Alaska Trip Day 2: Terranea Oceanfront Resort, LA

[Remember: this is just a Virtual Virus Vacation. It’s what I had booked before had to cancel coz Covid-19].

So, here we are. On our virtual virus vacation.  And this is what I had booked, the Terranea Oceanfront Resort in LA. Surely you’ve gotta be oceanfront when you’re in LA, but it’s also close-in to town.
Last time we were here was in January 1998, with new-born John along with us. We visited the usual, and then to Salt Lake City, where we met an owner of a wraps franchise we were thinking of buying into, name un-recalled, but Mormon, friendly but also keen to get us to convert. Made sure we stopped at a strip mall and bought me a copy of “The Book of Mormon”.  It’s been a reliable cure for insomnia.
Then to Park City, Utah, for some skiing. Pretty, pretty, pretty. preeeettyyyy, good.

New Nest

Our Bulbuls' nest in our mango tree

Includes bits of Basil’s fur.
Last time we had a Bulbul nest in our mango tree, they laid a number of eggs, then a few days later they were gone. We suspected either snakes or cats. I’ve looked them up, and either is capable. 

So this time we added a Cat-Snake Cone, made by Arlene out of an old umbrella.

UPDATE (10/5/20):  Robert Ferguson of WildcreaturesHK says:

That is very smart…and im sure they are appreciative. More likely culprit is perhaps a larger bird….like the red-billed blue magpie that often raid nests. 

You may need other protection I am afraid…

So we’re thinking. 

Alaska Trip Day 1: Hong Kong → LA

Here it is, the master plan

[This is just a Virtual Virus Vacation. It’s what I had booked before had to cancel coz Covid-19. Click on the “Alaska Trip” label below and then scroll down to the beginning]

We were going to head off to America today. All set. All booked. All good. Then we got Covid-ed.  Had to cancel it all. But I’ve still got the itinerary I did, so I’m going to do an imaginary trip. A virtual virus vacation.
The basic plan was: (A) Drive around SW America, desert lands, high mountain country for a couple of weeks, then Salt Lake City to Juneau for (B) Alaska cruise, bear and glacier hunting, for couple of weeks. Good plan!
Day one is Hong Kong to LA. Air Canada seems the go, around $3,500 round trip, bus class vs Cathay about five times more. As long as the seat goes flat, I don’t care the airline.  If it’s toss up, then Cathay, for sure.
There’s not much to say about this first leg. Around 13 hours, a literal pain in the arse, and it’s going to be a good 24 hours by the time we’re done with all the faffing. And the jet lag, which we get badly going West to East. Somehow the other way around, going to London from HK say, doesn’t hurt as much. I know, have to take those tabs I’ve got somewhere.
Air travel is boring for everyone. Except when you can’t do it. So, I leave it there for Day one.....

How is the coronavirus transmitted?

Three main ways.  Which one is the principal way?
1.  Flügge droplets. Aka Respiratory droplets, large enough to drop to the ground. In sneezes, coughs, shouting... etc..
2.  Aerosol droplets: that float in the air and spread by, eg, air conditioning
3.  By touch on surfaces.

It’s critical to know this, because it determines which are the best tactics for reopening economies.
And to do this, you have to study Superspreader Events (SSE), as Jonathan Kay does here.
It’s a bit nerdy, but worth the read, I reckon. /Snip:

Gaining such an understanding is absolutely critical to the task of tailoring emerging public-health measures and workplace policies, because the process of policy optimization depends entirely on which mechanism (if any) is dominant:

1. If large droplets [Flugge or Respiratory droplets] are found to be a dominant mode of transmission, then the expanded use of masks and social distancing is critical, because the threat will be understood as emerging from the ballistic droplet flight connected to sneezing, coughing, and laboured breathing. We would also be urged to speak softly, avoid “coughing, blowing and sneezing,” or exhibiting any kind of agitated respiratory state in public, and angle their mouths downward when speaking.
2. If lingering clouds of tiny aerosol droplets are found to be a dominant mode of transmission, on the other hand, then the focus on sneeze ballistics and the precise geometric delineation of social distancing protocols become somewhat less important—since particles that remain indefinitely suspended in an airborne state can travel over large distances through the normal processes of natural convection and gas diffusion. In this case, we would need to prioritize the use of outdoor spaces (where aerosols are more quickly swept away) and improve the ventilation of indoor spaces.
3. If contaminated surfaces [fomites] are found to be a dominant mode of transmission, then we would need to continue, and even expand, our current practice of fastidiously washing hands following contact with store-bought items and other outside surfaces; as well as wiping down delivered items with bleach solution or other disinfectants.

