washingtonmonthly--2020-04-22--Why Are the US and UK Doing So Poorly at Fighting the Pandemic?

While Russia played a role in convincing the United States to vote for Donald Trump and the United Kingdom to vote for Brexit , it only has so much influence .
Ultimately , Putin needed very stupid populations to do very stupid and self-destructive things .
So how did the US and the UK get so stupid ?
It ’ s now an urgent question because stupidity has translated directly into death .
The Financial Times reports that twice as many Brits have died as are listed in official reports : The coronavirus pandemic has already caused as many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a Financial Times analysis of the latest data from the Office for National Statistics .
The estimate is more than double the official figure of 17,337 released by ministers on Tuesday , which is updated daily and only counts those who have died in hospitals after testing positive for the virus .
The FT extrapolation , based on figures from the ONS that were also published on Tuesday , includes deaths that occurred outside hospitals updated to reflect recent mortality trends .
In fact , the pandemic almost took the life of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Brexit ” prime minister , who insisted on shaking hands as a sign of defiance against the seriousness of the outbreak .
On this side of the pond , Donald Trump acted similarly , holding his trademark MAGA rallies through March 2 as the virus silently spread throughout the country .
Even using the official numbers , the US and UK rank 1st and 5th in total Covid-19 deaths , while ranking 42nd and 56th , respectively , in tests per million in population .
The actual fatality numbers are surely far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the US 13th in deaths per million in population .
Considering the strength of their health care systems , this is an abysmal result .
This is only happening because of the stupidity of voters in each country , which enabled cripplingly stupid and inept leadership .
It ’ s hard to say how the leaders of the Atlantic Alliance become so idiotic , especially when they started out with such well-educated and industrious populations .
Some people will blame video games , but every country has video games .
Others will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but few countries have freer and better-trained journalists .
I ’ m more inclined to blame the end of the Cold War .
Ironically , old school conservative thinking predicts that organizations that don ’ t face stiff competition will grow bloated , corrupt , inefficient , and lose the ability to innovate .
This is one of their biggest arguments against big government and government-run health systems .
In the past , it formed their rationale for supporting tough anti-trust policies .
Competition keeps people sharp , as does the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on science that dominated in the West through the mid-to-late 20th Century .
Competition keeps people sharp and prevents them from resting on their laurels .
Once the USSR came apart , however , the US and the UK lost their edge .
Sitting on top of the global food chain seemed like a reward for virtue , but the work that went into it wasn ’ t understood or respected .
While voluntary armies were sent around the world to invade and occupy peripheral powers , at home we started to lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be first in knowledge .
In the US , the Gingrich Revolution was the first sign that America was turning away from what had put it is such a commanding position .
Pretty soon , the country would see leaders like George W. Bush , Sarah Palin , and Donald Trump emerge , none of whom would have been thinkable to a country that was aware of facing serious global competition .
The resulting destruction is almost unimaginable .
The US and the UK are now doing almost the worst job in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outbreak of the novel coronavirus , and this is in spite of still maintaining massive advantages over most other countries .
It ’ s entirely attributable to stupid leadership that was enable by stupid voters .
It turns out that waving a flag and boasting that “ We ’ re No .
1 ” is no substitute for being hungry for knowledge and determined to lead the world in education .

While Russia played a role in convincing the United States to vote for Donald Trump and the United Kingdom to vote for Brexit, it only has so much influence. Ultimately, Putin needed very stupid populations to do very stupid and self-destructive things. So how did the US and the UK get so stupid?
It’s now an urgent question because stupidity has translated directly into death. The Financial Times reports that twice as many Brits have died as are listed in official reports:
The coronavirus pandemic has already caused as many as 41,000 deaths in the UK, according to a Financial Times analysis of the latest data from the Office for National Statistics. The estimate is more than double the official figure of 17,337 released by ministers on Tuesday, which is updated daily and only counts those who have died in hospitals after testing positive for the virus. The FT extrapolation, based on figures from the ONS that were also published on Tuesday, includes deaths that occurred outside hospitals updated to reflect recent mortality trends.
In fact, the pandemic almost took the life of Boris Johnson, the UK’s “Brexit” prime minister, who insisted on shaking hands as a sign of defiance against the seriousness of the outbreak. On this side of the pond, Donald Trump acted similarly, holding his trademark MAGA rallies through March 2 as the virus silently spread throughout the country.
Even using the official numbers, the US and UK rank 1st and 5th in total Covid-19 deaths, while ranking 42nd and 56th, respectively, in tests per million in population. The actual fatality numbers are surely far worse, but the UK rates 5th and the US 13th in deaths per million in population. Considering the strength of their health care systems, this is an abysmal result. This is only happening because of the stupidity of voters in each country, which enabled cripplingly stupid and inept leadership.
It’s hard to say how the leaders of the Atlantic Alliance become so idiotic, especially when they started out with such well-educated and industrious populations. Some people will blame video games, but every country has video games. Others will point to the influence of right-wing media, but few countries have freer and better-trained journalists. I’m more inclined to blame the end of the Cold War.
Ironically, old school conservative thinking predicts that organizations that don’t face stiff competition will grow bloated, corrupt, inefficient, and lose the ability to innovate. This is one of their biggest arguments against big government and government-run health systems. In the past, it formed their rationale for supporting tough anti-trust policies. Competition keeps people sharp, as does the threat of nuclear annihilation and the resulting focus on science that dominated in the West through the mid-to-late 20th Century. Competition keeps people sharp and prevents them from resting on their laurels.
Once the USSR came apart, however, the US and the UK lost their edge. Sitting on top of the global food chain seemed like a reward for virtue, but the work that went into it wasn’t understood or respected. While voluntary armies were sent around the world to invade and occupy peripheral powers, at home we started to lose our educational advantage and the national calling to be first in knowledge.
In the U.S., the Gingrich Revolution was the first sign that America was turning away from what had put it is such a commanding position. Pretty soon, the country would see leaders like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump emerge, none of whom would have been thinkable to a country that was aware of facing serious global competition.
The resulting destruction is almost unimaginable. The US and the UK are now doing almost the worst job in the world of protecting their citizens from the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, and this is in spite of still maintaining massive advantages over most other countries. It’s entirely attributable to stupid leadership that was enable by stupid voters.
It turns out that waving a flag and boasting that “We’re No. 1” is no substitute for being hungry for knowledge and determined to lead the world in education.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-22--COVID-19 Isn’t Just a Matter of Life or Death

