WHERE IS THIS COVID-19 SPIKE COMING FROM?

 

For a very long time now I have not believed the reporting that T&T was doing well in the battle against COVID-19 despite that Oxford report that said that we were number one in the world in the fight against it. I believed that we were simply not being told the truth about the virus and its spread and that the reality was much worse. I also believed that after the elections there would be a spike.

Well, so far the evidence is that I was right about the spike and it's timing but there has been no evidence that I was right about the other things ... except for my very ugly, dark and (what should be)  unnecessary suspicions. But why should I have had these suspicions? Were/are they unreasonable? Well, you judge for yourself:

First of all, it was clear way back in February that this virus was deadly and dangerous. It was clear that urgent steps ought to be taken to contain it. And yet? Well, the Government in its wisdom allowed Carnival to go on. Was this a wise decision? The reports suggest that it was because there was no discernible spike two weeks later. In fact, when our borders were closed on March 23rd the reported rate of infection was exceedingly low. 

But just recently (literally just before the general elections on August 10th) the number of reported infections started to rise. By the way, it is worth noting that the reported testing during the period March to the end of July was only about 5,000. Little Grenada in the same period had done 48,000 tests! To which any thinking person is bound to ask: why?

Then, when the reports started coming in about persons who actually had the virus the rumours went around that it was being brought in by the illegal Venezuelans. The problem with this theory was that most of these Venezuelans were coming in through the south and all of the cases were being reported in the north. What was wrong with this picture?

Then another rumour/explanation surfaced: that it was the Trinis coming back home that were bringing the virus with them. Hmmm! Possible, but not exactly conclusive. And still did not explain things sufficiently.

So? Where is this spike coming from? Unless, of course, there is no "spike" but simply a belated acknowledgement that the virus is here and totally out of control.

Look, the election is over and for better or worse we're stuck with the results whether you like it or not, or whether or not you believe that there was some fraud in the results. Unless one can come up with definitive proof that there was cheating then we have no choice but to accept the results. This doesn't mean, of course, that there was no cheating. It just means that there is no justiciable evidence  and that the very ugly suspicions that there might have been cheating  have to be put aside ... at least, for the time being. For me, there is little point in debating this particular issue right now. What is a million times more important is how to deal with this COVID crisis. 

My point here is that I believe that this whole COVID business was and is being covered up by the Government. Do I have any proof that it was? None whatsoever! It is just that too many things don't make a whole lot of sense to me ...  they simply don't add up ... and I was always taught that when a man tells you something that you don't understand 97 percent of the time it is because he does NOT WANT you to understand; the remaining 3 percent of the time it is because he is a fool and doesn't understand what he is saying. So? What is it that the Government doesn't want us to know about or understand? Because whatever you might think or want to say about Dr. Rowley and his gang, 'stupid' is not an adjective that you can label them with. This is no longer a question of politics, but a question of life and death. And the last time I looked, death tends to last for a long time!

LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

First of all, it must be acknowledged that at the moment there does not seem to be any justiciable evidence that the elections were stolen. The problem here is that there are too many ugly and most unnecessary suspicions floating around that they in fact were! it is a little like trying to prove that I was at your house at midnight last night. I was, but I am going to lie and say that I wasn't. And because you were the only one who saw me there you can't prove it. So, I must be given the benefit of the doubt and get away with my lie.

Look, if you want to believe that this was a fair election then go ahead and believe it. I don't, but I certainly can't prove that it wasn't. There are too many serious allegations floating around. For example, there is a report that in LaHorquetta/Talparo at polling station 2085 (Wallerfield) there were 1,939 polling cards of which 1,371 were white polling cards which are supposedly issued to persons who did not have ID cards. However, the station diaries do not support this. So? Is this report true? Because if it is it points to voter fraud in which the EBC may be complicit. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how serious this is or could be.

Then we have the allegedly defeated UNC candidate for St. Joseph, Alloy Hunt, making allegations that the recount in his constituency was fraudulently carried out. The problem here is that according to Mr. Hunt there was an agreement with the PNM and the EBC that the recount would take place between the hours of 9am to 5pm. But on the first day of the recount after the UNC representatives left, the EBC together with the PNM representatives then counted a further 4 boxes. And apparently the same thing happened over the next two following days. But no credible explanation has been given by Mr. Hunt or his team as to why, after this alleged fraud or breach of agreement, they continued to trust the EBC and the PNM. Certainly, Mr. Hunt's & Co.'s actions beg incredulity.

So what we have, looking at these two examples (and there are many, many more) is a total mess, with the general population being left hopelessly and helplessly in the dark as to what really happened.

Then we have the rather glaring absence of leadership in the UNC. That party's political leader has been missing in action with others filling in for her. Oh! We have had some press releases in her name, but she has not appeared in public since last Monday night. Now, I've said it before  and I'll say it again: the only test for leadership is to lead, and to lead vigorously. At a time when the followers and supporters of the UNC are understandably upset over the way things have turned out, she has been silent preferring to issue press releases and effectively to hide behind her officials and supporters. 

