willing made them cakes, arranged their flowers, and photographed them. The only thing these people refused to do was to provide their services at a homosexual wedding. The results of the cases are varied. One man and his staff had to undergo "sensitivity" training for a year and now have to make quarterly reports- if they deny ANYONE services they can be fined $500. Another baker decided to work out of her home to avoid future conflicts, she may still be fined up to $150,000 for "emotional distress" although the plaintiff never saw a doctor for this. The florist was fined for spite; the photographer was fined; the Mennonite wedding venue providers may or may not be sued- in that case, the offended couple is still deciding about it.

As I stated before. Our founding fathers held that religious discrimination was the ultimate discrimination. Forcing individuals to do something that is against their religious beliefs is despicable and, in itself, discrimination. Yet, now Indiana allows people to do this. Repealing the bill entirely would have been a better alternative. The current amendment hurts people more than if they would have never written the bill. The only thing that will save us is if more people go into bakeries and ask them to make cakes that celebrate some odd aspect of their religion and sue the bakeries when they refuse. Then, hopefully, the government will realize they have to set a precedent as to which discrimination is more important- religion or one of the others.

Does Indiana's Law Encourage Prejudice, Discrimination, and Bigotry?

Everyone around the world is talking about Indiana's new law that protects religious freedom. Many, including Apple, Angie's list, NCAA, the Gamer's Convention, the city of Seattle, and the state of Connecticut, have decided to stop doing business with Indiana- at least that is what they are saying now. Everyone is complaining that this law supports "discrimination."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -Amendment 1; The Constitution of the United States. 

Above all else, before protecting anything else, our founding fathers wanted to protect the freedom of religion. Christianity was the predominant form of religion in America at the time the founding fathers wrote this amendment; and Christianity is based upon the Bible. 

"They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." -1 Tim. 7-11, NIV

In this passage from the Bible, the law is written for sinners- including the homosexual. Homosexuality is sin. 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -Matthew 5:17, NIV

Jesus did not come to get rid of the law set up in the Old Testament, but to fulfill that law- to become the required sacrifice for those who repent and follow His teaching. His teaching does not go against the law- as a Christian, you still must not murder, commit adultery, or...

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable...Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God." -Leviticus 18: 22, 24-29 NIV

People have chosen homosexuality for thousands of years. The law Christians live by says it is detestable and that we should stay away from people who are homosexuals (among others), and we should not be homosexuals. 

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." -Hebrews 10:26-31 NIV

For Churches who tell homosexuals they are accepted as they are, they will have to answer to God as it says in Hebrews and elsewhere- they are encouraging sin and telling others it is okay to sin even after they have decided to take Christ's name. For homosexuals who become Christians and continue to practice homosexuality- well, you can read about their fate in Hebrews 10:31 as well. 

Many cry "Love your neighbor as yourself!" 

That was the second most important command according to Jesus; they miss that the number one commandment "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." If you love God, you will obey Him. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will do everything in your power to prevent his or her eternal suffering. 

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." I don't have to judge anyone- the Bible (God) has already judged homosexuality to be detestable. 

My religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. Why should I have to go against my religion -the primary religion that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution- or to pay court fees should I choose to stand by my faith and not work for homosexuals? The bill signed into law by Mike Pence supports my religious freedoms. It also supports the religious freedoms of minority religions including Muslims and Jewish people. 

Sadly, what bill protesters want is a one way street. According to those complaining, I should not be allowed to practice my religious beliefs, Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious beliefs, Jewish people should not be allowed to practice their religious beliefs. In their eyes, once anyone starts a business, he or she should automatically be forced to give their religion up. In fact, the only people who should be allowed to practice what they believe (according to the protesters of this law) are homosexuals. Will a homosexual bakery make a cake that says, "Gay Marriage Is Wrong"? The videos on that page are very enlightening. 

Some people also have a mistaken belief that homosexuality is genetic. They use that as a reason that homosexuals should receive extra protection- because they "can't help themselves." Sorry, the only twin research that supports the statement "homosexuality is genetic" has been done by targeting homosexuals and/or using small populations (fewer than 1000). When you look at large general studies, such as this one and this one, you find that social and environmental factors are the driving forces behind homosexuality. There is no support or possibility of a female genetic link to homosexuality, and although researchers leave the chance for a male homosexuality gene open (it would only be a marker for the potential to develop homosexualtiy- not a definite "this makes a person homosexual" gene; if environmental and social factors are not involved, a person positive for any genes they find will still be heterosexual), there is a better chance of finding a "divorce" gene. Homosexuality is a choice, just as my religion is my choice. My religious choice and right to freely exercise my religion was specifically protected by our founding fathers. Your homosexuality was not.