In order to track the spread of COVID-19 , we have all relied on two numbers : confirmed cases and deaths .
I pointed out previously that since it is primarily people who have been hospitalized and those at extreme risk who are being tested , we don ’ t really know how many people have contracted the virus .
Recently a study was released by researchers in California suggesting that the number of cases could be 50 to 80 times higher than what has been reported .
But as Josh Marshall explains , the methods used are suspect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
The team behind the Santa Clara study is a group of doctors and researchers from Stanford University , two of whom are what we might call COVID19 severity skeptics .
To be clear , I ’ m not talking about crazies or conspiracy theorists .
These are credentialed medical specialists who ’ ve argued that COVID19 is likely more widespread than we know and thus less lethal than we fear .
Because of this they have argued that the public health measures employed in the US are too severe .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to make is that , because COVID-19 is much more widespread than we thought , the death rates from the disease are a lot lower than anyone thinks , meaning that the measures we have taken to slow down its spread are an overreaction .
What that implies is that the only concern we should have about the disease is the number of people who die from it .
Similarly , when Texas Attorney General Dan Patrick justifies reopening that state ’ s economy by saying that “ there are more important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting that the only concern we should consider is whether contracting COVID-19 will kills us .
All of this focus on death rates has skewed our thinking about this pandemic by completely ignoring the possibility that COVID-19 could also have long-term health effects for those who survive .
The truth is that , because this virus is so new , we don ’ t know a lot about how it will affect those who recover .
But it is still worth considering what we know so far .
Julia Ries points to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind .
For people with moderate to severe reactions to the virus , it is the overproduction of an inflammatory response that causes their symptoms .
The most common concern is that the response can cause irreversible scarring ( fibrosis ) in the lungs , resulting in a lack of lung capacity .
Similar issues can occur in the heart .
There are also concerns about potential liver or kidney damage , along with indications that the virus attacks T-cells in a way that is similar to HIV .
My purpose in highlighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a “ Debbie Downer.
” But we have approached this pandemic with a familiar bifurcated either/or assumption : if you contract COVID-19 , you either die , or survive and live happily ever after .
That won ’ t be the case for some people .
They will be struggling with the long-term effects of this virus for the rest of their lives .

In order to track the spread of COVID-19, we have all relied on two numbers: confirmed cases and deaths. I pointed out previously that since it is primarily people who have been hospitalized and those at extreme risk who are being tested, we don’t really know how many people have contracted the virus.
Recently a study was released by researchers in California suggesting that the number of cases could be 50 to 80 times higher than what has been reported. But as Josh Marshall explains, the methods used are suspect, while the researchers seem to have an agenda.
The team behind the Santa Clara study is a group of doctors and researchers from Stanford University, two of whom are what we might call COVID19 severity skeptics. To be clear, I’m not talking about crazies or conspiracy theorists. These are credentialed medical specialists who’ve argued that COVID19 is likely more widespread than we know and thus less lethal than we fear. Because of this they have argued that the public health measures employed in the US are too severe.
In other words, the case these researchers want to make is that, because COVID-19 is much more widespread than we thought, the death rates from the disease are a lot lower than anyone thinks, meaning that the measures we have taken to slow down its spread are an overreaction. What that implies is that the only concern we should have about the disease is the number of people who die from it.
Similarly, when Texas Attorney General Dan Patrick justifies reopening that state’s economy by saying that “there are more important things than living,” he is suggesting that the only concern we should consider is whether contracting COVID-19 will kills us.
All of this focus on death rates has skewed our thinking about this pandemic by completely ignoring the possibility that COVID-19 could also have long-term health effects for those who survive. The truth is that, because this virus is so new, we don’t know a lot about how it will affect those who recover. But it is still worth considering what we know so far.
Julia Ries points to the first thing we need to keep in mind.
When the body is exposed to an infection like COVID-19, it mounts an inflammatory response, in which the immune system pumps out cells to fight the virus. With COVID-19, some people’s bodies are producing way too much of an inflammatory response that’s harming critical organs like the lungs, kidneys, and heart, according to Khalilah Gates, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of pulmonary, critical care and medical education at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.
For people with moderate to severe reactions to the virus, it is the overproduction of an inflammatory response that causes their symptoms. The most common concern is that the response can cause irreversible scarring (fibrosis) in the lungs, resulting in a lack of lung capacity. Similar issues can occur in the heart.
COVID-19 is also putting extreme stress on people’s hearts. Harvard University specialists called it “one big stress test for the heart,” stating that the inflammation and high fevers brought on by the coronavirus weaken the heart and increase the risk for cardiac abnormalities like blood clotting.
There are also concerns about potential liver or kidney damage, along with indications that the virus attacks T-cells in a way that is similar to HIV.
My purpose in highlighting all of that isn’t to be a “Debbie Downer.” But we have approached this pandemic with a familiar bifurcated either/or assumption: if you contract COVID-19, you either die, or survive and live happily ever after. That won’t be the case for some people. They will be struggling with the long-term effects of this virus for the rest of their lives.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-23--GOP Fiscal Policies Are Deadly During a Pandemic

Journalist George Chidi has come up with another reason why Georgia ’ s governor is so intent on sending some people back to work : at the going rate , the state will run out of money for unemployment claims shortly .
The state is staring at one million unemployment applications .
It probably can not pay those over six months .
The unemployment fund has a reserve of about $ 2.6 billion .
Last week it paid out about $ 42 million — which is about three times as much as it usually does .
That figure will double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maybe more .
At that rate , the fund is empty in about 28 weeks .
Probably less .
If the governor ends his restrictions for some businesses , employees will no longer qualify for unemployment benefits .
In the end , it all comes down to a casual disregard for some lives .
Not banks .
Not software firms .
Not factories .
Not schools .
It is no coincidence that the businesses on this list are staffed by relatively poor people .
Because that ’ s who he wants off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die … well , they ’ re mostly black people , or Asian , and poor , and an acceptable political loss for a Republican governor .
In terms of alternatives , Governor Kemp wouldn ’ t simply face a Republican backlash if he raised taxes .
Like many states , Georgia passed a constitutional limit on taxes of 6 percent .
Chidi also notes that Georgia law prohibits the state from borrowing more than 5 percent of its previous-year revenue .
That would leave Kemp with only one other option .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would rather risk people ’ s lives than deal with the straightjacket these Republican policies have placed on the state .
One has to wonder how many of the other southern governors who have joined in a pact to open their state ’ s economies as soon as possible are facing exactly the same thing .
All of this reminded me that Republicans have long supported the notion of a federal balanced budget amendment .
They have been making half-hearted attempts to pass one since the 1970s when Carter was president .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just days after a budget was passed and the CBO reported that deficit spending would increase by $ 11.7 trillion over the next 10 years .
Of course , it was all a show for the folks back home , because such an amendment would require a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate .
Even with Republican majorities , that wasn ’ t going to happen .
But now would be a good time to imagine what would have happened if Republicans had been successful .
Not only would current safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the funding passed by Congress in the last few months to deal with both the pandemic and its economic consequences would also have been impossible .
Of course , for conservatives who have always wanted to decimate this country ’ s social safety net , that would be a feature , not a bug .

