The relatively good news

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, April 11. 2020

The relatively good news

COVID's graph in NY is beginning to resemble a particularly bad flu season, a dangerous flu season (although COVID is not a flu virus - Corona viruses are best known to be the viruses of the common cold): Look At How Ridiculously Wrong All The COVID-19 Models Were.

As Scott Adams says every day, models are not information. Models are for persuasion. He knows, because he once had a job making them.

Did the shutdowns help prevent mass catastrophe? We will never really know. I suspect that it did help hospitals manage their flow of difficult cases, which was the purpose. They seem to be managing fairly well. Stress is their job.

Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 17:33 | Comments (41) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Ali Mokdad- The Researcher Behind Shady IHME Coronavirus Study and US Policy - Was Forced to Retract Major Study for CDC over Computational Errors

QUOTE:

On Thursday, Dr. Ali Mokdad, a rep for the Bill Gates-funded IHME dodged questions about the low Coronavirus cases in Japan despite not doing “across the country lockdowns” like the U.S.

He didn’t answer the question because he has no answer.

It is important to note that the IHME models predicting hundreds of thousands of dead Americans had social distancing and total lockdowns baked into the projections.

Americans were told that if they all stayed home and only went to the grocery store when necessary, over 200,000 would still die.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/huge-ali-mokdad-researcher-behind-shady-ihme-coronavirus-study-forced-retract-major-study-cdc-computational-errors/

#1 feeblemind on 2020-04-11 17:44 (Reply)

My neighbor usually picks up groceries for me.

https://www.facebook.com/100005406588816/videos/1264205343769673/

#1.1 mike on 2020-04-12 21:01 (Reply)

It is a mistake to say this at this point in time. "The virus in NY looks like a really bad flu season." Do you understand that There was a massive shutdown and self quarantine? What would the virus have looked like without that? You do not know, in fact any guess on your part would likely be worse than the models you criticize. Secondly this virus isn't over. The flu season you are comparing it with is over and done with and in the record books. This virus is just getting started. Did you really think because the number of new cases is finally starting to go down meant that it's over?? Seriously as soon as they end the shutdown the virus will surface again. AND it hasn't even begun in most of our big cities. IT WILL. This is not the time to go wobbly.

#2 John Galt on 2020-04-11 18:19 (Reply)

Factoring the change in human interaction is one of the hardest variables to get right. I think enough ppl are taking this seriously and that is making the difference.

#2.1 molloaggie on 2020-04-12 15:50 (Reply)

The flu bros have been told all that again and again. They don’t care. They’ve fallen in love with the lie. Truth is the enemy now, from where they sit.

I suppose they must be getting something out of it.

#2.2 Wilbur Hassenfus on 2020-04-12 17:27 (Reply)

"What would the virus have looked like without that? YOU DO NOT KNOW. In fact any guess on your part would likely be worse than the models you criticize."

Huh?

So, when you say we don't know what things would have looked like without the lockdown, why do you then go on storage assume that they likely would have been worse? Like you said "YOU DO NOT KNOW."

#2.3 mike on 2020-04-12 21:07 (Reply)

Influenza is a recurring cold-weather illness, a bit different every year. C19 is continuing to grow even as the weather warms. So far. That may abate. We do not have firm conclusions, but it seems it is much more contagious than influenza, but not more fatal on a per-case basis. Perhaps even less.

People are not dying in the streets of Italy, Spain, Ecuador over any year's flu.

It is still unpredictable, and is in addition to the yearly influenza. It would be nice not to keep adding recurring diseases every year.

#3 Assistant Village Idiot on 2020-04-11 18:30 (Reply)

Influenza is not a cold-weather disease. It does have better stability in temperate zones at low ambient temperatures and low relative humidities. Specifically, it persists longer on surfaces and in air at 5 C (41 F) and 20% RH. A 2007 study I found also discovered that the guinea pigs used also shed more virus when subjected to the 5 C AT at all RHs.

What is odd, although demonstrated since 1941, the "health" authorities ignore the transmission via close-range aerosol and time exposure in favor of the "likely" surface and droplet transmission. An easy test would have been to have school children wear cloth face coverings when school starts.

