Bernie Sanders is a Bad Salesman

Body language speaks volumes and Bernie's body language is not welcoming or inclusive.

Too bad that Bernie won't be around to see it happen -- that is how badly he has hurt his own cause.

The real shame is that if he had been a better salesman the outcome might have been different. Bernie Sanders is like the dog who chases cars. You know that if he finally catches a car he won't know what to do and he won't be able to form a coalition to figure it out, either. Because angry dogs who chase cars don't form coalitions.

It is time for a new personality to carry the flag from here. And I use the word flag deliberately, because Bernie Sanders has failed to invoke patriotism in support of his agenda. He does not sell it as our patriotic duty, he sells it like, "Just listen -- we are the only western democracy who doesn't have universal health coverage and if you idiots weren't so stupid you would see that."

I'm sorry, but that is not a sales approach.

When the industrial military complex wants a new aircraft carrier they invoke the flag and patriotism. When active duty military members want better pay and benefits they invoke the flag and patriotism. Now that is a sales approach.

WHAT IS MORE PATRIOTIC THAN DEFENDING THE HEALTH OF AMERICANS HERE AT HOME?

Somehow, this simple and obvious truth has evaded Bernie Sanders and he is pitching his plan on moral grounds, not on patriotic grounds.

Instead he should be drumming home this equivalency:

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE = NATIONAL DEFENSE

Most Americans would agree with this statement:

"What good is a shiny new aircraft carrier if a member of your family member cannot get access to the insulin needed to control their diabetes?"

Unfortunately, I have never heard Bernie Sanders use this equivalency as an argument. He keeps talking about universal health coverage as a moral imperative, the evidence of which is that every other OECD country already has it.

Sorry, Bernie, you've spent so long as an outsider, griping and sniping, that you are unable to sell this to the public. Time for a new messenger.

And, hopefully they can drop the mantle of "democratic socialism" which is non-starter in America. Universal health coverage is 100% compatible with capitalism, patriotism and nationalism. Presenting it as a "socialist" agenda is wrong and damaging to the effort.

Protect Domestic Oil and Gas Producers from the Oil Price War

Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally but their actions threaten our security.

The Saudis and the Russians have joined forces in yet another effort to knock the United States out of the #1 position as petroleum producer. To do this, they are taking advantage of the inevitable weakening of demand because of the COVID-19 pandemic to magnify the impact of their supply increases.

What the world markets need in a time of crisis is stability, yet the Russians and Saudis seem hell-bent on kicking us while we are down.

What can we do about this?

• Maximize diplomatic efforts to convince the Saudis and Russians that price stability is what is most important right now.
• Leverage the strategic relationship to put pressure on the Saudi leadership.
• Ban the import of any foreign crude until the crisis has resolved, except for Canadian crude.
• Use a portion of the federal excise tax to create a subsidy for domestic producers to help them weather the storm. For example, a $5 per barrel subsidy would only cost $1.9B per month and would be more than sufficient to keep domestic producers afloat.
• Add to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves, to include the addition of new storage capacity if needed.

The world is at risk of shifting into a deflationary spiral which could be very destructive to wealth and to the debt that this wealth back-stops. Therefore, efforts must be made to stabilize markets while we work our way through the curent health crisis.

Don't Let The Response to COVID-19 Be Worse Than The Disease

No, COVID-19 is NOT the zombie virus

UPDATE 3/17/2020:

So I just came across correspondence published in The Lancet on 3/11/2020 and it is some scary stuff.

Here is what the Lancet has to say about these results:

"Estimates will increase if a longer delay between onset of illness and death is considered. A recent time-delay adjusted estimation indicates that mortality rate of COVID-19 could be as high as 20% in Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak. These findings show that the current figures might underestimate the potential threat of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients."

(https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30195-X/fulltext)

So, yikes, this certainly got my attention. However (and, this is why random testing is so important and failing to test randomly so dangerous), people who got infected but were not reported as infected to the authorities because they experienced mild symptoms and recovered at home were NOT considered in this study. Therefore the true mortality rate could be MUCH LOWER.

Here is what the authors had to say on that point:

"Notably, the full denominator remains unknown because asymptomatic cases or patients with very mild symptoms might not be tested and will not be identified. Such cases therefore cannot be included in the estimation of actual mortality rates, since actual estimates pertain to clinically apparent COVID-19 cases."

 Nonetheless, this article is going to scare people way more than they might otherwise be scared, which will lead to an increased risk of panic, chaos and a more draconian government response.

IT IS PAST TIME FOR RANDOM TESTING TO GET A HANDLE ON HOW MANY CASES ARE PRESENT IN THE GENERAL POPULATION -- IS ANYONE LISTENING?

UPDATE 3/16/2020:

Only through random testing can the CDC determine how prevalent the COVID-19 virus is, but for some reason the United States doesn't have enough test kits to engage in random testing, and the test kits we do have take several days to produce a result, while the rest of the world has ample test kits that can produce a result in 4 hours.

For unknown reasons the CDC refused to adopt the WHO test kit in favor of a homegrown option that we are still waiting for.

By the time the test kits arrive the virus will be everywhere and it will be too late, so nice work killing people.

UPDATE 3/15/2020:

If COVID-19 is mainly a threat to those over 60 years old, pregnant women, and anyone else who is immuno-deficient (such as people receiving cancer treatment), doesn’t it make more sense to isolate that sub-group and let the rest of the population go about their business as usual in order to develop herd immunity?

Herd immunity can be highly effective in stopping viral flare-ups when more than half of the population are immune and cannot spread the virus.

Until a vaccine is available, letting people fight the virus naturally might help us control future outbreaks.

Because the economic impact of weeks and weeks of closures brings with it greater costs and risks to society, including permanent wealth destruction and dangerous deterioration of the social order.

ORIGINAL POST 3/11/2020:

I think it is important to remember that while the novel coronavirus that is currently racing around the globe is new and is highly contagious it is only lethal to those who are already immuno-comprised, such as is the case in the elderly or the infirm. In fact, some estimates indicate that at least 80% of those infected suffer only very mild symptoms.

In that regard COVID-19 is better than the regular influenza strains that circulate each year.

Which is not to say that COVID-19 isn't a virus that is worth protecting ourselves from.

The questions is this: how far is too far to go in efforts to prevent the spread of the virus?

Epidemiologists current estimate that it is virtually impossible to prevent COVID-19 from infecting up to 60% of the world's population and that current efforts at control are doomed to fail. However, these efforts could easily bankrupt us, leaving us in a financially weak position and unable to deal with the treatment of the infected.

So, what is the appropriate response? Basically, to resign ourselves that this thing is coming and there is no stopping it, and that we should prepare emergency treatment facilities to deal with the approximately 10% of infected who will require life-saving measures.

We should NOT attempt to quarantine the population at large (such as what Italy is doing currently) or take any other measures that deviate in any significant way from the routine.

Yes, this means that the virus will rage for a while and many people will die, but that is all but inevitable in any event. We should be focused at this time on keeping our powder dry and preparing to do our best to save the infected who present with severe symptoms.

And, above all, DO NOT PANIC.

Reference

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30567-5/fulltext