Journalist George Chidi has come up with another reason why Georgia’s governor is so intent on sending some people back to work: at the going rate, the state will run out of money for unemployment claims shortly.
The state is staring at one million unemployment applications. It probably cannot pay those over six months. The unemployment fund has a reserve of about $2.6 billion. Last week it paid out about $42 million — which is about three times as much as it usually does. That figure will double in two weeks, give or take. Maybe more. At that rate, the fund is empty in about 28 weeks. Probably less.
If the governor ends his restrictions for some businesses, employees will no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. In the end, it all comes down to a casual disregard for some lives.
“Gyms, fitness centers, bowling alleys, body art studios, barbers, cosmetologists, hair designers, nail care artists, estheticians, their respective schools & massage therapists.” Not banks. Not software firms. Not factories. Not schools. It is no coincidence that the businesses on this list are staffed by relatively poor people. Because that’s who he wants off the unemployment rolls. And if they die … well, they’re mostly black people, or Asian, and poor, and an acceptable political loss for a Republican governor.
In terms of alternatives, Governor Kemp wouldn’t simply face a Republican backlash if he raised taxes. Like many states, Georgia passed a constitutional limit on taxes of 6 percent. Chidi also notes that Georgia law prohibits the state from borrowing more than 5 percent of its previous-year revenue. That would leave Kemp with only one other option.
In the end, it appears that Kemp would rather risk people’s lives than deal with the straightjacket these Republican policies have placed on the state. One has to wonder how many of the other southern governors who have joined in a pact to open their state’s economies as soon as possible are facing exactly the same thing.
All of this reminded me that Republicans have long supported the notion of a federal balanced budget amendment. They have been making half-hearted attempts to pass one since the 1970s when Carter was president. The most recent came two years ago, just days after a budget was passed and the CBO reported that deficit spending would increase by $11.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Of course, it was all a show for the folks back home, because such an amendment would require a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate. Even with Republican majorities, that wasn’t going to happen.
But now would be a good time to imagine what would have happened if Republicans had been successful. Not only would current safety net programs be jeopardized, but all of the funding passed by Congress in the last few months to deal with both the pandemic and its economic consequences would also have been impossible. Of course, for conservatives who have always wanted to decimate this country’s social safety net, that would be a feature, not a bug.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-23--How to Save America’s Restaurants from Coronavirus

WEST SENECA , N.Y. — Jim Revelas sits in a booth in his empty diner .
He is reading the latest Covid-19 news on his cell phone , hoping a customer will call in a takeout order .
In the last seven hours , only four have .
Once filled with businessmen , young families , and retired couples–rushing in for potato pancakes and chicken souvlakis–Union Family Restaurant is now a ghost town .
Since the novel coronavirus hit , business has gone down 95 percent .
“ It ’ s not enough to pay the bills , or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tells me as he sits in a separate booth , more than 6 feet away .
He just had another 11-hour workday in which he made $ 0 .
So , too , did his wife .
Anne , a hair stylist , lost her job due to the outbreak .
The financial burdens are overwhelming .
The couple has mortgage and car payments and utility bills coming up .
They also have four children to support .
“ I ’ m literally petrified we ’ re not going to be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells me .
“ I ’ m scared of my kids not being able to live a normal life.
” This kind of fear has become the new norm for independent restaurant owners in America .
Over the last month , elected officials have taken drastic measures to stop the spread of the virus .
That includes shutting down non-essential businesses , such as hair salons , gyms , and most retail stores .
Like many states , New York ordered restaurants and bars to close their dining rooms but allowed them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivery are hardly providing enough revenue for eateries to stay afloat .
In fact , since the pandemic began , the restaurant and food service industry has suffered more sales and job losses than any other in the nation , according to the National Restaurant Association .
It ’ s expected to lose more than $ 80 billion in sales by the end of April .
Four in 10 restaurants are now closed .
The federal government is trying to help .
On Tuesday , the Senate passed its second coronavirus relief package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replenish the small-business loan program created by the initial $ 2.2 trillion stimulus ; the program already ran out of money last week .
Those loans can ultimately be forgiven if businesses follow certain stipulations , like keeping employees on payroll .
That ’ s much easier said than done .
As a consequence , many restaurants won ’ t be eligible for forgiveness .
They already operate on razor-thin profit margins and a host of monthly expenses .
In other words , the government is issuing loans that most restaurants won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ ll be honest , I ’ m simply scared , ” Ryan Sutton , chief restaurant critic for Eater New York , told me .
“ I ’ m scared that restaurants won ’ t be able to open , and they ’ ll be saddled with too much debt .
We really need some comprehensive relief , not in the form of loans , but in the form of grants and forgiveness.
” Indeed , lawmakers need a much more dramatic and long-term solution—and they will need to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we may lose our favorite local restaurants forever .
No doubt , state and local governments ’ extreme social distancing measures are helping to slow the spread of the virus , especially in New York , the current epicenter .
But they have also come at a profound economic cost for independent restaurants , which have not been able to transform into takeout businesses overnight .
Just ask Angelo Canna .
Last year , he invested $ 150,000 to open Hooked , an upscale seafood restaurant in the Wyndham Garden Hotel in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buffalo .
In the first two weeks of the outbreak , Canna lost $ 65,000 worth of business and inventory .
He made adjustments—creating a carryout menu , cutting his salary , and , most painfully , laying off his staff .
Still , he couldn ’ t get enough orders to break even .
Like all restaurateurs , he waited to see what kind of relief the government would offer .
Unfortunately , the loan , while generous , didn ’ t address the specific dynamics of the restaurant industry .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan that does .
Relief Opportunities for all Restaurants ( ROAR ) is a non-profit started by New York City restaurant owners to advocate for the protection of independent restaurants during the pandemic .
The group has crafted an eight-point plan it wants Governor Andrew Cuomo to implement in New York .
It includes : creating a 6-month income replacement program ; providing rent abatement during the duration of the administrative closure ; suspending state sales and payroll taxes through the end of the year ; and requiring business loss insurance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simply put , it ’ s a plan that could help restaurants stay open , sustain a one-year recovery process , and prevent mass unemployment .
Cuomo has already taken a major leadership role in his handling of the coronavirus outbreak .
If he can take a leadership role in saving New York ’ s restaurants , perhaps then other states—and maybe even the federal government—can follow suit .
Otherwise , restaurants will be relying on thesmall-business loan program , called the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) .
Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borrowup to 2.5 times their monthly payroll costs .
It can be completely forgiven , but only if the business owners rehire the equivalent of their full-time staff , spend 75 percent of the loan on payroll , and spend the other 25 percent on operating expenses , like rent and utilities .
Few , if any , restaurants will be able to pull that off .
They may not have any money left over to cover other expenses or their own salaries .
In fact , every restaurant owner interviewed for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for restaurants to rehire their entire staff , they will need work to offer them .
That would require the coronavirus to be under control , dining rooms to open back up , and crowds of customers to immediately return .
That ’ s unlikely to happen any time soon .
The nation ’ s top epidemiologist , Anthony Fauci , says it will take 12-18 months for a vaccine to be developed and approved .
In the meantime , the federal government will need to ramp up testing to allow even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , workers won ’ t have much incentive to return .
They will have to risk their own health and , under the aid package ’ s new unemployment program , most will get paid more by staying home .
On top of that , the PPP is far too broad .
It ’ s applicable to businesses with up to 500 employees .
As a result , the Small Business Administration and thousands of banks have been overwhelmed by applications .
Large restaurant chains have had more success getting loans than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Chicago-based sandwich chain with more than 470 locations across the nation , received a $ 10 million loan while smaller shops were left dry .
That ’ s why New York and other state governments should look to ROAR ’ s outline as a blueprint for a broader solution .
It ’ s crucial for lawmakers to save independent restaurants .
Not only are they the cultural lifeblood of their communities , they stimulate the economy .
Independent restaurants employ more than 11 million people in the United States and contribute nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two thirds of restaurants nationwide are owned independently .
Yet , when Congress first sat down to draft the stimulus package in Washington , only large restaurant chains were invited .
Perhaps that helps explain why Ruth ’ s Chris Steakhouse got $ 20 million in relief , but most small restaurants are clawing to hang on .
Camilla Marcus , who owns West Bourne in SoHo , was not okay with not having a seat at the table .
Neither were dozens of other NYC restaurant owners .
In a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone and created ROAR .
Shortly thereafter , they outlined a change.org petition that eventually landed some independent restaurant representatives at meetings with members of Congress and their staff .
While didn ’ t get everything they asked for in the aid package , they didbegin a dialogue on Capitol Hill .
“ We never before came together as a singular industry , that ’ s the silver lining of a really terrible , terrible situation , ” Marcus told me .
“ Is it everything that is necessary to make the stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve made a tremendous step forward.
” Now , Congress and state governments need to take the next step by crafting a policy that can save the small restaurants of America .
Luckily , there ’ s already a damn good plan waiting for them .

