When Gov. Sisolak originally announced his “stay at home”
orders and mandated closing of “non-essential” businesses the stated reason was
primarily to prevent the state’s health care system from being overrun.
Now every time he makes a public statement his policies are
about “saving lives.” So governor, what changed? Why is the purpose now
different? Especially now that many hospitals are facing economic duress as
much of their mainstay business has been set aside, by your order, to prepare
for the apparently non-existent overrun of COVID-19 patients.
That raises the question, if your true intent is to save lives
how far are you willing to go? People die from vehicle accidents. Are you
willing to ban driving to save lives? Heart disease is the number one cause of
death in Nevada, with over 6,000 annually. Are you going to send law
enforcement into our now-quarantined homes to make sure we do our daily cardio
exercises? Smoking contributes to the third largest cause of death. Why not ban
cigarettes altogether? Drug abuse is another killer. All of these may save
lives. Besides, now that you have a taste of it, maybe you could declare a
state emergency for whatever you desire.
Some things about the COVID-19 virus are now becoming apparent
that should change your view. First, it is becoming apparent that the virus was
in the U.S. far earlier than first thought, possibly since October 2019. Second,
it is becoming apparent that far more people have contracted the virus with
either no symptoms or no treatment than is being reported.
A study in New York City showed one in four people carried
antibodies. A study by Stanford University revealed that 50 times more people
carry the antibody than have been tested or treated. And a University of
Southern California study showed similar results but closer to 85 times more
people with antibodies. This data reduces the mortality rate to under one-half
percent, similar to other flu and cold viruses. None of these sources can be
considered bastions of conservatism but the results are being universally
ignored. Governor, did these studies enter into your thinking?
Third, there seems to be a political aspect to the virus. The
media releases a barrage of ominous and often incomplete or incorrect reporting
to keep the fearmongering going. The liberals couldn’t take Trump down with
lies and scandals, but they believe an economic crisis will. It is in their
interest to keep this going as long as possible regardless of the impact on the
poor and middle class. Just ask who really benefits from the shutdown.
There are far more people unconcerned or barely concerned
about the virus than those in full-fledged concern. People are tired of
intrusive orders made with no oversight or restriction. Admittedly, it is worse
in some other states. But the joining of Nevada with other western states
(Idaho and Utah noticeably opting out) is concerning. Governor, why can’t we
make our own decisions without relying on California and Washington?
Governor, you have wreaked havoc on the state’s economy.
Unemployment is now at a record high. Despite your assurances to the contrary,
people cannot access government services like unemployment benefits. The system
is overloaded without change in sight. Small and large businesses are on the
verge of bankruptcy and failure. Basic services such as haircuts and exercise
facilities are banned.
Governor, there are those who believe your end goal is a state
income tax. I don’t think that was your original intent. A state income tax
will require amending the state constitution, a 4- to 6-year process. Previous
attempts have failed. Even your liberal friends balk at that. Hopefully people
have long memories. But other new taxes will be proposed. The question now is
if you think you can raise taxes without voter approval under the guise of
“Until it is safe” means never. Don’t delude us with that
promise. You don’t get to decide for us what is safe and what isn’t. Trust the
good Nevadans you so often referred to in your Thursday news conference to make
their own choices.
Businesses should be allowed to open with the level of
safeguards they, not you, deem appropriate. Customers are then able to choose
whether they accept those safeguards as appropriate or take their business
elsewhere. Freedom is not without risk. Don’t tell us you are better able to
determine that risk than us.