Another thing that jumped out:

Given that the main function of the WHO is to control spread of infectious diseases, why on earth are they not doing this work? Why are they not doing what Jonathan Kay is doing?  Adds to my increasingly jaundiced view of the WHO, which began when I saw their tweets in mid January denying human-to-human transmission and was deepened by their statement end January that controlling travel was not the way to go (given that that’s now main way the virus is being controlled around the world).
From the comments an interesting study of the relationship between viruses and Relative Humidity. which for viruses is 40-80%. See here and the chart below:

Afternoon ride

Let’s focus on 2048 and 2049 and ...

... 2050 and 2051. In other words, let’s focus on what happens post ’47.

Why is 2047 so important? The HK Basic Law says that Hong Kong is to continue with its present system of society and governance for “at least” fifty years from the handover on 1 July 1997. Hence 2047. That’s why the date looms so large. At handover it seemed too far into the future to worry about. Now, it’s just around the corner. And the use of the words “at least” gives an opening for talks.

The problem here is the protesters, and their pan-dem enablers. What they’ve done is worn away any goodwill there might have been on the Beijing side to discuss the issue. It might have been possible right up to mid last year. But now hatred of Beijing is thrown in its face. Why would Beijing want to talk with interlocutors who despise them?

The protesters have a schizophrenic view of China.  They fear and hate it as a tyrant-dictatorship. Fair enough; there’s a lot in that. But then they seem to think that if they challenge that very tyrant-dictatorship -- which they hate and let know they hate --  it will somehow, magically back down and buckle to their will. Contradictory, much? And they think that Carrie Lam, whom they despise as a puppet of Beijing, will somehow, magically, back them in their fight with Beijing. Delusional, much?

HK Seven Freedoms: Our view all along has been to value and protect the freedoms we already have. They are real, substantial, meaningful. We have every freedom of our homelands held up as beacons, of Australia, of America, of Europe. And we have greater freedoms than some of them: we don’t have “hate speech” laws, for example, so our freedom of speech is less constrained than Britain’s.

Democracy: The only freedom we don’t have is direct election of the Chief Executive.
But… it’s not like we, the general population, have no influence on the C-E election. We do in at least two ways. First, public opinion polling. It’s not the case that Beijing simply foists one of its own on the city. They take soundings, develop candidate long-lists, then short-lists, and take polling. When one or another proves unpopular, they’re dropped. It’s happened, eg Henry Tang in 2016. Second, we have direct influence in the Electoral Committee which vets final candidates, via our free and secret voting in District Council elections. I’ve taken part in every one, and in 2014 I chaired a campaign (we lost), so I know it from the inside. They are free and fair.
In turn the directly elected District Councillors get a vote on the Electoral Committee. That’s not direct election, to be sure. But it’s not nothing neither.
Maybe a bit akin to Electoral Colleges in the United States? Consider the process that brought Joe Biden to the Democratic candidacy. New polls say 40% of Democrats want him to withdraw! And there are big questions, especially on the left, about the Electoral College system vs popular vote. Are there really pan-Dems, people on the left, who would argue that a system which produced Trump is some kind of ideal?  It’s hard to conclude that that’s a model.
Or take Britain and Australia. We think we’re voting for Boris or Scott. But we’re voting for their parties, who can ditch them at any time, and often have ditched their leader. Not to draw too long a bow here, but it’s not like there’s some perfect way of getting a leader, no matter the system.

Sacrifice: And yet, and yet… it’s for that, or something similar, that the protesters and their pan-dem enablers, would sacrifice all our other freedoms. “Burn with us”. No thank you.
They had a chance in 2013 to accept moves forward on the election of a greater number of members of our Legislative Council, LegCo. But because it wasn’t perfect, because it wasn’t 100% of what they wanted, they refused it. Wrong move. I though so then, and think so even more so now. They blew it. But they blame everyone else, the government, Beijing.... I’m sorry but I just don’t trust them with the governance of our city.