This virus also has similar stability AT and RH patterns but it also has a population with no immunity. We do have to be skeptical of the impact of temperature and humidity for SARS 2.0 until more experience is had. I do expect some decline in infections with warming temps, but infections will continue due to immunity issues. Pandemic influenza also continues until controlled, and is not seasonal.

The odd man out is that influenza is a year round infection in tropical regions that have warmer temps and higher humidities. Speculation is touch transmission dominates.

#3.1 JK Brown on 2020-04-12 02:47 (Reply)

Thank you for the clarification

#3.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2020-04-12 14:28 (Reply)

So what is this years Flu tally?

#4 Jerry on 2020-04-11 18:47 (Reply)

The same straw man arguments keep circulating, armchair experts clamoring just as they were before the shutdown, but with different excuses. The Gateway Dimwit seems to have lost all introspective capability, now everyone with differing views or inaccurate predictions is 'lying'. Just because an allowance has been made to account for social distancing and shutdowns doesn't make the models precision instruments. They're models.

The St Louis region of the Mississippi basin is starting to heat up now - https://healthweather.us/?mode=Observed - but if one examines the trend on the X-Y graph below the US map, the trend of Influenza-Like-Illnesses in the US is way, way below normal, and that includes the seasonal flu as well as COVID-19. The plan is working.

It would be best to channel energy into figuring out how to minimize the economic damage and re-start the national economy safely, rather than argue about everything on ideological terms for political advantage. The Democrats already have the market cornered on that.

#5 Aggie on 2020-04-11 18:57 (Reply)

Very interesting data on the Kinsa dataset. There are some cautions and caveats about the data in the link below. https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/kinsa-smart-thermometer-data-fevers-covid19.html

#5.1 B'Radical on 2020-04-11 19:23 (Reply)

There's a chart going around of "all cause" mortality by month for NYC that was put together yesterday by the New York Times, supposedly mostly with CDC data. It shows a MASSIVE spike in April, way over double normal mortality, which kind of makes sense because we're at the tail of a severe flu season and the COVID deaths are in addition to those.

New hospital admissions have been down a few days in a row, although deaths were down and then way up again. So there are some good signs that bode well, but nothing so definitive that we can say we're past the peak for sure.

Count me as an agnostic about whether many of the compulsory restrictions that are in place make sense outside of dense urban areas. You say "Did the shutdowns help prevent mass catastrophe? We will never really know." and I think that we probably could from post-hoc analysis and comparison with different approaches in different countries, BUT:

a) even that is risky: I'm thinking that the different age profile of cases in Germany vs Italy/Spain is that German cases were all either people returning from skiing vacations or their peers with whom they had contact upon return, whereas Italy and Spain it hit the elderly very early on.

b) there seems to be a tremendous amount of social and corporation pressure (such as articles being memory-holed at Medium and Tweets/Facebook posts disappearing) that one may not question the narrative that "stay home" is good public policy, regardless of the cost in lives and livelihoods. I'm not sure we'll be allowed to question whether control of the epidemic could have happened without the business closures, curfews, travel-restrictions, etc. that have been imposed by the various states.

#6 Douglas2/Unknown on 2020-04-11 19:56 (Reply)

Further to the above;

I'm beginning to suspect that we've got excess non-COVID deaths out of hospital that would perhaps been spread over a longer time into the summer if supposedly "elective" treatments had not been cancelled to keep the hospital beds free. The two biggest healthcare/hospital providers in my area have been so successful at keeping beds free and patients out of their local practices that they're forced to lay off a substantial number of front-line staff!

But perhaps I'm not being rational, as I don't think I've ever had a weekend where so many elderly relatives and friends have died. (None of these have been COVID related.)

I've been treated in a German hospital during the Swine Flu epidemic, I think their Bismarck-model healthcare system with multi-payer and and a mix of public and private hospitals and providers is a fantastic and successful model. It may be that Germany's 'good' results in comparison with southern European countries are merely because they've got such a good system, but I think the virus arrived there infecting a healthier population than it did in other countries.

