And now for some good news ….

Slump in SA crime rate during lockdown

The lockdown has seen a massive fall in South African crime levels, with murder cases falling to 94 in the first week of lockdown, from 326 in the same week last year.

Rape cases dropped from 699 to 101, while assault with intention to inflict grievous bodily harm dropped from 2 673 to 456,

Police Minister Bheki Cele announced on Sunday.Apart from the lockdown, Cele attributed the decrease to prohibition of the sale and movement of liquor since the nationwide coronavirus lockdown started on 27 March.

And ….

WHAT SA SCIENTISTS’ HUGE FIND MEANS FOR UNLOCKING COVID-19 SECRETS

Scientists at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases and UWC’s South African Bioinformatics Institute successfully sequenced the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a South African COVID-19 patient.

And …..

President Cyril Ramaphosa met with ZCC leaders

President Cyril Ramaphosa led a delegation of ministers for a meeting with bishops of the Zion Christian Church (ZCC) on Sunday as part of coronavirus interventions, ahead of what is usually a massive Easter pilgrimage to Moria in Limpopo.

Ramaphosa thanked the church for deciding not to have the Good Friday Easter church service in support of the fight against Covid-19. The Zion Christian Church is the largest African-initiated church operating across southern Africa and attracts hundreds of thousands for the Easter weekend pilgrimage every year.

 

Ark.


53 thoughts on “And now for some good news ….

    1. Excitable little fellow … been watching too much Billy Connolley, but poor bastard lacks the pizzazz. (I survived almost the first minute)(no sense of humour some people, but he did invoke a deep pity).

      Liked by 1 person

  1. It’s great that the crime rate is dropping, but it’s quite sad that it remains as high as it is. 94 murders in one week is still pretty high. In contrast, New Hampshire (the state I live in) had 21 murders in all of 2018. I couldn’t find the 2019 stats, but I assume it was around the same. We only have about 1.3 million people living here, so much smaller that SA (58 million+) But still that’s a high murder rate. Stay safe.

    Like

      1. Our hospitals decided a few thousand cases of the DTs and the creation of a black market with such an unenforceable ban were not in the best interest of public health.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Of course they did. And why wouldn’t they? It’s for your own good.

            Speaking of what’s good for you, there really should be a ban on all driving, too. Have you seen the death and accident rates? Think of the savings in health costs. And swimming. Don’t forget how many people die from swimming. That dihydrogen oxide will and does kill, we know. Banning it is a health thing. Ban all processed foods, too, as well as products too high in what the woke government determines is unacceptable levels of sucrose, glucose, an fructose. Carbohydrates, obviously, must be regulated. Too much energy from empty calories can cause domestic disputes to rise to dangerous levels. Ban any and all clothing that does not provide the appropriate level of protection from solar radiation and make only sun block fabric approved for sale. After all, Someone has to take care of us and we can’t be trusted. I mean, some people even smoke, for crying out loud, and that’s about as immoral as one can be without incarceration. Let’s be clear: others can and should be empowered to ban whatever substance they deem fit for banning. I’m just so very thankful and appreciative of these Heroes looking out for so many when they make these kinds of bans and use the state to enforce them. Others can be trusted, thank goodness.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Yup. And dispensed with treatment options. Right now, we are treating covid-19 patients in hospital who are heroin addicts with some really good shit to avoid the public health menace such people present if they couldn’t get their necessary fixes.

            Like

          3. I noticed on Netflix that the short warnings about the potentially disturbing content of the upcoming program, which have typically said things like graphic violence, course language, nudity, now include that horror of horrors, ‘smoking’. It’s about time, eh? I notice that ‘drugs and ‘alcohol’ and ‘genetically modified foods’ have not been included.

            Yet.

            But it give it time…. give it time. I’m triggered just thinking about viewing the consumption of meat without first seeing a warning label so that I can turn the program off. How on earth is one to gird one’s loins, I wonder, without the appropriate warnings? Where are my pearls?

            Like

          4. Wouldn’t it be lovely if I were being only facetious? The ‘smoking’ warning on Netflix is quite real. But where will stop?

            The banning of substances will lead to criminal behaviour. The question for governments is whether or not the banning of certain products improves or reduces peace and order. Morality plays no part in the same way morality for women’s reproductive health care services ONLY interferes with rights and freedoms and directly produces criminality by legislation.

            In this particular case in SA, does the banning improve public safety? On what compelling evidence is the government making such decisions? How transparent is the process? Does it have wider public support so that police enforcement is not – or hardly – needed?