WEST SENECA, N.Y. — Jim Revelas sits in a booth in his empty diner. He is reading the latest Covid-19 news on his cell phone, hoping a customer will call in a takeout order. In the last seven hours, only four have.
Once filled with businessmen, young families, and retired couples–rushing in for potato pancakes and chicken souvlakis–Union Family Restaurant is now a ghost town. Since the novel coronavirus hit, business has gone down 95 percent. “It’s not enough to pay the bills, or even break even,” Revelas, 48, tells me as he sits in a separate booth, more than 6 feet away.
He just had another 11-hour workday in which he made $0. So, too, did his wife. Anne, a hair stylist, lost her job due to the outbreak. The financial burdens are overwhelming. The couple has mortgage and car payments and utility bills coming up. They also have four children to support. “I’m literally petrified we’re not going to be able to pay our bills,” Anne tells me. “I’m scared of my kids not being able to live a normal life.”
This kind of fear has become the new norm for independent restaurant owners in America.
Over the last month, elected officials have taken drastic measures to stop the spread of the virus. That includes shutting down non-essential businesses, such as hair salons, gyms, and most retail stores. Like many states, New York ordered restaurants and bars to close their dining rooms but allowed them to offer takeout and delivery.
Takeout and delivery are hardly providing enough revenue for eateries to stay afloat. In fact, since the pandemic began, the restaurant and food service industry has suffered more sales and job losses than any other in the nation, according to the National Restaurant Association. It’s expected to lose more than $80 billion in sales by the end of April. Four in 10 restaurants are now closed.
The federal government is trying to help. On Tuesday, the Senate passed its second coronavirus relief package. A large chunk of which will replenish the small-business loan program created by the initial $2.2 trillion stimulus; the program already ran out of money last week. Those loans can ultimately be forgiven if businesses follow certain stipulations, like keeping employees on payroll. That’s much easier said than done. As a consequence, many restaurants won’t be eligible for forgiveness. They already operate on razor-thin profit margins and a host of monthly expenses. In other words, the government is issuing loans that most restaurants won’t be able to pay back.
“I’ll be honest, I’m simply scared,” Ryan Sutton, chief restaurant critic for Eater New York, told me. “I’m scared that restaurants won’t be able to open, and they’ll be saddled with too much debt. We really need some comprehensive relief, not in the form of loans, but in the form of grants and forgiveness.”
Indeed, lawmakers need a much more dramatic and long-term solution—and they will need to act fast. If they don’t, we may lose our favorite local restaurants forever.
No doubt, state and local governments’ extreme social distancing measures are helping to slow the spread of the virus, especially in New York, the current epicenter. But they have also come at a profound economic cost for independent restaurants, which have not been able to transform into takeout businesses overnight.
Just ask Angelo Canna. Last year, he invested $150,000 to open Hooked, an upscale seafood restaurant in the Wyndham Garden Hotel in Williamsville, a suburb just outside of Buffalo. In the first two weeks of the outbreak, Canna lost $65,000 worth of business and inventory. He made adjustments—creating a carryout menu, cutting his salary, and, most painfully, laying off his staff. Still, he couldn’t get enough orders to break even.
Like all restaurateurs, he waited to see what kind of relief the government would offer. Unfortunately, the loan, while generous, didn’t address the specific dynamics of the restaurant industry. So, a New York State group created a plan that does.
Relief Opportunities for all Restaurants (ROAR) is a non-profit started by New York City restaurant owners to advocate for the protection of independent restaurants during the pandemic. The group has crafted an eight-point plan it wants Governor Andrew Cuomo to implement in New York. It includes: creating a 6-month income replacement program; providing rent abatement during the duration of the administrative closure; suspending state sales and payroll taxes through the end of the year; and requiring business loss insurance to cover COVID-19 closures for hospitality businesses.
Simply put, it’s a plan that could help restaurants stay open, sustain a one-year recovery process, and prevent mass unemployment.
Cuomo has already taken a major leadership role in his handling of the coronavirus outbreak. If he can take a leadership role in saving New York’s restaurants, perhaps then other states—and maybe even the federal government—can follow suit.
Otherwise, restaurants will be relying on thesmall-business loan program, called the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Here’s the problem. The loan allows businesses to borrowup to 2.5 times their monthly payroll costs. It can be completely forgiven, but only if the business owners rehire the equivalent of their full-time staff, spend 75 percent of the loan on payroll, and spend the other 25 percent on operating expenses, like rent and utilities. Few, if any, restaurants will be able to pull that off. They may not have any money left over to cover other expenses or their own salaries. In fact, every restaurant owner interviewed for this story has forgone their salary.
Furthermore, for restaurants to rehire their entire staff, they will need work to offer them. That would require the coronavirus to be under control, dining rooms to open back up, and crowds of customers to immediately return. That’s unlikely to happen any time soon. The nation’s top epidemiologist, Anthony Fauci, says it will take 12-18 months for a vaccine to be developed and approved. In the meantime, the federal government will need to ramp up testing to allow even a modified reopening of the economy.
Still, workers won’t have much incentive to return. They will have to risk their own health and, under the aid package’s new unemployment program, most will get paid more by staying home.
On top of that, the PPP is far too broad. It’s applicable to businesses with up to 500 employees. As a result, the Small Business Administration and thousands of banks have been overwhelmed by applications. Large restaurant chains have had more success getting loans than their smaller independent counterparts. Potbelly, a Chicago-based sandwich chain with more than 470 locations across the nation, received a $10 million loan while smaller shops were left dry.
That’s why New York and other state governments should look to ROAR’s outline as a blueprint for a broader solution. It’s crucial for lawmakers to save independent restaurants. Not only are they the cultural lifeblood of their communities, they stimulate the economy. Independent restaurants employ more than 11 million people in the United States and contribute nearly $1 trillion in annual economic activity. Two thirds of restaurants nationwide are owned independently.
Yet, when Congress first sat down to draft the stimulus package in Washington, only large restaurant chains were invited. Perhaps that helps explain why Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse got $20 million in relief, but most small restaurants are clawing to hang on.
Camilla Marcus, who owns West Bourne in SoHo, was not okay with not having a seat at the table. Neither were dozens of other NYC restaurant owners. In a matter of hours, they got on the phone and created ROAR. Shortly thereafter, they outlined a change.org petition that eventually landed some independent restaurant representatives at meetings with members of Congress and their staff. While didn’t get everything they asked for in the aid package, they didbegin a dialogue on Capitol Hill.
“We never before came together as a singular industry, that’s the silver lining of a really terrible, terrible situation,” Marcus told me. “Is it everything that is necessary to make the stimulus viable? No. But I think we’ve made a tremendous step forward.”
Now, Congress and state governments need to take the next step by crafting a policy that can save the small restaurants of America. Luckily, there’s already a damn good plan waiting for them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-23--The World Weeps Over Trump’s Villainy