To 2048 and beyond! Our freedoms are protected by the Basic Law, by One Country Two Systems, by our “high degree of autonomy”. “At least” until 2047. How about changing focus to 2048? To the future. To the future of today’s young protesters and their children.
Getting Beijing to the table will be the hard part. A good start would be give up violence of the protesters and the shenanigans of their pan-dem enablers. Maybe it’s too late. Aron Harilela doesn’t think so. I hope he’s right. A decent future for Hong Kong depends on it.

********

Extra reading:
Geoffrey Ma
Mike Rowse. And again
Henry Litton. And a letter
Alex Lo. And a glum take
Aron Harilela. 3 May 2020. : to which Regina Ip says “too early”.  And a commenter says “too late”. ADDED, 18 May
/Snip from Harilela:

Tycoon Aron Harilela, head of the city’s largest business chamber, has called for a dialogue between Hong Kong and Beijing on the city’s future beyond 2047 to remove uncertainty troubling residents and foreign investors.

 “If we are asking multinational companies to set up their regional headquarters here, how can we ask them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to come to Hong Kong if we can’t give them some certainty of the financial landscape, the business law and the common law?” he said.

To all of which C-E Carrie Lam has said little, save that we must “treasure One Country, Two Systems”. Indeed.

Australia-China decoupling is a “zombie idea”

Calls for Australian businesses to diversify away from China as their main trading partner are nothing more than a “zombie economic idea” that is being used as a political tool to expedite the decoupling of the two countries, according to a report by the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney. 

If this doesn’t strike you as yawn-making then read on…

While Citibank sees 5-10% rise in Hong Kong property prices. Hmm…

Evening bike ride

Just back from my bike ride. Looking East to Central
Click to enlarge. iPhone 12 pano, vivid cool filter.

'Coronavirus was circulating in France in December, case report suggests’ | Live Science

In the ongoing disputes over where the virus originated, there’s this from Live Science:

The very first known case of the coronavirus in the world could have occurred in November, in a 55-year-old person in the Hubei province of China, according to a previous Live Science report. That's more than a month before doctors first noted a cluster of odd pneumonia cases in the area. Though the timeline of the pandemic remains muddy, it's becoming apparent that the virus was spreading long before health care workers detected it. [my highlight]

That’s why I stay agnostic. And just say, the possibility that it was accidentally released by the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab, is a great big “maybe”.

Violet

Wishbone Flower. Torenia Fournieri 
Van Gough on the Harbour, what?
On my bike on the promenade. Looking East to Central, Hong Kong
My iPhone 12, wide-angle. And no editing at all

Madagascar Periwinkle. Catharanthus Roseus

Pink Allamanda. Allamanda Biancheti

The non-denominational “church”. A-frame. That’s my nice ladies’ bike

Quin-tych? (In the window of the above phote)

"I can tell you that a second peak is something that is very real....

...that you need to watch out for, and you can see it in other countries,” Sir Patrick said.

That’s the Chief Science Adviser of the UK, Sir Patrick Vallance talking to MP’s yesterday.
BUT.... I really don’t get it.  Where do we see it?  Where do you see it, Sir Patrick?
I’ve got the latest figures from the Worldometer, which most people, experts included, are using.  If Sir Patrick is using some other figures, perhaps he’d share them with us.
Otherwise, I just don’t get it. Because I don’t see what he says he sees.

[ADDED: and some experts believe the ’second wave’ is a myth]

I’ve looked at all the major countries, and they’re all a hump, measuring daily new cases of coronavirus. No hint of a second wave anywhere.  Least of all in the “outlier”, Sweden, which adopted Lockdown Lite. Given the aims around the world were to “flatten the curve”, well, mission accomplished. All the curves have been well and truly flattened.
Here’s a sample of major countries, of daily new coronavirus cases, up to 5th May:

Where are then “second waves”?
Click to enlarge

Note: France looks low, but it’s only because its Y-axis goes up to 20k, whereas Sweden Y-axis is only up to 1k.  If both were the same scale, France would be a huge hump, and Sweden a molehill. Which rather gives lie to Lockdown-ophiles who say Sweden is being “irresponsible”.

All the other countries are Lockdown SuperMax, where they’ve not been allowed to go out. Here in Hong Kong we’ve gone for Lockdown Medium, closed schools and bars, but kept restaurants open and movement free. We’re doing pretty well too. 

I forgot to add UK to the above, so here they are, the figures for daily new cases of Coronavirus:

Similar to the ones above. Maybe a bit plateau-y.
Anyway, the curve is flat, no? And wasn’t that the aim?