It amuses me to see articles giving an "F" grade to Wyoming for it's lack of distancing as surveilled via movement of mobile phones, followed by articles asking what Wyoming is "doing right" to have so few hospitalizations and zero deaths, in spite of it's ski centers bringing in lots of carriers before they were closed. I think the cell-phone-surveillance proponents haven't calibrated their models for the proportion of Wyoming people engaged in essential tasks like food production. But I also think that most of the population there is being sensible even without government-enforced restrictions.

Was it really a week ago that I saw an article quoting a GE engineer trying to ramp-up ventilator production and finding that many businesses that they would contract for die-making had been shut down as "non-essential"?

#6.1 Douglas2/Unknown on 2020-04-11 20:02 (Reply)

We won’t know the actual excess mortality until a year from now when all the death certificates for 2020 have entered the vital records registries and can be analyzed.

Someone dying in April of Covid-19 instead of dying in October from COPD is sad, but it is not excess mortality for the year 2020. A lot of the folks dying have serious underlying conditions.

Until then it’s just models all the way down.

Don’t believe any claims around COVID-19 that use adjusted data. This is an unprecedented global pandemic and the only believable data are the actual numbers.

#7 Anon on 2020-04-12 02:02 (Reply)

"Someone dying in April of Covid-19 instead of dying in October from COPD is sad, but it is not excess mortality for the year 2020."

You might reflect on the phrase "slippery slope" there. What about people with diabetes and hypertension but a current life expectancy of another ten years? Okay to shove them off the pier, too?

#7.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2020-04-12 08:15 (Reply)

Isn't that the basis of the Life Insurance industry?

#7.1.1 Jerry on 2020-04-12 08:47 (Reply)

He wasn’t explicitly advocating for such a thing, just noting it as a data quality issue. Which it is.

There are all kinds of data quality issues here. More people are dying of COVID19-related causes but fewer people are dying from accidents, etc, — but also we know that more people will OD and kill themselves due to lockdown and economic consequences, job loss, etc.

How and when do we know if we are “winning”? I have no idea.

#7.1.2 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2020-04-12 09:37 (Reply)

It is interesting that the outer boroughs of NYC are the hardest hit compared to Manhattan. Masks may turn out to have been protective in the stale air of mass transit. Other reasons may prove out, but 30 minutes in poorly ventilated subway and bus air where virus is being shed seems very plausible.

N95, even procedure masks are likely not needed. Cloth coverings not only catch your spittle, but also moves your body's defenses shallower instead of cold dry air drying mucous used to move contaminates and outer respiratory system being closer to the favored temperature of virus in cold ambient temps.

#8 JK Brown on 2020-04-12 03:07 (Reply)

And because models are not precision instruments — now demonstrated clearly for the entire world — politicians and CDC bureaucrats should know better than to use them - especially the worst case scenarios - to strangle the economy and put the future of the entire country on hold indefinitely. And yet here we are.

It’s the “who uses them for what ends” thing that is the problem. Scott Adams missed that point completely in his diatribe about how “actually, these models were super accurate” the other day.

Models bt themselves, in isolation, are not damaging in any way. They are inert, lifeless things and until they get weaponized against us we do not care about them in the slightest.

It’s the combination of models that prove later to be wildly wrong and are used by corrupt/incapable/stupid politicians, risk-averse bureaucrats, media dumbasses and all the other power-mad thugs that lie to us every day to destroy our way of life, that is the issue here.

So those of us who care about abuse of power go back to the source and bitch about the models being wrong, which is true, but not really the important point here.

#9 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2020-04-12 09:29 (Reply)

In approximately ten weeks there have been over 500,000 cases and 20,000 deaths.

Without the shut down and social distancing measures those numbers could easily be 10 to twenty times higher.

In my opinion the measures have been severe but what would be the impact of 10 million sick and 400,000 deaths in seventy days?

#10 mc203c on 2020-04-12 11:00 (Reply)

“Without the shut down and social distancing measures those numbers could easily be 10 to twenty times higher.”