The World Weeps Over Trump’s Villainy

“ Desperate sadness ” pretty well describes the mood that has predominated for me from the moment Donald Trump was elected president of the United States .
Most of the time , this percolates below the surface , mainly because I put my hardhat on every day and go to work to do what I can to rectify the situation .
This usually staves off the sense of helplessness , but not always .
These days , I have other things to be desperate and sad about , but it always comes back to the president .
The condition I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an anomaly .
It ’ s more like the physical manifestation of the spiritual rot that I ’ ve observed every day for almost four years .
I can ’ t say it was inevitable , because who knows when a novel virus will emerge ?
But it is the unavoidable consequence of putting a man like Trump in charge and of letting people like Mitch McConnell control the U.S. Senate .
What we ’ re witnessing is merely the implicit becoming visible so that even foreigners can witness it .
As images @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and snaking jobless lines have flickered across the world , people on the European side of the Atlantic are looking at the richest and most powerful nation in the world with disbelief .
“ When people see these pictures of New York City they say , ‘ How can this happen ?
How is this possible ?
’ ” said Henrik Enderlein , president of the Berlin-based Hertie School , a university focused on public policy .
“ We are all stunned .
Look at the jobless lines .
Twenty-two million , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperate sadness , ” said Timothy Garton Ash , a professor of European history at Oxford University and a lifelong and ardent Atlanticist .
American football is an exceptional sport , admired if not always appreciated around the world .
And the National Football League is a well-oiled machine and moneymaker .
In this , the sport is a good analogy for the country as a whole .
But if you take some out-of-shape sociopath off the street and ask him to quarterback the New York Jets , the New York Jets are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to do exceptionally badly .
This isn ’ t complicated , or it shouldn ’ t be .
Electing Trump was the entire nation deciding to stop doing whatever it was doing and stop being whatever it was , and instead just start punching itself in the face all day , every day , in perpetuity , until somehow it ends .
If we were the Ancient Greeks , we would have long ago concluded that this decision had earned the wrath of the gods .
Perhaps Trump killed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he fell in love with his own reflection , like Narcissus .
Yet , somehow , when the time came to remove Trump from power , the country couldn ’ t manage to get the job done .
His impeachment acquittal in the Senate was followed immediately by the pandemic , almost as if the gods were exasperated by our decision .
The only thing holding me up now is the prospect of getting new leadership next January .
If that doesn ’ t happen , all is lost .

“Desperate sadness” pretty well describes the mood that has predominated for me from the moment Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. Most of the time, this percolates below the surface, mainly because I put my hardhat on every day and go to work to do what I can to rectify the situation. This usually staves off the sense of helplessness, but not always. These days, I have other things to be desperate and sad about, but it always comes back to the president. The condition I find my country in today is not an anomaly. It’s more like the physical manifestation of the spiritual rot that I’ve observed every day for almost four years. I can’t say it was inevitable, because who knows when a novel virus will emerge? But it is the unavoidable consequence of putting a man like Trump in charge and of letting people like Mitch McConnell control the U.S. Senate. What we’re witnessing is merely the implicit becoming visible so that even foreigners can witness it.
As images of America’s overwhelmed hospital wards and snaking jobless lines have flickered across the world, people on the European side of the Atlantic are looking at the richest and most powerful nation in the world with disbelief. “When people see these pictures of New York City they say, ‘How can this happen? How is this possible?’” said Henrik Enderlein, president of the Berlin-based Hertie School, a university focused on public policy. “We are all stunned. Look at the jobless lines. Twenty-two million,” he added. “I feel a desperate sadness,” said Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European history at Oxford University and a lifelong and ardent Atlanticist.
American football is an exceptional sport, admired if not always appreciated around the world. And the National Football League is a well-oiled machine and moneymaker. In this, the sport is a good analogy for the country as a whole. But if you take some out-of-shape sociopath off the street and ask him to quarterback the New York Jets, the New York Jets are not just going to do badly… they’re going to do exceptionally badly.
“America has not done badly, it has done exceptionally badly,” said Dominique Moïsi, a political scientist and senior adviser at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne.
This isn’t complicated, or it shouldn’t be. Electing Trump was the entire nation deciding to stop doing whatever it was doing and stop being whatever it was, and instead just start punching itself in the face all day, every day, in perpetuity, until somehow it ends.
If we were the Ancient Greeks, we would have long ago concluded that this decision had earned the wrath of the gods. Perhaps Trump killed his father and married his mother. Perhaps he fell in love with his own reflection, like Narcissus. Yet, somehow, when the time came to remove Trump from power, the country couldn’t manage to get the job done. His impeachment acquittal in the Senate was followed immediately by the pandemic, almost as if the gods were exasperated by our decision.
“There is not only no global leadership, there is no national and no federal leadership in the United States,” said Ricardo Hausmann, director of the Growth Lab at Harvard’s Center for International Development. “In some sense this is the failure of leadership of the U.S. in the U.S.”
The only thing holding me up now is the prospect of getting new leadership next January. If that doesn’t happen, all is lost.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-23--If the Election Were Held Today, Biden Would Beat Trump

