When Gov. Walz initially issued his shelter-in-place order, he made a big deal of the model, aka science, he was using. It was apparent that he’d gotten trapped in Greg Gutfeld’s “prison of 2 ideas.” That’s since been confirmed because, apparently, there are only 2 options. In Gov. Walz’s thinking, one option is shutting Minnesota’s economy down except for groceries and medical prescriptions. The other is no mitigation whatsoever.

Why hasn’t Gov. Walz selected another option? Is he aware that other options exist? Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota implemented the CDC’s mitigation standards without shutting down any businesses. Then again, I’d expect more from her. She’s a Republican. Walz is a Democrat.

The model that Minnesota is using is essentially worthless. Last week, Gov. Walz said that it wasn’t being used much for its accuracy as it’s being used for giving him direction. That’s word salad on steroids. If the model is off by orders of magnitude, how can you trust that it’s pointing you in the right direction?

That’s like putting a magnet next to a compass, then expecting a legitimate reading. The only reading you’ll get is of the needle going around and around into infinity. Thus far, Gov. Walz has only talked about medical supplies and not running the hospital staff into the ground. That’s the least of Gov. Walz’s worries. We’re nowhere close to using up our ventilators, PPE, N95 masks, etc.

It’s like Hawaiians buying parkas, then worrying about not having a parka when you need it. At this point, it’s becoming obvious that Gov. Walz isn’t the right man to handle a crisis. He’s made one terrible decision after another:

The Governor is apparently not paying attention to or doesn’t believe the results of his own modeling, which is supposed to be incorporating all this expert advice. And he has his reasoning completely backward, the number of infections and deaths isn’t determined by the amount of health resources, whether you have enough resources is determined by the number of cases you project. His current best projections are estimating a level of cases and deaths that the health system can handle. I would note in particular that while the original modeling said there were only around 235 ICU beds in the state, by the time of the reforecast that number had grown ten-fold. And the reality is the health system could handle more cases than the peak need now projected. So he can just stop using the weak excuse that we have to build health resources for a peak that isn’t coming.

Gov. Walz isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier. This is proof of it:

Mayo Clinic has unveiled a plan to cut $1.6 billion in pay, withdraw nearly $1 billion from its financial reserves and save another $700 million through a hiring freeze to counteract a $3 billion loss inflicted by the coronavirus. A large portion of this loss was the result of Governor Tim Walz’s ban on non-essential procedures that has cost Mayo up to 75% of its business in some areas.

Way to go, Tim. By the 4th of July, you might kill Minnesota’s economy to the point that it won’t recover until the twenty-second century. Either that or until we get a principled Republican as governor. This should get Gov. Walz’s attention but likely won’t:

In both 2018 and 2019, the Clinic recorded a $700 million operating financial margin, meaning that it has reported this amount in profit. However, in the last week of March alone, Mayo says it lost $162 million, reports the post. Meanwhile, the Rochester campus is running at about 35% patient capacity and performing only about a quarter of the surgeries it normally would. This is because the majority of the procedures the world famous hospital provides have been forcibly canceled by Walz’s executive order prohibiting non life saving treatments.

At this rate, Gov. Walz will kill more businesses than COVID-19 will kill people. That’s a frightening thought. What’s more is the thought that Gov. Walz still thinks he’s doing the right thing. Might this be Gov. Walz’s destiny:

Time will tell but he’s off to a great start.

Leave a Reply