The Times Looks Back on Covid

The New York Times looks back on covid, four years down the road, and says “Here’s what we’ve learned.” I would say we have learned some things that the Times doesn’t touch, like the idiocy of shutting down stores, businesses, churches and, especially, schools.

But admitting that would be a bridge too far for the Times. Even on the lessons the Times acknowledges, you sometimes have to read between the lines:

When the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic in March 2020, nearly everything about the novel coronavirus was an open question: How was it spreading so quickly? How sick would it make people? Would a single bout buy you protection from future cases?

I think we knew quite about covid, early, based in part on cruise ship experiences. It was known that many people who tested positive for covid didn’t even notice it, that for most it was a mild respiratory infection, and that serious consequences were relatively rare and centered on those who were elderly and in bad health.

By now, most Americans have had COVID-19 at least once. While the majority of those infected have been hit with flulike symptoms, some have been hospitalized with serious respiratory issues, and others have had no symptoms at all.

See above. It didn’t take four years to figure that out. And the fact that most–I would say, nearly all–Americans have now had covid makes a mockery of the “Black Death” predictions that liberals were making four years ago.

Part of this can be explained by the amount of virus we are exposed to, but our bodies also play a big role. People who are older or have existing health problems tend to have more severe symptoms because their immune systems are already weakened.

This was blindingly obvious from the beginning, and applies to most diseases.

In some cases, the body can fight off the virus before it replicates enough to cause symptoms, or clear it so quickly that a person never tests positive.

Again, this was known from the start and is typical of many or most viruses.

There’s also strong evidence that vaccination makes illness less severe.

I’m not sure how strong that evidence is. I’m willing to assume that on average, vaccinations reduced the severity of covid symptoms. But the Times delicately refrains from mentioning that this isn’t how the vaccines were promoted. Health “experts” including, as I recall, Joe Biden, told us that if we got vaccinated we wouldn’t catch covid. They claimed we had a moral duty to be vaccinated because then we wouldn’t spread the disease to others. And on that basis, they fired people, and imposed other sanctions on people, who declined to be vaccinated.

This turned out to be a vicious exercise in fascistic control. Getting vaccinated didn’t prevent you from catching, or spreading, covid. The people around you caught covid (or didn’t) regardless of whether you were vaccinated. Maybe vaccination tended to reduce the severity of symptoms, and if so, you could benefit from it. But the idea that you had a duty to others to be vaccinated–the foundation of liberal covid totalitarianism–turned out to be a fraud.

Generally speaking, an infection or vaccination protects you for several months, said Akiko Iwasaki, a virologist and immunologist at Yale University.

Remember when liberals denied that having had covid gave you at least as good immunity as being vaccinated? That claim never made any sense, since the purpose of vaccination is to cause the body to mimic the effect of actually having a disease. But it was the basis for firing people who had had covid but had not been vaccinated, and for other liberal totalitarianism. Now no one claims the liberals were right about this, but the Times delicately refrains from pointing out that what we have now “learned,” while obvious all along, is the opposite of what liberals tried to impose on us.

The Times actually admits this:

T cells provide a different form of protection — reducing the severity of symptoms rather than blocking infection — and research now suggests that this immunity may last a year or longer.

Better than vaccination, in other words. I believe Glenn Reynolds has been writing about the importance of T cells for several years. But I wouldn’t make too much of that. No one imagines that New York Times reporters or health bureaucrats are as smart as Glenn.

Early in the pandemic, people feared that children, as notorious germ spreaders, would catch and spread the virus easily. They also worried that children would fall particularly ill, because they tend to experience some of the most severe outcomes with influenza and RSV.

This was the excuse for shutting down schools, a catastrophically bad policy whose consequences we will live with for decades.

But with COVID, children seem to have largely been spared from severe illness. Only a small number are hospitalized or develop life-threatening conditions such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome, or MIS-C.

We now have a clearer idea why that’s the case: Children’s immune systems may be better primed against COVID because they are frequently exposed to the benign coronaviruses that cause common colds, said Dr. Alpana Waghmare, an infectious-disease specialist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

I think this is the only time when the Times admits that, while covid was novel in some respects, it is a coronavirus–a category with which we have a great deal of experience, since the common cold is a complex of coronaviruses. And, while the Times would never admit it, by now covid is basically the common cold.

The Times article concludes with this:

Al-Aly said that while many of COVID’s mysteries have been solved, he fears that the public has grown weary of the virus — when in reality, he said, it’s “not in our rearview mirror yet.”