It is probably safe to say that , during all of the 2019 coverage of the upcoming election , no one factored in the possibility of how a pandemic would effect the outcome .
That reinforces a point I have tried to make about how the unknown undermines predictions about the future .
There are , however , some assumptions we can make , and Ed Kilgore has identified one of them in a piece titled , “ 5 Reasons Pundits Will Overestimate Trump ’ s Odds of Winning in November.
” While he identifies five reasons , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses a tweet from Ron Klain to make the point .
Klain was responding to an article by Nate Cohn that compared polling on the Biden-Trump race to what we saw in the Clinton-Trump race .
What caught my eye about Cohn ’ s piece is that he didn ’ t compare current polls to those conducted in April 2016 .
Instead , the polls he uses from the previous election were conducted following the third presidential debate on October 19 , 2016 .
It is unclear why Cohn would focus on such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is probably because he was attempting to compare Biden ’ s numbers with polling just prior to the election—assuming it would capture the final results .
There was , however , an unpredicted event that happened a week and a half after the third debate of 2016 that had a major impact .
On October 28th then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he was re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s emails .
Both Sam Wang and reporters at Vox have documented that the announcement cost Clinton the election .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding the Comey effect .
The timing of the shift both at the state and national levels lines up very neatly with the publication of the letter , as does the predominance of the story in the media coverage from the final week of the campaign .
With an unusually large number of undecided voters late in the campaign , the letter hugely increased the salience of what was the defining critique of Clinton during the campaign at its most critical moment .
Even the Trump campaign conceded that Comey ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidential campaign acknowledged in an internal memo that former FBI Director James Comey ’ s 11th hour decision to reopen an inquiry into Hillary Clinton ’ s use of private email helped shift the results… “ The last few days have proven to be pivotal in the minds of voters with the recent revelations in reopening the investigation of Secretary Clinton , ” the memo read , according to Green .
“ Early polling numbers show declining support for Clinton , shifting in favor of Mr. Trump.
” It added : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the results.
” Of course , none of that negates other factors that influenced the 2016 election , leading it to be close enough that 77,000 votes spread across three states made the difference .
But Cohn ’ s analysis offers three cautionary tales .
• As Kilgore suggests , pundits are likely to overcompensate for getting things wrong in 2016 , • Especially in a close race , unpredicted events can alter the outcome , and • It helps to be skeptical about apples to oranges comparisons .
In that spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race stands today—six months away from actual voting .
Given that Clinton won the popular vote , we ’ ve all been reminded that national polls don ’ t tell us much .
But here are the averages for a few swing states that Trump won in 2016 , as reported by RealClearPolitics .
Based on those , if the election were held today , Biden would win with 318 electoral votes to Trump ’ s 219 .
Any analysis of this race that doesn ’ t acknowledge that Trump ’ s re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either skewed or overcompensating .
If stating things that clearly makes you uncomfortable , I would suggest that it points to Kilgore ’ s fourth reason related to Democratic pessimism .
In other words , those who rely on pessimism are not going to like a factual analysis of where this race stands right now .
But that doesn ’ t change the fact that Biden is in the lead .
Now we simply wait to find out if there are any more unpredictable events that will change the expected outcome .

It is probably safe to say that, during all of the 2019 coverage of the upcoming election, no one factored in the possibility of how a pandemic would effect the outcome. That reinforces a point I have tried to make about how the unknown undermines predictions about the future.
There are, however, some assumptions we can make, and Ed Kilgore has identified one of them in a piece titled, “5 Reasons Pundits Will Overestimate Trump’s Odds of Winning in November.” While he identifies five reasons, there is one that overwhelms the others. Kilgore uses a tweet from Ron Klain to make the point.
Klain was responding to an article by Nate Cohn that compared polling on the Biden-Trump race to what we saw in the Clinton-Trump race. What caught my eye about Cohn’s piece is that he didn’t compare current polls to those conducted in April 2016. Instead, the polls he uses from the previous election were conducted following the third presidential debate on October 19, 2016.
It is unclear why Cohn would focus on such an apples to oranges comparison, but it is probably because he was attempting to compare Biden’s numbers with polling just prior to the election—assuming it would capture the final results.
There was, however, an unpredicted event that happened a week and a half after the third debate of 2016 that had a major impact. On October 28th then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he was re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Both Sam Wang and reporters at Vox have documented that the announcement cost Clinton the election.
The evidence is clear, and consistent, regarding the Comey effect. The timing of the shift both at the state and national levels lines up very neatly with the publication of the letter, as does the predominance of the story in the media coverage from the final week of the campaign. With an unusually large number of undecided voters late in the campaign, the letter hugely increased the salience of what was the defining critique of Clinton during the campaign at its most critical moment.
Even the Trump campaign conceded that Comey’s announcement had a defining impact.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign acknowledged in an internal memo that former FBI Director James Comey’s 11th hour decision to reopen an inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email helped shift the results… “The last few days have proven to be pivotal in the minds of voters with the recent revelations in reopening the investigation of Secretary Clinton,” the memo read, according to Green. “Early polling numbers show declining support for Clinton, shifting in favor of Mr. Trump.” It added: “This may have a fundamental impact on the results.”
Of course, none of that negates other factors that influenced the 2016 election, leading it to be close enough that 77,000 votes spread across three states made the difference. But Cohn’s analysis offers three cautionary tales.
As Kilgore suggests, pundits are likely to overcompensate for getting things wrong in 2016, Especially in a close race, unpredicted events can alter the outcome, and It helps to be skeptical about apples to oranges comparisons.
In that spirit, polling can tell us where the race stands today—six months away from actual voting. Given that Clinton won the popular vote, we’ve all been reminded that national polls don’t tell us much. But here are the averages for a few swing states that Trump won in 2016, as reported by RealClearPolitics.
Wisconsin – Biden +2.7 Florida – Biden +3.4 Michigan – Biden +5.5 Pennsylvania – Biden +4.6 Arizona – Biden +4.4
Based on those, if the election were held today, Biden would win with 318 electoral votes to Trump’s 219. Any analysis of this race that doesn’t acknowledge that Trump’s re-election is in big trouble right now is either skewed or overcompensating. If stating things that clearly makes you uncomfortable, I would suggest that it points to Kilgore’s fourth reason related to Democratic pessimism.
It seems to be a matter of partisan identity this cycle: Republicans look at the evidence and spin it madly in their candidate’s favor, apparently under the impression that self-confidence is a tangible asset, while by and large Democrats have a hard time seeing or accepting good news.
In other words, those who rely on pessimism are not going to like a factual analysis of where this race stands right now. But that doesn’t change the fact that Biden is in the lead. Now we simply wait to find out if there are any more unpredictable events that will change the expected outcome.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-24--The Supreme Court Justice Most Hostile to Charges of Racism