And here’s Hong Kong:

Probably best in the world performance

The Man Who Started a Pandemic - Cathy Young

With the COVID-19 pandemic sucking up much of public discourse, an anniversary of an event whose echoes still affect history went almost unnoticed this spring. April 22 marked the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov — better known as Lenin — the leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the founder of the Soviet state. There is some irony in the fact that coronavirus-related restrictions made the commemorations of this date in post-Soviet Russia even more low-key than they would have been otherwise. (Only a few dozen communists defiedMoscow's lockdown to place flowers at Lenin's tomb.) After all, Lenin's chief legacy was a political plague that not only put entire nations under a full-time lockdown but killed as many as 100 million. It's not for nothing that Winston Churchill famously compared him to a deadly infection when he wrote, of Lenin's German-aided return from exile in the spring of 1917, that the Germans "transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland to Russia."

Read the rest here. Fascinating. 

I first became fully aware of Lenin when I arrived to study Chinese in what was then "Peking" in 1976.

Of course I'd heard of the man. I graduated from the ANU in '72, like all my classmates vaguely leftie, some of us (not me!) a bit communist-y, agin’ the government, unless it was Labor. Revolutionaries. Just like Lenin! It’s socialism innit?
But this was the sixties and for me and me mates it was sex, drugs and rock and roll, just like they say. Any Revolution we sang about was more John Lennon’s than Vlad Lenin’s.

So Lenin was never as in-your-face as he was when I arrived in Peking. 

I spent six weeks in the Peking Hotel before a room became available at the student dorm. It’s right on Tian'anmen Square, with its (in)famous portraits over the gates of the Forbidden City, Mao in the centre, the other Gang of Four on either side, Marx, Engels, Stalin, and our man, "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov — better known as Lenin."

Those were final years of China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (文化大革命末年). Though we didn't know at the time that it was the final years. You don't usually know it's the final years, do you, until it's over. To be frank, I didn't even know it was still the Cultural Revolution. I only found out when speaking to my new teachers. Not that they admitted it with any alacrity. Rather only as a kind of embarrassed obligation. "We still practice our Cultural Revolution", they'd say, eyes averted and switch to another topic. After all, it was teachers who'd suffered the worst, paraded in dunce caps, vilified in "struggle sessions", tortured, driven to death, killed.

It was Peking of the seventies, socialist China that cured me of my undergraduate fantasies about socialism.

In the Peking of 1976 we had ration tickets for food and clothing. In winter we had precisely one vegetable —  bai cai. We were followed and monitored. Our thoughts were rationed: I had marks taken off an essay because I called Mme Mao an “ultra leftist”, whereas the approved, the rationed, view at the time was that she was an “ultra rightist”. (later it was changed back to “ultra leftist”, but too late for me to reclaim my marks). It was all too tiring, too drab, too dreary, too poor and hopeless. This was socialism and it had been inspired by Lenin.

Yet Lenin, who inspired this outcome of cabbage and conformity, this brute who mentored Stalin and excited Mao, this pathologically violent monster, this latter day Vlad the Impaler, responsible for 100 million deaths (not counting China!), this man still stares out from the Gate of Heavenly Peace. 

And Russia too. I've driven from Vladivostok to Moscow through all of Siberia, and everywhere are statues of Lenin. We did see one of Stalin, perhaps an oversight. 

And somehow the academy, too, in the west is in thrall to the man. As we see this post at David Thompson's blog. What a tragedy. What a worry.

The Neil Ferguson factor

It’s official: Brits are a nation of bedwetters

ADDED: 7 May: oh sweet schadenfreude!  Neil Ferguns has been sprung meeting up with his “married lover”, in breach of lockdown protocols which he himself insisted were mandatory. He’s had to resign! Oh wonder...

Remember when British scientists recommended the “herd immunity” strategy? That phrase is a bit misleading as it seems to suggest simply ignoring the virus and letting it rip through society. It’s better understood as something akin to what Sweden is doing. Look after the most vulnerable, have some social distancing in place, but otherwise get on with life. And, marvel, the WHO now praises Sweden’s model. The very one that lockdownophiles have slammed.