I am pretty sure that the public has, indeed, “grown weary” of endless blather about covid. If covid isn’t in our rear view mirror, it should be. Like all diseases, it is a bad thing that can do harm. But the idea that we should disrupt our entire society; damage our children, perhaps irreparably; cause many billions if not trillions of dollars in economic loss; bankrupt hundreds of thousands of small businesses; and separate many millions of people from their families, on account of covid, is far worse than the disease itself. As many of us could have told you four years ago, and as the Times now does not dare to deny.

The Case For Secession

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas cannot enforce its border control law, SB 4, because it conflicts with federal law that preempts the field of immigration. The decision is here. Jonathan Turley analyzes the issue here.

Briefly, Turley thinks the panel decision is a correct interpretation of the Constitution and of case law on preemption. The constitutional issue turns on the meaning of “invasion,” which the states are empowered to resist under Article I of the Constitution, and against which the federal government is required to defend the states under Article IV. For the moment, I don’t want to debate that conclusion. Let’s assume it is true that the best interpretation of the Constitution and existing case law is that states cannot act to stop illegal immigration because that is a federal role, even if the federal government has completely abdicated its responsibilities. What then?

Whether or not the influx of millions of illegals across the southern border is an invasion in constitutional terms, it certainly is an invasion in common parlance. And for a border state like Texas, it is a comprehensive disaster. The people of Texas plainly have a right to defend themselves against this evil. If being part of the Union makes it legally impossible to defend themselves, it is only right that they should consider whether they want to remain in the Union. This is doubly true if the problem arises from a malicious determination on the part of the federal government to abandon, indeed subvert, one of the basic responsibilities that Texas and other states have delegated to that government.

Of course, no state would secede over an issue of less than enormous importance. But for Texas and other border states–and perhaps for some non-border states as well–illegal immigration is an issue of unparalleled significance. Might a state like Texas legitimately decide that the federal government has so abandoned its duties under the Constitution that it has no alternative but to remove itself from the Union, and vindicate its citizens’ rights itself? I think such a decision, given the enormity of the issue of illegal immigration, would indeed be legitimate. Whether it would be well-advised is a question that should, in my view, be open for debate.

The Daily Chart: Ideology and Anxiety

Do you suppose there just might be a relationship between student ideology and the increase in anxiety or mental illness among young people? Eric Kaufman has done it again, with a report just out from the new Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the University of Buckingham in the UK on how the mental health crisis does not explain wokery. I recommend looking at the whole thing, but one finding in particular jumps out:

The fine print on the x-axis is difficult to read, so here is the total contrast in prose form:

71 percent of the 120 students who are female, very liberal, not heterosexual, of lower socioeconomic class, with Grade-Point Averages below 3 (the 30th percentile) and no religious affiliation report chronic anxiety, whereas only 17 percent of male heterosexuals who have good grades, are conservative, and Christian, report high anxiety.

A word from JFK

Talking about the outrage of the day with a friend, I was reminded of JFK “fat-shaming” the youth of America in his speech at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Children’s Bureau held at the Statler Hilton Hotel in Dallas, Texas (April 9, 1962, video below). In the speech, JFK spoke out against childhood obesity. Indeed, he went so far as to say that “[t]here is nothing, I think, more unfortunate than to have soft, chubby, fat-looking children who go to watch their school play basketball every Saturday and regard that as their week’s exercise.” JFK thought we could do better! However, as a famous Roman orator put it, “O tempora, o mores,” i.e., times have changed. There was a time when this could be said by the President of the United States.

Opening Day

Poems Ancient and Modern is a new Substack site run by, among others, South Dakota’s leading man of letters, Jody Bottum. I subscribe to it, even though I am not much of a poetry lover, and have found it entertaining and illuminating. Poems Ancient and Modern features a new poem, with commentary, every day. In honor of Opening Day, yesterday’s poem was “Casey at the Bat,” which, as Jody points out, is perhaps America’s best-known poem, its only real rival being “A Visit From St. Nicholas.”

Here, Jody relates the history of “Casey at the Bat,” which was written by Ernest L. Thayer, a Harvard grad who is not known for much else. In reading the poem, I realized that while its closing lines are unforgettable, I hadn’t actually read the whole thing in many years. This is how it begins:

The Outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Mudville nine that day:
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play.
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only Casey could get but a whack at that —
We’d put up even money, now, with Casey at the bat.

The poem’s fame is justified. And how many days on the calendar are worth celebrating as much as Opening Day? Three or four, maybe, in my opinion, if you count my wife’s birthday.

For something completely different, today’s poem, “And Ran Away Naked,” is a sonnet taken from the Gospel of Mark. It is written by Maryann Corbett, who, we are told, worked for 35 years in the Office of the Revisor of Statutes of the Minnesota State Legislature. Which I suppose reflects how much money there is in poetry. But the sonnet is good, and even for philistines like me, a daily dose of poetry is not a bad idea. I’d encourage you to check out Poems Ancient and Modern.