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's very hesitancy to appear in public has led to calls from various elements within her own party to step aside. Essentially, these calls can be summed up as follows: lead, follow, or get out of the way. She has so far failed to lead and she certainly isn't following anyone. So that means that she should, for both her party's and her country's sake, get out of the way.

WAS A MASSIVE FRAUD PERPETRATED BY THE EBC ON THE COUNTRY?

 That we are in deep "doo-doo" is clear. The supporters of both sides of the political divide have dug in their heels and are seemingly intent on not just hurling racial epithets and other insults at each other, but are almost (and in some cases actually) promoting violence. The cause of all this is because of the growing perception that the recent election was anything but fair and there was massive cheating involved.

Now, let's get one thing clear: either there was cheating or there was none. It is (forgive the pun) a matter that is clearly black or white. And, especially in political matters, perception is always reality, which means that there has to be absolute confidence by a large majority of voters that the persons entrusted to conduct our elections are indeed impartial.

Those who support the PNM say that there was no cheating whatsoever and that the recounts are showing clearly that even if there were one or two mistakes in the counting, those mistakes do not amount to anything that could or would change the result. They go on to say, in essence, that T&T has always had a proud history of free and fair elections and that nothing has changed; the PNM prides itself on its democratic credentials and is not a racist or racial party. Further, the Elections & Boundaries Commission (EBC) has an impeccable record and there is no evidence to suggest that its record has been tarnished. They also deny vehemently that there was/is any collusion with any officials of the EBC.

Those who support the UNC are saying in essence that there was a massive fraud perpetrated by, and with the help of the EBC, in favour of the PNM and that there is too much circumstantial evidence that points to this to be dismissed lightly. In other words, if it walks like a duck ...!!

The circumstantial evidence that the UNC supporters are referring to is as follows:

(a) discarded poll cards being found dumped;

(b) some of the polling cards have questionable initials that point to the initials of the relevant returning officers being forged;

(c) discrepancies in the voter tallies between what is being reported as the number of votes cast and what was actually cast;

(d) the refusal of Dr. Rowley to produce the alleged letter from the Commonwealth Secretariat saying that it had no money to send election observers when the Secretariat's published accounts show that this was not true;

(e) the very early declaration by Dr. Rowley and his supporters that the PNM had won before the EBC had published its own results;

(f) that the head of the EBC is a family relative to a senior member of the PNM.

(g) that Faris Al-Rawi, the Attorney General in the last administration and the candidate for the San Fernando West constituency,was allegedly seen entering the Marabella office of the EBC shortly after the polls closed at 6 o'clock on Monday evening. This, the UNC people say, is highly suspicious.

That there are answers to some of the above accusations is a given, and that I may have left out some of the other accusations may also be true. But the problem here is best summed up by the old adage 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'. In other words, the EBC has to prove conclusively to the country a negative, i.e., that it did not collude with the PNM in any way to alter the results. 

It is always more difficult to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive but that this has now become absolutely necessary is most important for the country to move on. If it is not shown clearly and conclusively that there was no cheating then I regret to say that I predict and fear that there will be very serious repercussions that could easily lead to violence. So far, the reporting in the mainstream media does not seem to suggest that the fears of the obviously disgruntled UNC supporters are being dealt with seriously enough and that those fears are being rather lightly dismissed. This is not good. Not good at all!

IS THERE REALLY A DEAD HEAT IN BARATARIA/SAN JUAN?

It is difficult not to get caught up in the politics as we enter these last few days before August 10th if you have even the slightest interest in politics. Certainly, you can't open a newspaper without it hitting you squarely in the face. And here (again) is my central complaint.

Look, I don't know how many times I have to say it: I genuinely don't care what your political, religious or other preferences are. As far as I am concerned, while I reserve my right to disagree with you on anything, I absolutely agree that you have an equal right to disagree with me and we can meet on the battlefield of ideas.

But I do insist that you should not be afraid to declare your bias, especially in circumstances where you are a newspaper and there are readers who are depending on you to report the news accurately. So, when I read this morning's Guardian and saw in big headlines on page 6 "DEAD HEAT IN BARATARIA/SAN JUAN" and again on page 7 "PNM SEEN AS PROBLEM SOLVER" I decided to read the article which was purporting to report on a poll by Louis Bertrand of Hill and Associates. The article together with accompanying tables was most instructive.

First of all, the poll was conducted with only 200 respondents in that constituency which has more than 24,000 registered voters. Okay, you might say, but pollsters have their own methods of extrapolating coming events from relatively small samples. Okay. But everyone knows that this election is going to be heavily charged with racial tensions and that generally speaking if you are African you are voting PNM and if you are Indian you are voting UNC. So in order to be able to assess the polls findings, shouldn't we know exactly how many of the 200 respondents were Indian/African? Because, for example, if 150 of the respondents were Black and only 50 were Indian then I would say that the poll really doesn't show a dead heat but in fact it predicts a UNC victory. Put another way, the report in the Grand Old Lady of St. Vincent Street is missing some key information.