            I suspect some ‘woke’ person in government simply declared by fiat the closing of stores that provided sales of these products and hid behind the assumption that this was the ‘right’ thing to do… in other words, Ark, a faith-based decision that relied on subjective morality over and above the rights of individuals and that such pronouncements are, in fact, a very great threat to peace and order and respect for individual rights and freedoms.

            Like

          5. In this particular case in SA, does the banning improve public safety?

            Off the top of my head, lockdown notwithstanding, common sense would suggest it will decrease the number of roads accidents due to alcohol abuse for one thing and even though this is obviously only a temporary measure the results will be likely be positive.

            As for the warning and ban on content showing cigarettes, (except where a case can be argued for artistic merit/historical reasons) this is a very good thing, and seriously, if you cannot see why or are against such a ban then there is no point continuing this discussion.

            Like

          6. Statistics show that the risk of serious injury for a pedestrian rises from 10% at a vehicle impact of 15 km/h (10 mph) to over 50% at an impact of 30 km/h (20 mph) and 90% at 50 km’h (30 mph). Meanwhile the risk of pedestrian fatalities rises from 10% at impacts of 30 km/h (20 mph) to 50% at 50 km/h (30 mph) to over 80% at 80 km/h (50 mph).

            https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf (p. 17)

            So common sense would suggest that setting maximum speed limits of 30 km/h (20 mph) or less will greatly reduce the risk of death and serious injury to pedestrians. Will you agree to this proposal? (Think of the children and elderly.)

            As to Netfix, it’s a private company and can post whatever warnings it wants — or none at all.

            Like

          7. The very first problem I see here with your pedestrian example is how asinine it is.

            As to Netflix, it’s a private company and can post whatever warnings it wants — or none at all.

            Of course they can. The question asked in the post is basically whether you consider their action proactive/positive or not?

            Like

          8. How is it asinine? Your argument appealed to the need for improved public safety and the example I gave satisfied that criteria.

            Like

          9. You’re dodging the question. If you have a good rebuttal, lay it out for us. Otherwise I’ll have to conclude you have none.

            Like

          10. Only because you asked for a reasoned opinion rather than satire and being facetious, I introduced the idea that public measures of banning legal products require evidence-based justification demonstrating that such a measure will improve peace and order for the affected population. You responded that banning alcohol, among many possibilities, increases road safety. To the point of road safety, Ron raised the very salient point that road safety is increased at lower speeds. You just ridiculed the idea as ridiculous without cause or evidence. I pointed out road safety would be dramatically improved even further if we banned driving altogether. If road safety is the measurement, as you presume justifies (at least in some part) the social benefit of banning the sale of of alcohol, then you can’t wave either of these suggestions aside when they do exactly what you say justifies in part the alcohol ban – increasing road safety – without waving your identical justification away… you know, the one YOU raised. Were you ridiculous for raising it? No, I don’t think so, because driving and alcohol never improves road safety but decreases it. And there is lots of evidence for this. In other words, the real issue here isn’t about banning the sale of alcohol; it’s about using the tool of banning without proper justification. I think there is a way for people to purchase alcohol and still improve road safety, namely, by making any drinking of alcohol and driving a criminal offence. That way, both goals are served without introducing a ban. Or is not using the blunt tool of banning ridiculous, too? Without a totalitarian state to enforce these kinds of bans, my argument is that such measures are GUARANTEED to create criminals and harm public peace and order rather than do as they are portrayed: as if banning is NECESSARY when it is not.

            Under the subject of the morality that is often behind the use of banning, I included an observation that Netflix now includes ‘smoking’ as a warning – not because it has anything whatsoever to do with improving peace and order but because many misguided people presume it is the Right Thing To Do, a moral imperative to do so. I hold such moral presumptions advocated to be imposed on everyone in the greatest of contempt because such the presumption itself holds all citizens to a depth of contempt in that they must be warned against such upcoming immorality.It’s not a health issue at all; it’s once again a moral issue where some people presume that they are the custodians of the Right Thing To Do. It’s like video games presumed to cause increased levels of violence. There is almost no evidence for this presumption and much evidence contrary to it. But to the the person assuming moral superiority, assuming the moral custodianship of ‘public’ morality, such inconvenient facts don’t matter because they already know what the Right Thing To do is, and so the warning stands. To this point I suggested all kinds of potential warnings about seeing behaviour on a screen that were equally justified as smoking if health were the issue. Obviously health is NOT the issue. It’s all about morality being imposed by some on all and feeling perfectly justified in doing so. And that’s what I think drives the ban on purchasing alcohol and smoking products: a misguided sense of being justified to impose a subjective Right Thing To Do into a sanctimonious objective imposition on all. This is ethically indefensible.