That’s all a bit of a sideline to my main point. That the UK started off as a soft lockdown concept -- okay call it "herd immunity” if you will -- but then that policy veered into the Lockdown SuperMax. And who was responsible for that? Neil Ferguson,  professor at the University College London(UCL). And in one of the biggest “I don’t get its” this year, professor Ferguson has been wrong again and again and again, as shown here, yet is revered. Why? I don’t get it:

Worth reminding ourselves that Neil Ferguson’s estimates of the impact of previous viral outbreaks – which have been almost comically inaccurate – haven’t damaged his scientific reputation in the slightest. In 2002, he predicted that mad cow disease could kill up to 50,000 people. It ended up killing less than 200. In 2005, he told the Guardian that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final death toll from avian flu strain A/H5N1 was 440. And in 2009, a Government estimate based on one of Ferguson’s models estimatedthe likely death toll from swine flu at 65,000. In fact, it was 457.

And yet, and yet.... it was only when Ferguson published his UCL model predicting 2 million deaths that the government panicked and went into lockdown overdrive. Yes, they believed him again. That’s why we’ve got “Fearful Britons”. That’s why our dear Poms have become a “nation of bedwetters”.
But it’s crazy. Not only is it looking that professor Ferguson wrong -- yet again. It’s also that it’s built in all epidemiologists’ models that they be vastly pessimistic:

One of the most interesting sections of the interview is when [professor of Structural Biology at Stanford Michael] Levitt explains why epidemiologists’ predictions tend to be so apocalyptic. The reason, he says, is because if they underestimate the death toll likely to result from a viral outbreak they face catastrophic reputational damage – if people die, they get the blame – but if they overestimate it they face zero consequences. “In my work, if I say a number is too small and I’m wrong, or a number is too high and I’m wrong, both of those errors are the same,” he says. “It seems that being a factor of 1,000 too high is perfectly okay in epidemiology, but being a factor of three too low, is too low.”

 Another quote from professor Levitt, who, by the way, is a Nobel Laureate:

I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn’t practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity. I see the standout losers as countries like Austria, Australia and Israel that had very strict lockdown but didn’t have many cases. They have damaged their economies, caused massive social damage, damaged the educational year of their children, but not obtained any herd immunity. There is no doubt in my mind that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor. [here]

The whole article is here, with plenty other links to studies showing that the Lockdown Max strategy does no better than the Sweden model.
The Swedish model of Lockdown Lite gives herd immunity as a side benefit, while it minimises the huge negative economic impact of Lockdown Max.

I give you … the Japanese White-eye

She had flown into the kitchen window and was stunned for a while.
She flew off safely a few minutes later. Not before leaving a small
offering in the palm of my hand

Robert Ferguson has more fab photos

Australia: much in the local news today

And so, we shouldn’t look gifts masks in the mouth?
(Have a look at the caption under the photo above. Click to enlarge)

In the category of “I don’t care for nowt but me own swag” Andrew Forrest carries water for China.  As does the WHO.  Though, TBF, it’s still not clear, to me at least, if there’s any hard evidence of laboratory leak, as opposed to strong circumstantial evidence as presented by, eg, the Five Eyes Dossier, complied by Australia, which I commented on yesterday.

And, does Oz treat international students well enough?

[Five Eyes] Dossier lays out case against China bat virus program

"The report ... accuses the Chinese government of destroying laboratory
evidence and refusing to co-operate with international scientists
working on a vaccine”

UPDATE (9/5/20): reports that it was the US Embassy In Canberra that leaked the dossier.

How to report this news?
One straightforward way is in the headline above, in the Daily Telegraph, Australia. [Backup] [PDF]
I’m not a journalist, so I’ll just make a few observations:

1. The “Five Eyes” are the intelligence services of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The dossier was apparently coordinated by Australia’s Office of National Intelligence (ONI). I haven’t been able to find an actual copy of the dossier, so I’m only going on the reports of the “leak” of the dossier. So it’s not clear to me if there’s any hard evidence of lab accident in the dossier as opposed to strong circumstantial evidence.

2. Australia’s Eye: I used to work in one of the “eyes”, the Australian Office of National Assessments, which is similar to the UK’s Joint Intelligence Organisation, and is now a part of ONI. I know their people then and since as professionals, keen to get the story right, trying stand back and be independent. I’m guessing there will be critics who say it’s bunch of racist bigots, or whatever. But no, these are serious, professional people.
They have access to a huge range of intelligence and information, far more than the average media outlet. They have access to the reports from all the embassies and consulates, from their spies and informants (“humint”), from electronic intelligence (“elint”) and signals intelligence (“sigint”), and all sorts of other “ints". To imagine that this is simply a rehash of what the media says is just nonsense. That said, it’s not clear if there is any new hard evidence, other than strong circumstantial evidence from a wider range of sources.

