Opening churches

Opening churches amidst the covid-19 pandemic can provoke an increase in the number of cases, and in fact that has been the case already in countries, states and regions that have decided to open their churches. It would be the same in any country opening them: in Spain, in the US, wherever. Now let's imagine there was somewhere a president who, despite plenty of evidence proving otherwise, would present himself as a defender of Christian values. However, this imaginary person would insist in opening the churches because his voters, maybe, want it. At first sight, this would look as a backfiring statement: wouldn't his voters and those more likely to listen to him be the main affected ones by the disease and die at a higher rate? Wouldn't that lead him to lose the elections?
That is only one possibility, as there are other maquiavelic ways of thinking. Let's review some facts.

1. As we know, the disease has a higher mortality rate among the elderly and those with pre-condictions, i.e. those that are being paid by the Government or by insurance companies. Spreading the disease as much as possible means that there are higher probabilities of getting rid of a big number of rentiers. In other words, less money spent on them, more money for those in charge and for our imaginary president.
2. Apparently, the disease is affecting ratial minorities at a higher rate. If our imaginary president was a racist (no matter how much he would deny it, we would probably find plenty of tweets and statements on video proving he is), this would lead to a reduction in the proportion of members of other races than his own. In this "imaginary" environment, the whites have better access to medical services, among other useful measures to survive.
3. The poor are also more affected, which means that the wealthy close friends of our imaginary president would not be affected, because they would be able to pay for medical care. And if they couldn't afford it, there is their friend, making sure he would get the medical attention for them with a word only (he wouldn't pay for it even if it were for his closest relatives).
4. In the country of our imagination, the unemployment rate would have rocketed, with tens of millions newly unemployed people. However, those dying because of being unemployed and therefore being unable to pay for health care would not apply for a job afterwards. They wouldn't get any unemployment aid, they wouldn't make unemployment figures bigger, someone may get a job and our imaginary president would be able to sell that as his big success.
5. If our imaginary president would go against the recommendations of anybody else (doctors, scientists, European teenagers and other well-informed people) regarding the opening of places of worship, that would create disunity between those reasonable and those swallowing every BS coming from our imaginary idiot's mug. Together with the fear in the country, in the end that would make the population much more manipulable.
6. God is omnipresent and therefore you don't need to go to a place of worship. Even though there are reasonable people that know this and would stay home, having a number of non-sensical ones getting infected and spreading the disease would ensure that both sides of the political spectrum would get infected at the same rate, which would eventually balance the "casualties" on our imaginary president's side while boosting the other "advantages".
7. Our imaginary president has the Napoleonic syndrom of willing to see his subjects dying because of loyalty to him, especially when that proves that they have bigger faith in him than they have in God.
8. It is said that Nero, the Roman emperor, burnt down Rome, his own capital city, pretty much out of fancy. Whether a true story or just a necessary myth that our civilization created over the real Great Fire of Rome, this our imaginary president would share a lot with the mythical Nero: he would be a destroyer out of fancy. On top of that, having destruction around would always help him find somebody else to blame for both his actions and insufficiencies—and people would be willing to act on those blamed by their "leader"!

There are many other reasons for opening places of worship amidst a pandemic if you are a hedonistic psycho in power of any country. Let's hope there is no such in the world nowadays. Right?

Jake Tapper and Alex Azar

Jake Tapper asked Alex Azar a few questions. It was disappointing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhEu-jTTQmQ

There is an interesting question (tracking time 4:00). Why is the virus affecting more the US than other countries in the world?

I found that question unfair. Looking at the data, one may realize that there are developing countries, and even developed countries, where the number of tests per million people is a fraction of what the US has (which is still less than 1 person tested every 20). So maybe those countries are doing far worse than the US and nobody is aware of it. Maybe they're not doing that bad (out of testing, there are other explanations as of why the covid is spreading more slowly in Africa, e.g. the population movements are not comparable in size, frequency or distance to those in the developed countries). The fact is there is not enough data to tell and one can use that lack of information in either direction—for example, to make an unfair question.

However, I am not saying it is unfair to ask an unfair question. You look stressed, Mr. Azar. What about getting rid of that burden? Tell the truth: you were late. Or you had a plan to kill the elderly and the minorities (see note (1) below). Or whatever the truth is. Or a well constructed lie.

(1) Azar said "Unfortunately, the American population is a very diverse and, ehr..." (tracking 6'30''). Was that a Freudian slip? Then he mentions how African American and minority communities are more affected. Is that why the slow response? The elderly getting a pension, the sick, the racial minorities...

Yet Secretary Azar chose to say something easy to demonstrate wrong. "We are testing more than other countries or than other major countries [...]". In absolute numbers, yes (although it is not and it never was "more than the other countries combined", like the president once said). But let's have a look at the numbers:

The data are from the day before the talk, which should be the most current information they both had related to the matter. And it seems out of the big countries, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia (you can't get bigger than Russia) and the UK have all more tests per capita than the US.

Spain, Russia, the UK, Italy, France and Germany, combined, had 1,369,078 cases, which is 138,695 less cases than the US. When it comes to testing, the six European countries combined had 19,661,006 tests, which is 8,135,381 above the US (more than 70% above, or if you prefer, more than 170% of the US figure)

In other words, as if Secretary Azar's body language wasn't giving enough hints, the table proves he was lying. Like master, like dog.

"Other countries are not testing asymptomatic individuals in any way like we are doing". Partially true there. South Korea was testing asymptomatic. Now they don't need to, because they've flattened the curve. Iceland tested the asymptomatic too (1,802 positives out of 56,742 tests may give you an idea of their rate of testing). On the other hand, it is true that there are many countries doing a bad job and, under certain criteria, doing a poorer job even within the developed world. Yes, there are countries that are doing a bad job. The question is why the US Government is not doing a better job when it easily could.

Because testing is not the responsibility of the Federal Government, according to the president. It is for the Governors to accomplish such task, isn't it, crazy Ald? But the merit, yeah, that one goes to his shoulders:

I had heard better things from Azar and I was expecting a more direct response from Tapper. However, it almost seemed the latter was playing for the Government in this video. Really, a double disappointment.