Again, while I am no pollster the published results in the newspaper don't seem to line up with the information in the tables. For example, 29 percent of the interviewees are reported as saying that they think that Saddam Hosein (the UNC candidate) was doing a good job versus only 12 percent thinking the same thing of Jason Williams (the PNM candidate). But 14 percent had an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Hosein versus only 9 percent for Mr. Williams. To which I can only say what?! You do see the obvious dichotomy there, don't you? Then there is a table (table 61) which reports that 40 percent of the respondents think that UNC will do a better job of all the problems that face the constituency than 33 percent who think that PNM will do a better job.

 Then buried in the article is the quote "Race, as a factor in voting intentions, continues to be important in the constituency." What did I just say a little earlier? And then the article goes on to say that 59 percent of Indo-Trinis intend to vote for the UNC versus 9 percent for the PNM. But 66 percent of Afro-Trinis intend to vote for the PNM versus only 6 percent for the UNC.  But all available evidence suggests that PNM supporters are generally more dissatisfied with their party than are the UNC supporters. Certainly, you hear more complaints about the PNM coming from their supporters than you hear from UNC supporters about their party.  So? Is what the poll is saying really true?

You realize, of course, that either there is something wrong with the editor who allowed this report onto the newspaper's pages or there is something wrong with the pollster. Because the published information is simply too full of contradictions to come to the conclusions that there is a dead heat in the constituency or that PNM is seen as a problem solver. No. It just isn't making sense.

But, the headlines make a lot of sense if you realize that most people only read the headlines and you think that the Guardian is trying to prop up the PNM vote. 

                                                       A UNC TSUNAMI?

I have never claimed to be an oracle neither do I claim to have psychic or supernatural powers, but I do pay attention to little things  ... straws in the wind, you might say ... and often question the motives of people who try to convince me that certain things are not what they seem to be. What am I on about? The %^&*#@( newspapers ... again!!

You see, I don't mind if any of the newspapers are biased. I have said it before ... they have every right to have a bias or a preference, but at the very least they ought to tell us that they have a bias. Yesterday (Sunday) all the newspapers led with articles that said that PNM was winning. Well, that was their right, I suppose, but was it necessarily true? If we were to take the Express story, for example, their headline "PNM WINS" hid a rather inconvenient truth buried deep within the article. The pollster was saying words to the effect that his poll was a national poll and did not reflect what was happening on a constituency-by-constituency basis. In other words, while their poll might have reflected an overall majority vote nationally for the PNM it did not necessarily reflect what was happening in the individual seats.

Now, everybody knows that there are 41 seats in the country with 39 in Trinidad and 2 in Tobago. To win an election one party has to get at least 21 of those seats. So? The real question is who is going to win what seat? Put another way, how many seats will PNM get and how many will UNC get? At the moment, PNM has 23 seats and UNC has 18.

So? What is the prediction for August 10th? How many will each party get?

As I see it right now today the UNC is vulnerable in 3 seats. They are

Baratari/San Juan

Chaguanas East

Pointe-a-Pierre

I see the PNM vulnerable in 8 seats. They are

Moruga/Tableland

La Horquetta/Talparo

Toco/Sangre Grande

St. Joseph

Tunapuna 

San Fernando West

Tobago East 

Tobago West

Of the 3 vulnerable UNC seats I believe that Chaguanas East and Pointe-a-Pierre will "hold". Barataria/San Juan is really too close to call, but for the sake of argument only let's give that seat to the PNM. So UNC is 1 down, which leaves them with 17.

Of the 8 vulnerable PNM seats I believe that their only hope in Trinidad of "holding" might be San Fernando West, so let's give them that seat. Of the 2 Tobago seats I believe that both are lost to Watson Duke's party, but let's (for the sake of argument again) give the PNM Tobago West.  So that puts UNC 5 "up" and PNM 6 down. 

In other words, if I am right then UNC goes home with 22 seats, PNM gets 18 seats and Mr. Duke walks away with 1 seat.  Kamla is the next Prime Minister.

Now, why am I going on about the newspapers ... again? Because this is the kind of analysis and reporting that we should be getting from them.  But we're not! They are trying to pretend that things are  going one way when all the evidence suggests something else. That there are certain "safe" seats for both sides is a given. But, oh crikey! Tell us what is happening in the marginals. Because that is where the real battle will be.

Incidentally, there are unconfirmed reports that the ground is shifting in certain PNM seats long considered to be "safe". If that is true (and it is a big "if") we could very well see a UNC tsunami.  Either way, we aren't going to have to wait for too long now.