3.  Does the story matter? Yes, of course it does. We’re experiencing the worst crisis since the Second World War, there’s a battle of narratives out there, and this is one part of it. Of course it matters. More than anything it matters to try to find out what really happened. And it’s not credible to believe the China stories, given how many holes they have.

4.  Western media reactions: despite the fact that it does matter, there’s almost nothing about this in the mainstream media, or the liberal media. I only found out on a blog. You’ll search in vain for news of this on CNN, BBC, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post. Below the fold I’ve posted screenshots of the first two pages of a Google search on this. There is not a single Mainstream Media or left-of-centre outlet that reported this story.

5. It’s all political: If you criticise China, you’re a Trump supporter. If you are not a Trump supporter, then you have to ignore inconvenient intelligence like this. Then again, “Criticism of China’s virus response does not equal support for Trump”.
I’ve posted below the fold screenshots of the first two pages of a Google search on “Five Eyes coronavirus dossier”. Have a look. It’s all right of centre sites. Not a one from the left. Why?

6. China’s reactions: 'China lashes Australia over virus dossier’. Here. Whenever the Chinese start talking of how we’re “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people” and the like, you know you’ve hit home. We need to ignore this victimhood nonsense. Sadly, our record is not good. We tend to crumple.  Not least because of the massive economic relationship.
Already we have the UK refusing to comment on the dossier. Why?

Let’s: 1. Demand transparency. 2. Demand an international investigation

ADDED (5/5/20): my own comment about possible accident was a big “maybe”, in ‘Holy lab escape, Bat woman!’ on 8 April 2020.

Below the fold: top Google results for search on “Five Eyes Dossier”

Orchid Croton

Vanda Orchid in afternoon sun

Croton (codieaeum variegatum) in our Siena Park
iPhone 12 Plus 2x zoom Vivid edit 

Sunset over DB. Looking East towards Central

Click to enlarge

Norah Jones -- Happy Birthday Willie Nelson

I’ve always loved Norah Jones. The look, the eyes, the voice, her frank stare at the camera (as I imagine, here, at me) and the cheeky little drink.
Here she is with a “Mini Concert” for Willie Nelson, who featured in a Davis Sedaris joke I posted yesterday.
ADDED: I just realised this is Norah’s at-home covid-distancing performance. How nice that she didn’t give us some pretentious nonsense as we heard WonderWoman or Madonna, or so many other up themselves celebreties. Just a lovely little concert, for Willie, a smile and a drink. I certainly like this, lovely Norah!

Why can’t people be trusted to make sensible decisions?

I’ve just watched Claire Walker, an executive Director of the British Chamber of Commerce, say that what’s needed is for Boris, for the UK government to give “very detailed directions” to all sectors of British industry on how to get back to work.
And I thought, huh?
What’s wrong with the Chamber? Why do they have to be “told” what to do? Why not have some general principles —- sanitising, distancing and so on, and let people get on with it? There’s already signs that people are very sensible and responsible. Maybe put some FAQs out there. But detailed nanny state stuff? Disappointed, Claire.

Meantime, in happier news, I see that Boris and Carrie Symmonds have named their new son Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas. The first two after their grandfathers, the Nicholas in honour of the two doctors, both Nick, who attended him through Covid.

Which makes me think “what a year Boris has had!”. Became British Prime Minister, won a landslide election, got Brexit done, struck down by Covid, hospitalised and near death, emerged from Intensive Care just in time to greet his new son, with his fiancee.
Wilfred is his sixth or seventh child. (Boris won’t disclose how many children he has. Wikipedia just says “at least six”).

And now the British Chamber of Commerce is demanding that in addition to nannying his son, he nanny them as well!

Also: a question. A recent detailed study shows children, especially under 10, rarely get infected with Covid and don’t pass the virus to adults. So opening schools ought to be safe. Why isn’t this being spoken about?