A little over a year ago , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked to name his most consequential political accomplishment .
At the top of his list was rapid confirmations of conservative judges to every level of the federal judicial system .
He has been perfectly happy to completely neuter Congress , stack the federal courts with extremist judges , and allow them to legislate from the bench while the GOP slips into minority status .
The decisions made by those extremist judges will impact all of us for decades .
But one of the areas most threatened will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of color over the last few decades .
When it comes to the Supreme Court , if I were to ask you which justice was the most hostile to the rights of people of color , I doubt that anyone would name Samuel Alito .
And yet , as Ian Millhiser explains , he is the justice who becomes the most agitated at the mere suggestion that racism still affects people of color .
On the other hand , Alito doesn ’ t embrace the “ color blindness ” that has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , he has written opinions affirming discrimination against white people .
All of that reminds me of something Alito said during his Senate confirmation hearings .
Senator , I tried to in my opening statement , I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point .
… And that ’ s why I went into that in my opening statement .
Because when a case comes before me involving , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can ’ t help but think of my own ancestors , because it wasn ’ t that long ago when they were in that position… And that goes down the line .
When I get a case about discrimination , I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender .
And I do take that into account .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ background influenced his decisions as a judge .
But a few years later , Sonia Sotomayor was pilloried by Republicans for saying this during a lecture she gave in 2001 .
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn ’ t lived that life… Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see .
My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion…I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt , as the Supreme Court suggests , continuously to judge when those opinions , sympathies and prejudices are appropriate .
The distinction for conservatives , of course , is that the experience of white people is considered normative , while being a “ wise Latina ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sotomayor demonstrated an awareness that she must “ judge when those opinions , sympathies , and prejudices are appropriate.
” In the rulings described by Millhiser , it becomes obvious that Alito believes that his biases are always justified .

A little over a year ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked to name his most consequential political accomplishment. At the top of his list was rapid confirmations of conservative judges to every level of the federal judicial system. He has been perfectly happy to completely neuter Congress, stack the federal courts with extremist judges, and allow them to legislate from the bench while the GOP slips into minority status.
The decisions made by those extremist judges will impact all of us for decades. But one of the areas most threatened will be the rights gained by women and people of color over the last few decades.
When it comes to the Supreme Court, if I were to ask you which justice was the most hostile to the rights of people of color, I doubt that anyone would name Samuel Alito. And yet, as Ian Millhiser explains, he is the justice who becomes the most agitated at the mere suggestion that racism still affects people of color. On the other hand, Alito doesn’t embrace the “color blindness” that has become the staple of Chief Justice Roberts. Instead, he has written opinions affirming discrimination against white people.
All of that reminds me of something Alito said during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position… And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Alito was lauded for suggesting that his background influenced his decisions as a judge. But a few years later, Sonia Sotomayor was pilloried by Republicans for saying this during a lecture she gave in 2001.
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life… Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar… Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion…I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
The distinction for conservatives, of course, is that the experience of white people is considered normative, while being a “wise Latina” indicates bias.
It is worth noting that Sotomayor demonstrated an awareness that she must “judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.” In the rulings described by Millhiser, it becomes obvious that Alito believes that his biases are always justified.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-24--The Republicans’ Disdain for Science Has Endangered Us All

Donald Trump recently created a stir by retweeting a call by a Republican politician to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci .
The reason : Fauci had the temerity to contradict the president on scientific facts .
Then , whether out of fear or a willful suspension of intellect , the president ’ s coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx proclaimed that Trump has been “ so attentive to the scientific literature and the details and the data ” —in contradiction to the avalanche of lies Trump puts out in his daily propaganda rallies masquerading as pandemic briefings .
Yet these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tension between experts and Trumpists .
It is a dynamic that has been at play since the very beginning of the administration : the war between experts and propagandists , between actual facts and “ alternative facts.
” Driving it is a wave of anti-intellectualism growing in America .
And now , in this era of pandemic , tens of thousands of American lives are at stake .
So , too , is the nation ’ s credibility .
Given Donald Trump ’ s relentless antipathy toward truth and expertise , the outlook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus rampaged across the country , a storm broke out in the White House over how to respond .
Rather than taking dramatic actions early on to curtail the spread of the virus and prepare states and hospitals to meet the coming surge , the administration reverted to its profound anti-intellectualism , all in a bid to deflect its own failure in protecting American lives .
Disturbingly , Trump promoted the anti-malarial drug hydroxychlorine to tackle the virus , despite the fact that it hasn ’ t gone through the proper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a country doctor in upstate New York who claimed to have treated patients for the disease with a cocktail of hydroxychlorine and other drugs with positive results , the president ran with it as a magic bullet .
“ I ’ ll tell you what , what do you have to lose ?
” he said .
A just-released Veterans Administration study shows not only no benefit from use of hydroxychlorine , but there were more deaths among patients given the drug.Then , Trump ’ s trade adviser Peter Navarro asserted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ clear therapeutic efficacy ” in treating Covid-19 patients .
Asked his qualifications for making such a claim , Navarro told CNN , “ I ’ m a social scientist.
” Others also trumpeting the medicine include the president ’ s usual Fox News chorus , led by Sean Hannity , and Rudolf Giuliani .
This has had real impact : the White House directed health officials to put the anti-malarial medication ahead of other efforts to combat the outbreak .
The federal government has since stockpiled 29 million pills .
Scientists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In terms of science , I don ’ t think we can definitively say it works , ” said Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top epidemiologist .
American Medical Association President Patrice Harris added : “ You could lose your life .
It ’ s unproven.
” Axios reported a major blow-up in the situation room at one point between Navarro and a skeptical Fauci , who has confided to colleagues that Trump “ almost always ” ignores the advice he gives him before the daily press briefings .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 7 saying , “ There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19.
” Medical experts are cautioning it will take a minimum of 12 to 18 months to come up with a vaccine .
In the meantime , Trump is putting the public health at even greater risk by propagating lies and misinformation .
As of this writing , the coronavirus has claimed more than 47,000 American lives .
Fatalities far surpass those in China , a nation with four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of confirmed cases is growing faster in the United States than in all of Western Europe .
The University of Washington ’ s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation predicts some 67,000 Americans could die by August .
Right now , one American dies of coronavirus every 45 seconds .
How many more will die depends on who is calling the shots : experts or hacks .
The Trump administration ’ s attitude toward science can only be described as contemptuous .
There has been an 85 percent turnover of federal agency senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appoint anyone to nearly half of the federal scientific leadership positions .
More often than not , Trump appointees are unqualified and ideologically driven .
Trump ’ s disdain for science comes with grievous consequences .
He was alerted by the intelligence community of an emerging pandemic in January .
Still , the president squandered more than two months before treating the issue seriously .
That came after he disbanded the National Security Council ’ s pandemic team and defunded a $ 200 million USAID program for detecting virus outbreaks overseas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government of some of its best resources to prepare for and respond to this kind of emergency .
These actions come on top of the administration ’ s measures to marginalize science and fact-based research , including denying climate change .
But Trumpism did not come out of nowhere .
Undergirding the president ’ s war on expertise is a recurrent strain of anti-intellectualism in America ’ s social and political DNA .
As the late writer Isaac Asimov observed , “ There is a cult of ignorance in the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life , nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘ my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
’ ” Trump panders to rightwing populists ’ contempt for empirical facts and expert knowledge .
Rush Limbaugh , whom Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom , has named science as one of his so-called Four Corners of Deceit , which also include government , academia and media .
The coronavirus , Limbaugh said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flu , but the government and the mainstream news media “ keep promoting panic.
” The evangelical movement , a bedrock of Trump ’ s base , promotes an anti-science culture that rejects critical thinking .
Pro-Trump Pentecostal preacher Rodney Howard-Browne has called his followers to attend church services in defiance of social distancing restrictions , dismissing coronavirus as a “ phantom plague.
” Of course , it ’ s no surprise that anti-intellectualism also extends into the halls of Congress , where a sitting congressman declared a few years ago that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies straight from the pit of hell , ” and where the chairman of a Senate environmental committee brought a snowball into the chamber to prove that climate change is a hoax .
The coronavirus is not a hoax .
It ’ s a mega-killer .
A month after President Trump assured everyone that it would “ go away , ” more than 850,000 Americans have tested positive and the U.S. leads the world in the number of Covid-19-related deaths .
Now , with his call over the weekend to “ liberate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors taking a care-free approach to social distancing , the risk of these numbers burgeoning out of control becomes very real .
Perhaps reality will sink in as the body count rises .
Statistics , after all , are stubborn things .
No amount of bluster , bluffing , and bullshit by the president and his enablers can obfuscate or contradict them .
If there was ever a moment when it should be clear to voters why the nation needs a return to policies based on facts , knowledge , and science , @ @ @ @

