Skip to main content

Connecticut Nursing Home Deaths Pinned On The Donkey

Lamont, Blumenthal masked

A tardy report from Mathematica, a New Jersey research firm, provides a definitive answer to the question: Who is responsible for Coronavirus nursing home deaths in Connecticut, President Donald Trump or Governor Ned Lamont and an inattentive Democrat dominated General Assembly?

The answer to the general question is – Lamont and company, according to a story that covers the Mathematica report in a Hartford paper titled “Report: Nursing home experts neglected.”

The negligence on the part of state government cannot be overstated. Nursing homes were the charnel houses of Coronavirus. The story notes, “More than 3,000 nursing home residents — about 70% of the state’s death total from coronavirus — were claimed by the deadly virus.”

The story cited above provided a soft landing for Lamont and others in the state General Assembly who were, they would like us to believe, sidelined by Coronavirus. In fact, Lamont was the only participant in Connecticut's tripartite government; the other two branches of Connecticut’s government, judicial and legislative, were sidelined by choice.

So focused were Connecticut officials on hospitals, the story’s lede announces, “that they neglected suggestions and guidance from the nursing home industry in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic.” In case anyone thinks negligent Connecticut officials may be sued for criminal negligence by family members who watched their loved ones carted off to unattended funerals because politicians were asleep at their switches, it should be understood that the somnolent Democrat dominated legislature has extended to political officials a courtesy – freedom from suit – that the state is now prepared to withdraw from Connecticut police officers.

The Mathematica report notes: “Some family members were left without information about their loved ones, often going days without a returned phone call from a facility. Despite these issues, the state granted the LTC industry immunity from liability, which removed a critical mechanism for holding facilities accountable for negligence.”

Lamont shucks off his negligence this way: “We really looked at the hospitals very early on just given nature of spread (sic), what we saw going on in Italy and some other places where hospitals were overwhelmed,” Lamont said. “We worked hand and glove with hospitals to make sure we had a coordinated response but I don’t think that was at the expense of the nursing homes.”

Sorry, but the figures cited in the Mathematica report confirm that the criminal inattention of Lamont, sidelined General Assembly and courts in Connecticut, made Connecticut nursing homes into death chambers for that part of the population most susceptible to Coronavirus lethality. Yet the death count during the same period among children in Connecticut’s K to 9th grade schools, all ordered closed by the governor, was close to zero.

The governor's plenipotentiary authority, approaching that of Caesar's during the Roman imperium, has now been extended for five additional months by a handful of legislators – not the whole General Assembly, which has not assembled for half a year.

And who seriously believes that death figures from Italy bore more weight in decisions made by Lamont than the too-clever-by-half media releases issued by the governors of New York and New Jersey, whose approach to Coronavirus Lamont had pilfered and plagiarized? It may be possible to congratulate New York Governor Mario Cuomo because death figures in his nursing homes were a scotch less than those in Lamont’s charnel houses.

So, Lamont’s over attentiveness to hospitals and his inattention to nursing homes was “not at the expense of nursing homes?” Really? Dear, dear – where is the empathy? Where are the tears shed publicly for the relatives and friends of the dead who were prevented by governmental edict from attending last rites in closed churches?

Politics is the art of making sound decisions that advance the welfare of the whole polis. But the art of politics in the age of Coronavirus is devoted almost wholly to the political survival of self-serving incumbent politicians.

The first principle of post-modern progressive government is: never apologize, even when your idiot decisions lead to massive deaths. Buried in the Mathematica report are two important recommendations: 1) “The state” be it noted, NOT the federal government – “should continue its work to procure and distribute personal protective equipment to long-term care facilities as needed,” and 2 “The state should work with facilities to make a concerted effort to allow residents and loved ones to safely visit and to provide family members with accurate and timely information on residents’ health and well-being. (emphasis original in report)”

Why should loved ones play a significant curative role in the medical care of their relatives? Answer: because love is more attentive to the ill, the poor, and the oppressed than self-serving politicians, and loving eyes on a sick relative may correct decisions made impersonally by doctors and care givers. Doctors and care givers animated by loving concern would be the first to second this proposition. But gubernatorial edicts issued by Lamont in the absence of legislative and judicial oversight passed over them like an angel of death. Everyone knows that these two principles should have been observed at the outset of the pandemic.

Politicians who view the world upside down keep saying that the economy cannot be opened until Coronavirus is dead. The truth is that Coronavirus cannot be killed by a suppressed economy, but only by responsible, wide-awake politicians – and no constructive political movement is possible while representative government remains stretched out on a coroner’s slab.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p