They could easily be anything you want because it’s pure conjecture based — again — on models we absolutely cannot trust.

It sounds like an actual discussion point, but it isn’t.

#11 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2020-04-12 11:10 (Reply)

Well... actually it is if you understand math. Let's make this simple, for obvious reasons: If you have a disease that is readily communicable it is often used in a model by determining how many people on average a single infected person infects. The number for Covid-19 is 5. Without a shutdown/quarantine the infections would double every two days until most people had been infected. Now with a death rate of 0.1% that would mean about 330,000 dead in the U.S. We don't know the exact death rate and probably won't for 18 months or so but like so many things we must make decisions with the data we have and not wait 18 months. So the models were an estimate based on what we believed was correct at the time.
But the shutdown/quarantine was actually hyper-effective, much more effective than we estimated it would be. So as a result the number of deaths so far are manageable, i.e. hasn't overwhelmed the hospitals in the areas that are hot spots. So as a result math ignorant people jump on this to make fake claims even to include that the models were wrong, which they were not. The data. the facts on the ground actually changed.

But what does that mean for Covid-19 in the long run? Well unless we find a cure or develop a vaccine most people in this country and probably every country, will get it and unless the hospitals are overwhelmed, the death rate will remain around 0.1%. So eventually, perhaps 18 months or so a lot of people are going to die from this. We only flattened the curve we did not stop the virus. It will continue to ravage the country/world and the perpetually math ignorant will continue to deny it.

I would suggest you check back every two weeks. Right now the death total in the U.S. is 21,435. In two weeks it will probably be 50,000 or so. two weeks after that it could be 100,000. So keep checking in and see if your theory is correct and the models were totally wrong and no one has died.

#11.1 Anon on 2020-04-12 12:34 (Reply)

Anon, yes people will die. It can’t be prevented. Even with a vaccine people will STILL die. Like with a flue vaccine - we still get tens of thousands of deaths a year from the flu and there is a vaccine!

So the question is what is the balance of deaths versus costs. Last week there were 1,000 jobs lost every ten seconds. We’re going to see 20 million or more unemployed. People are already going hungry. There will likely be riots. Cities will probably burn.

There is a toll of human misery with a total lockup, including deaths. Your laser focus on one side of the equation without any consideration of second order effects show that you’re just another type of fanatic.

#11.1.1 Anon2 on 2020-04-12 13:41 (Reply)

Hungry? Who is going hungry? Riots? Really, what's your evidence? Cities burning? On what basis do you think so?

I agree that we need to look at both sides of the balance pan. But we also have to look at what is really there and what isn't.

#11.1.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2020-04-12 14:34 (Reply)

re Hungry? Who is going hungry?

6,000 families line up in cars for hours at San Antonio food bank
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8207245/Six-THOUSAND-families-line-cars-hours-food-bank-San-Antonio.html

Sign of the times: Mile-long line of cars outside California grocery giveaway

https://news.trust.org/item/20200409221616-zj0s0

COVID-19 crisis heaps pressure on nation's food banks
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/covid-19-crisis-heaps-pressure-nation-s-food-banks-n1178731

Massive Line: Hundreds Of Cars Line Up For Food Distribution Event In Duquesne Due To Coronavirus Pandemic
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/04/06/duquesne-food-bank-giveaway/

Nobody's going hungry. Couldn't be.

I guess these people are just trying to take advantage and get free food. It can't be because their kids are hungry.

#11.1.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2020-04-12 15:34 (Reply)

Did you ever wonder why people who own cars, often nice cars, own cell phones, often the best cell phones and have full body tattoos can't seem to feed their kids even though they get free housing, food stamps, free medical and welfare checks??? I can guarantee you that they were there for the free food and probably smoking pot or doing crack in their cars while they waited in line.

#11.1.1.1.1.1 JohnGalt on 2020-04-12 18:19 (Reply)

Then why the sudden surge in bread lines John Galt?

Why is it not like this all the time?