            Like

          11. No, banning is the issue. If it were health, then go back to the list I provided and explain why none of these known health risks are equally or even suggestively posted. It ain’t got nuthin to do with health and everything to do with imposed morality.

            Like

          12. Several times now I have pointed out that other products known to harm health are not selected this way. That is why, that is substantiation, that this issue is not about health; it’s about an agenda, an ideologically driven belief that banning is morally justifiable… hiding behind something like ‘health’. I’m pointing out repeatedly that ‘health’ is NOT what’s being selected here: smoking is. Smoking is being selected BECAUSE it is considered a justified target as something immoral. Welcome to the ranks of the Morality Police, Ark. You’ve been fooled yet I have no doubt you will double down yet again and insist in spite of all evidence to the contrary that you support it in the name of ‘health’.

            Social Justice Warriors have been teaching everyone why it’s so important to be a Virtue Signaler: if you aren’t with us, you’re against us and we’ll call you names, vilify your character, tell everyone what a danger you are to them, and then try to take action to cause harm in some way to the criticism and impediment of spreading the ideology.

            None of us are immune to the seductive charms of being seen as morally virtuous especially when one can see themselves as a champion of those poor deluded Other folk arrayed against the forces of Darkness and Evil.

            Like

          13. Wrong. Morality is not the issue. Health is.
            Nicotine is an addictive substance.
            Some say withdrawal symptoms are worse than coming off heroin.
            The promotion of cigarettes for the purpose of encouraging addiction,and especially when directed at the young who are more impressionable, could well be considered immoral.
            This I will grant you.
            However, introducing any form of legislation to curtail the trend of cigarette smoking, and Netflix’s decision to include specific warnings and ban future content from promoting tobacco is for health reasons.
            They even say so themselves … read the statement they issued.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Tilde:

            I think they should ban all bansomaniacs, it would be more interesting if nothing were banned but the banning of bans (entire!) and I think I just bit my tongue …

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Wow, those are dramatic figures indeed. Sadly domestic violence shows greatly rising figures here in UK and in Italy, the result of being confined together. Perhaps a prohibition on alcohol would help with that too. Life is so very hard for some people. xx

    Liked by 2 people

    1. MBT—

      perhaps then their ban on congregating should be taken one step further with no human groups larger than the Sovereign Individual?

      Barbed wire down the centre of the marital bed* would make a start; but the police would only be allowed in to check one at a time. Ya godda have laws, them laws godda apply equally to all, no? Except dogs …

      * Bugger … ours is a waterbed …

      Like

  3. Thank God they decided to cancel~!

    (Yes, Little Victoria—that was indeed irony, verging on the sarcastic.)

    Like

  4. In the meantime, looking into New Zealand’s crystal ball for a decade from now—

    “The Prime Minister has decided to extend the Lockdown a further two weeks, having checked the statistics and she* informs us that this will be just a temporary measure”

    And further down the ball—

    “Thanks to the commandeering of all industry and agriculture, the toilet paper shortages will now be a thing of the past and no-one will have to eat lawn-clipping salads from next month …”

    * Under Emergency Laws elections were temporarily cancelled in June 2020.
    (Consideration had been given to ‘electronic Democracy’ but because industry slithered rapidly to a halt there was no point, it was bad enough just trying to keep the official roads open for Government Limousines on essential business.) (No mention of the conscription of all labour, note.)

    Like

  5. you may think you’re joking. Im seeing something slithering across our own government that begins to look like faux elections and a lot of wasted time because guess who just got elected ANYWAY and werent we all surprised, eh. As he waddles to the podium once more and thanks all his loyal subj–fans…

    Like

    1. Judy …

      When I am most sardonic is when I am most serious—joking just doesn’t come into it.

      If I write in a serious ‘academic’ manner I am at least kept off the streets, so some good comes of it. The streets are safer.
      But if my words are open to interpretation, some few may just think about them and be triggered to delve that little bit deeper. There is always a chance—an outside chance—that I might trip a cog in someone’s mechanisms that may have a snowball effect.

      And while I’m dreaming …

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s