‘No future for Hong Kong if protest violence returns, Beijing warns’ | SCMP

China liaison office in Hong Kong

This is in the "you brought it on yourselves" category. What did the protesters expect? That Beijing would say "oh yeah, I see your point. Let's sit down and discuss how you folks should be in charge of the city". [Reference]

To be clear: sitting here in Hong Kong I don't like it one tiny bit that China, the Beijing of Xi Jinping, is speaking out more via its HK liaison office. Xi Jinping's rule is not one I like at all. Just today there's news that a mainland lawyer journalist has been jailed for fifteen years on clearly bogus charges ("inciting arguments", etc…). And author Fang Fang is being harangued for a memoir of the Wuhan lockdown. Xi has kept China stable. Ok. But at the cost of freedoms and censorship, at the cost of their international bullying.
So there's nothing to like there, at least for me.
But that's the whole point. Precisely because he's such a bully, a tough nut, a dictator for life, is reason to assume he's not going to put up with the protests in Hong Kong for ever. Already they've put up with nearly a year of massive demos and damage to our city, while basically sitting in their hands. Remember early in when people thought (maybe secretly wished?) that the PLA would send in the tanks? And they didn't.
Now they're speaking out more. I certainly don't like that. And for sure it will infuriate the hard core protesters. They will likely come out in even greater numbers, contra the calls for calm and quiet.
But I can't disagree with this comment from the China Liaison office:

"We strongly condemn extreme radicals for staging unlawful gatherings again during the Labour Day holiday, disturbing shops and throwing petrol bombs," a spokesman said. "People around the world have set aside differences in fighting the pandemic. It was only in Hong Kong that the extreme radicals have continued to incite people to engage in violent activities and threatened to plant bombs in public places. If we appease them, can Hong Kong have a future?"

Maybe except for the last sentence there. "Appease"? It might have been better if Carrie Lam had at some stage last year talked to protesters about, for example, having an independent investigation into police behaviour. She had the authority to do that. It wouldn’t have been appeasement, bit compromise. Now? Too late, I fear.
Another quote I can agree with. Doesn’t make me a Beijing stooge. Just a realist who hopes to maintain the very real freedoms we have:

The violence and the “if we burn, you burn with us” mentality had undermined the rule of law and freedom, the liaison office said, marking the fifth time since April that it has spoken out in this manner.

And it’s TRUE. The radical “you burn with us” mob have undermined the rule of law and freedom. Simple examples: fire-bombing subway stations, tearing up roads. Setting fire to people who disagree with them. 

Willie Snail

From David Sedaris’ latest
Click to enlarge 

Anti-government protests return to Hong Kong on Labour Day as police pepper spray crowd

Photo is the online caption. In the print version it’s front page with this caption:
“People in press vests outnumber riot police and anti-government protesters at
New Town Plaza in Sha Tin yesterday”

The story is here.  Note: not many police. Heaps of press. Very few protesters. But to the international media, this is “continued crackdown” (Guardian, but I don’t want to link). Please....
ADDED; To repeat: I’m not in the least bit happy with the increasing assertiveness of Beijing’s office in Hong Kong. But this gathering above is not in any way sign of a “continuing crackdown”.  It’s a free expression of our right to assembly, which, btw, has been infringed in no less a place than New York City, as they say coronavirus distancing trumps (as it were) the right to free assembly.
Meantime the pan-Dem parties are making it difficult to govern, by obstructive filibustering, so that government can’t get the simplest bills though the legislative council. 

A tragedy in the making?