#11.1.1.1.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2020-04-12 18:34 (Reply)

Two reasons. There is a sudden surge in the do gooder community to feed the children who aren't getting their free lunch in school. In my state they decided to give the kids three meals a day and a lot of them get delivered. Secondly there is a sudden surge in the media showing what has been going on for decades.

If you actually know anyone on welfare you will know they never skip their cigarettes, booze and drugs even if their kids don't get three squares a day. It is a lifestyle and self replicating. If you want more people on welfare or in food bank lines then offer more welfare and food from food banks. If on the other hand you want to raise independent self sufficient people give them only advice.

#11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 JohnGalt on 2020-04-12 19:18 (Reply)

BINGO!

I disagreed with you (largely on philosophical grounds) above, but I'll give you credit when you're right and you hit the nail on the head. When we absolve negligent parents of their duty to provide food, clothing and shelter for kids they purposely brought into the world by taking over their duty to provide meals for their kids, we create a moral hazard and both the parents and the kids get the message: "You're entitled to free stuff. It's someone else's responsibility."

It's not an issue of lack of money. It's an issue of lack of values. lack of personal responsibility and self-discipline is a lifestyle and it's optional and self chosen.

It's why the promise of Obamacare that US healthcare costs would drop because the poor would no longer seek routine care in the expensive ER setting proved to be false. It was never about lack of insurance or lack of money.

The reason people show up to the ER at 2AM with a runny nose they've had for a week or uncontrolled blood pressure for 3 months is because they didn't bother to make an appointment with the health department or a family doc. It's a lack of personal responsibility and discipline.

#11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mike on 2020-04-12 21:22 (Reply)

BINGO!

I disagreed with you (largely on philosophical grounds) above, but I'll give you credit when you're right and you hit the nail on the head. When we absolve negligent parents of their duty to provide food, clothing and shelter for kids they purposely brought into the world by taking over their duty to provide meals for their kids, we create a moral hazard and both the parents and the kids get the message: "You're entitled to free stuff. It's someone else's responsibility."

It's not an issue of lack of money. It's an issue of lack of values. lack of personal responsibility and self-discipline is a lifestyle and it's optional and self chosen.

It's why the promise of Obamacare that US healthcare costs would drop because the poor would no longer seek routine care in the expensive ER setting proved to be false. It was never about lack of insurance or lack of money.

The reason people show up to the ER at 2AM with a runny nose they've had for a week is because they lacked the responsibility and discipline to make an appointment with the health department or family doc.

#11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 mike on 2020-04-12 21:24 (Reply)

I volunteer for a food charity. The people who come are not hungry, but if they are given food it does free up money to do other things. People sometimes do not have what they want, but missing even one meal because there is nothing in the cupboard is rare in America. You will search long before you find a family that misses multiple meals in a week.

Starches are cheap, and filling. They aren't that good for you, but at least you aren't hungry.

#11.1.1.1.1.2 Assistant Village Idiot on 2020-04-12 20:20 (Reply)

I am not saying we shouldn't go back to work. The lockdown/quarantine was intended to buy us time and get ready for the people who would need serious care. The point I made was ONLY about the predictions and what is yet to come. If we had not flattened the curve many people would have died who simply needed medical care. Now we are in a better position to care for more seriously ill people. So ease the lockdown, start back to work but do not be fooled this virus has just begun to fight and tens of thousands more will die.

#11.1.1.2 Anon on 2020-04-12 18:16 (Reply)

I understand math just fine, having been both an engineering and math major for a time, graduating with a BS in Computer Science, and spending 25+ years as a software developer.

That career path depends on understanding and defining the problem correctly, every time. I’m pretty good at it because I had to be. 95% of the population is absolutely not capable of doing that kind of work.

These “what would have happened if” and “watch what will happen” scenarios are not math. Reminder: models are not accurate and are not meant to be, so stop treating them as if they are and then pretending youhave math on your side. You don’t. Go argue with the people who built the crappy models that don’t support the reality we are watching unfold with our own eyes. Do they understand math?!

#11.1.2 Jeff Brokaw (Link) on 2020-04-12 13:50 (Reply)

Well I too was an engineering and math major got a BS in computer science and an MBA in computer management systems. I spent 45 years in the field and for about 7 of those years I developed models all kinds of computer models.