Outrage of the day

The St. Paul Saints are the Minnesota Twins’ minor league affiliate across the river. Dating to 1992 in its current incarnation, the Saints were owned by Marv Goldklang, Mike Veeck, and Bill Murray and independent of major league baseball. The Saints have since become the top minor league Twins affiliate and, as of last year, been sold to Diamond Baseball Holdings. As you might guess from the Veeck and Murray names among the original ownership, there is a large element of show-business fun seeded in the team’s DNA: “We’re talking baby pig mascots, massages from nuns, a game with no umpires and bring your dog to the stadium night, among other things.”

Speaking of baby pig mascots, we are relieved to learn that the tradition continues under the Saints’ new ownership. The baby pig delivers baseballs and provide refreshments for umpires. The pig’s name is chosen by team staff in a contest sponsored by the Star Tribune. The name is part of the fun. Staff selected this year’s winning entry — OzemPig — from a record-setting field of 2,300 entries.

The team announced the winner in a light-hearted release that recounted names past. Students of history may appreciate this review:

During the previous 31 seasons, the Saints have had a pig mascot and each has had a unique name. Many of the names play on hot topics of the year, current events, or Minnesota legends. Last season, the Saints no-nonsense pig Mud Grant took the reins in the first half followed by the pig looking to take over the world, Squealon Musk. The first season of the two pigs was in 2022 with 867530Swine during the first half of the season followed by Chop Gun: MaveRib. In the first season as the Twins Triple-A affiliate in 2021 they found a pig that could fly, Space Ham. During the pandemic year they made sure the pig went into lockdown with This Little Piggy Stayed Home. In 2019 the championship drought ender was Daenerys Hoggaryen. In 2018 the Saints struck a chord with the younger generation with Porknite. The year before that they tested the political waters with Alternative Fats. In 2016 the Saints honored one of the most iconic artists with Little Red Porkette. During the first season at CHS Field [their new stadium] the Saints paid homage to Lowertown artists they went with Pablo Pigasso. In 2014 the Saints received the Colboar bump with Stephen Colboar. The 2012 season saw two mascots for the first time: Kim Lardashian and Kris Hamphries. Past names have included Mackleboar (2013), Brat Favre (2010), Slumhog Millionaire (2009), Boarack Ohama (2008), Notorious P.I.G. – Piggy Smalls (2003) and Kevin Bacon (2001).

OzemPig’s winning name has triggered outrage that the Star Tribune finds worthy of coverage, although it buries its sponsorship of the naming contest in its story on it. As the subhead puts it, “Commenters have accused the team of body-shaming on social media.”

That’s the kind of complaint that must strike deep at the Star Tribune. How insensitive can you get? The Pig Contest, as the Saints call it, may soon present a sponsorship opportunity for some enterprise that can withstand the heat generated by this controversy.

The Scourge of Whiteness

St. Louis Park, Minnesota, used to have very good public schools. I suppose it was a matter of demographics: the suburb was, at one time, referred to as “St. Jewish Park.” But those days are long gone. Today the St. Louis Park school district is in the hands of the same kinds of morons who generally run our public schools. Minnesotan David Strom has the story:

The Saint Louis Park School District, located in the suburbs of Minneapolis, is hiring an assistant superintendent to “examine the presence of Whiteness” in the district.

It’s a good gig, paying between $134,000 and $201,000.


But it would be more plausible to say that the problem is an absence of whiteness:

Enrollment of White students has been dropping, with only 53% of the students being White, and as they have fled to other districts, the problem of White Supremacy has gotten worse, leading to horrible test scores.

Funny how that happens. The fewer whites, the more white supremacy.

It’s a troubling thing, to see how Whiteness is harming minority students, and the district is working hard to root it out. As the student body and staff become less White, Whiteness has become an increasing problem.

No doubt testing is a White concept too, so perhaps eliminating measurement of student performance will help improve student success rates.

David isn’t kidding. That is exactly what left-wing school boards and administrators have in mind. This is how hard the district is trying to root out white supremacy:

[T]he job description indicates that the role will have a very particular focus. The first sentence of the position’s summary says, “the Assistant Superintendent proactively supports the Superintendent to create and communicate anti-racist structures and systems, works to interrupt systems of oppression, and serves as a role model for culturally relevant pedagogy.”

The school district continues its summary of the position by saying the assistant superintendent must be “unwaveringly committed to anti-racist actions and use data to adapt and sustain their efforts towards racial equity to plan, direct, and coordinate action to achieve the mission and strategic objectives.”

I will hazard a guess that the percentage of white students in the St. Louis Park public schools will continue to plummet, that as a consequence White Supremacy will be rampant, and the schools will get worse and worse. The only sane response is to flee the public schools.