I fear professor David Zweig is correct in ‘Beijing is getting tough on Democracy movement, but at what cost to Hong Kong?’ And if so, we’ve got here, with Beijing tightening its hand, not despite the protest movement but because of it. That is to say, by a combination of naivety and brute obdurate stupidity — on all sides.
Zweig rightly excoriates Carrie Lam for her many missteps. Which were many and serious. But he should have included the “democracy movement” in his criticisms.
Why so?
Certainly at the outset many — including us — took part in huge street protests against the extradition bill, just as we’d taken part in the anti Article 23 protests in 2003, and the Occupy Central movement in 2014.
Last year it was to voice widespread worries over Beijing interference. Worries that the extradition bill might give China the right to demand people who had done nothing wrong in Hong Kong but who made Beijing uncomfortable.  That was surely a Carrie Lam misjudgement.
But since then the protest movement has become increasingly radicalised and violent. While in LegCo, the Pan-Dems have become increasingly radicalised and obstructive. Yet they have only themselves to blame that we don’t today have more democracy today because it was they who rejected the 2013 offers of increased democratic choices — they who demanded 100% and rejected 60%. Instead of picking up the chips on the table and looking to stay in for next hand. Upending the table and storming off in a huff is not a winning strategy.  Especially when dealing with Beijing who are skilled players. And mighty tough.
The Pan-Dems also have themselves to blame for the housing squeeze as they blocked every move to expand land for housing. That’s a whole ‘nother issue, though no doubt a contributor to general disenchantment.
The pan-Dems have managed one thing well: to deflect blame. They manage to convince their followers that it’s all the government and police’s fault. Even though the government is more incompetent than oppressive and the police are pretty much doing their duty; more robust than brutal.
The irony and the tragedy is that no one really wants this. We all want Hong Kong to remain a rich and robust civil society, with all our freedoms (our Seven Freedoms) and the rule of law. What separates me from the more extreme elements of protest movement and the pan-Dems, is they believe pushing one thing above all others — namely “democracy” — is worth sacrificing all the other freedoms for.
For they believe in Lam Chao (攬炒) “stew together” or  “Burn with us”.
To which we, the many ordinary Hongkongers, say “no”. We don’t agree with your suicidal millenarian fantasies.
Can anything be retrieved? Can the baleful hand of Beijing be stopped? Is it too late?  I can only hope not. That some wiser heads will prevail and have quiet talks, yes, behind closed doors, with Beiji g in how to agree on continuation of the One Country Two Systems concept behind 2047. That is the only way.
And if not? Those that suffer most will not be us. Hong Kong has been good to us. We set up a profitable company, sold it and made enough for a comfortable retirement. If things go bad, we can always move, and do so easily. That owing be so for millions with limited assets and no other passport. Who, as it happens, make up most of the protest movement that is leading Hong Kong to the grim fate Zweig outlines.  That is the tragedy.  

A Frame

North Plaza, Discovery Bay

From NYC ICU: Does Covid-19 really cause Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome?

I’m not a doctor, but some doctors do read this blog.  Hence the vid above.

From Dr Kyle-Sidell’s intro:

I am a physician who has been working at the bedside of COVID+ patients in NYC. I believe we are treating the wrong disease and that we must change what we are doing if we want to save as many lives as possible. I welcome any feedback, especially from those bedside: doctors, nurses, xray techs, pharmacists, anyone and everyone. Does this sound wrong or right, is something more right? Please let me know. @cameronks

Orchid Mermaid

Phalaenopsis

As I take this photo, I hear a red-whiskered bulbul, a wonderful songbird, call out from atop our Poinciana tree: Remdesivir, remdesivir …call Fauci, call Fauci…

I swear.

Orchid Calligraphy

Phalaenopsis orchid

Top right, down. Top left down:

Tian Di Ru Xiong Yi

Wen Zhang Sheng Feng Lei

Literally: 

Heaven Earth Enter Pearl Breast

Essay Makes Wind Thunder

More Felicitously (perhaps; my translation):
When you understand the ways of the world
you’ll write groundbreaking essays. 

Calligraphy by Xue Song, “The Sky and the Earth”, on a canvas made from leftover scraps of his burned out gallery in Beijing, and the paint made from the ashes. Purchased at Zee Stone Galleries, May 2004.

Hong Kong travel and quarantine measures

Hong Kong sets the bar for Covid control and low deaths, without strict lockdowns. This is a terrific infographic. At the moment, if you’re not a Hongkonger, you’re not allowed in. Full stop. (And, by the way, contra WHO advice as at February).

Happy Labour day

Though perhaps a better Labour Day will be the day people in Lockdown countries are allowed to go back to labour. I’m hearing that both China and the US will have the worst economic slump figures ever in their histories for 2020. US to be down 40%. (For Q1 see below). That cannot count for nothing even with large numbers of covid deaths. Says me, a Lockdown Sceptic.
As Hong Kong with zero new cases again should be going back to work next week. I’m also hearing that studies show children don’t pass the virus to adults. If true then all schools worldwide could reopen.
And WHO official says Sweden is doing just great.

And listening to Millport a strange Scottish radio play on Radio 4 Extra.

And how could I forget?! Our brave “freedom and democracy” warriors (aka “rioters”) are set to take to the streets again today, to celebrate May Day — a communist holiday taking over the traditional day of dancing around maypoles. Police brace for chaos.

Meantime, the WSJ reports on a world of pain:

Bad tidings for global economy