If you are right and the numbers haven't doubled in 30 days then you win the math debate. I betting the numbers will more than double in 30 days and again in the following 30 days. If they do then I win the math contest.

#11.1.2.1 Anon on 2020-04-12 18:24 (Reply)

I can't laud our health workers (and others) for all their hard work and sacrifices on our behalf. I'm trying to remain focused on that, in order to get over the massive anger I feel for those people who gave us those Covid-19 models and told us it was reality.

#12 RebeccaH on 2020-04-12 12:38 (Reply)

Who are you talking about, I wonder, RebeccaH (not attacking you, just wondering why we see it differently)? What I heard were communicable disease specialists saying that the models were what they had to work with, that there was a sea of unknowns, that other countries were being hit hard, that China was not forthcoming with access to real verifiable numbers, and that they were working feverishly to incorporate data as it became available to improve the model forecasts - which is exactly what they have been doing.

Now we have people that are complaining that the numbers are lower, and moaning that the economy is ruined. I'm perplexed by this. No, it isn't. Sorry for the perturbations of the normal nationwide conditions of immediate gratification that we enjoy when things work predictably. I dunno - maybe we're a little spoiled, eh?

Maybe we ought to be grateful things are working out better than expected and are looking up, and thankful that the mortalities are going to be lower and the hospital loads manageable. I know that I am, especially today, Easter. It will be hard for a while, we are all going to have to contribute differently to recover, but I think we will be fine.

#12.1 Aggie on 2020-04-12 14:30 (Reply)

Some people got their groceries from a food bank instead of a store is not the same thing as them "going hungry." At least not enough to riot over.

Likewise, some portion of the population being without work for a few weeks - or even a few months - is not the same as the collapse of our civilization. Especially as "without work" is not the same as "without money," given the extra unemployment benefits available right now.

And yes, I know from firsthand experience that unemployment benefits suck compared to having a job, but we're not a society that just lets people die because they can't shop for their own food with their own money.

I find it fascinating that the very kind of people (not thinking of any specific commenter here, btw) who will point out the fact that our safety nets are so generous that there is no true poverty in our country anymore, are the same sort who are most likely to set their hair on fire that we and generations of our children will be consigned to the worst sort of dystopia if we do not reopen right. this. minute.

#13 Thos. on 2020-04-12 17:58 (Reply)

Thank you for this clarity.

#13.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2020-04-12 20:24 (Reply)

QUOTE:

As Scott Adams says every day, models are not information. Models are for persuasion. ...

Scott's comment is valid as far as it goes. I have also seen models used as cover for decision makers, whether the models are otherwise persuasive or not. In this case, I would tend to regard Scott's position as the more plausible.

#14 Phil, Jr. on 2020-04-12 18:34 (Reply)

First of all, the standard caveat: simple does not imply easy.
It looks like the models made at least one of two fundamental errors: They either underestimated the number of index cases arriving in the US, or else based their spread rates at least in part on nursing home and cruise ships, which were the early loci of the disease. The second error is especially pernicious, since both of these tend to consist of higher than normal concentrations of especially vulnerable people. My wife was on a ship just before this happened, and said that she was amazed at the number of people with oxygen generators and canisters on board. This led to amplification of both the spread rate and the percentage of people who would experience severe symptoms.
The other factor is that it is absurd to think that there should be a single isolation standard for the entire country. It is the number of personal contacts in a given period of time that drives transmission rates. Someone in Lower Manhattan, New York, is likely to have more such contacts in a day even under lockdown conditions than someone in Ottumwa, Iowa, would have in a typical day with no movement restrictions. Hence low spread in Wyoming and continued spread in New York, even under the differing restriction regimes. (another possibility, which I somewhat discount, is that the farmers and ranchers of Wyoming are more familiar with quarantine and isolation procedures due to experience with livestock movements and more easily adapt to them in their own lives.)

#15 Another Guy named Dan on 2020-04-13 08:19 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, April 11. 2020

The relatively good news