Donald Trump recently created a stir by retweeting a call by a Republican politician to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci. The reason: Fauci had the temerity to contradict the president on scientific facts. Then, whether out of fear or a willful suspension of intellect, the president’s coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx proclaimed that Trump has been “so attentive to the scientific literature and the details and the data”—in contradiction to the avalanche of lies Trump puts out in his daily propaganda rallies masquerading as pandemic briefings.
Yet these are but surface examples of an ongoing tension between experts and Trumpists. It is a dynamic that has been at play since the very beginning of the administration: the war between experts and propagandists, between actual facts and “alternative facts.” Driving it is a wave of anti-intellectualism growing in America. And now, in this era of pandemic, tens of thousands of American lives are at stake. So, too, is the nation’s credibility. Given Donald Trump’s relentless antipathy toward truth and expertise, the outlook doesn’t look promising.
As the novel coronavirus rampaged across the country, a storm broke out in the White House over how to respond. Rather than taking dramatic actions early on to curtail the spread of the virus and prepare states and hospitals to meet the coming surge, the administration reverted to its profound anti-intellectualism, all in a bid to deflect its own failure in protecting American lives.
Disturbingly, Trump promoted the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to tackle the virus, despite the fact that it hasn’t gone through the proper testing and approval process. After hearing about a country doctor in upstate New York who claimed to have treated patients for the disease with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs with positive results, the president ran with it as a magic bullet. “I’ll tell you what, what do you have to lose?” he said. A just-released Department of Veterans Affairs study shows not only no benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine, but there were more deaths among patients given the drug.
Then, Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro asserted that studies have showed the drug to have “clear therapeutic efficacy” in treating Covid-19 patients. Asked his qualifications for making such a claim, Navarro told CNN, “I’m a social scientist.” Others also trumpeting the medicine include the president’s usual Fox News chorus, led by Sean Hannity, and Rudolf Giuliani. This has had real impact: the White House directed health officials to put the anti-malarial medication ahead of other efforts to combat the outbreak. The federal government has since stockpiled 29 million pills.
Scientists, however, are counseling caution. “In terms of science, I don’t think we can definitively say it works,” said Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top epidemiologist. American Medical Association President Patrice Harris added: “You could lose your life. It’s unproven.” Axios reported a major blow-up in the situation room at one point between Navarro and a skeptical Fauci, who has confided to colleagues that Trump “almost always” ignores the advice he gives him before the daily press briefings.
Trump’s own CDC issued a statement on April 7 saying, “There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19.” Medical experts are cautioning it will take a minimum of 12 to 18 months to come up with a vaccine.
In the meantime, Trump is putting the public health at even greater risk by propagating lies and misinformation. As of this writing, the coronavirus has claimed nearly 50,000 American lives. Fatalities far surpass those in China, a nation with four times our population. And the rate of confirmed cases is growing faster in the United States than in all of Western Europe. The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation predicts some 67,000 Americans could die by August. Right now, one American dies of coronavirus every 45 seconds.
How many more will die depends on who is calling the shots: experts or hacks.
The Trump administration’s attitude toward science can only be described as contemptuous. There has been an 85 percent turnover of federal agency senior executives, and President Trump has failed to appoint anyone to nearly half of the federal scientific leadership positions. More often than not, Trump appointees are unqualified and ideologically driven.
Trump’s disdain for science comes with grievous consequences. He was alerted by the intelligence community of an emerging pandemic in January. Still, the president squandered more than two months before treating the issue seriously. That came after he disbanded the National Security Council’s pandemic team and defunded a $200 million USAID program for detecting virus outbreaks overseas. Simply put, the president rid the government of some of its best resources to prepare for and respond to this kind of emergency. These actions come on top of the administration’s measures to marginalize science and fact-based research, including denying climate change.
But Trumpism did not come out of nowhere. Undergirding the president’s war on expertise is a recurrent strain of anti-intellectualism in America’s social and political DNA. As the late writer Isaac Asimov observed, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
Trump panders to rightwing populists’ contempt for empirical facts and expert knowledge. Rush Limbaugh, whom Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, has named science as one of his so-called Four Corners of Deceit, which also include government, academia and media. The coronavirus, Limbaugh said, “appears far less deadly” than the flu, but the government and the mainstream news media “keep promoting panic.”
The evangelical movement, a bedrock of Trump’s base, promotes an anti-science culture that rejects critical thinking. Pro-Trump Pentecostal preacher Rodney Howard-Browne has called his followers to attend church services in defiance of social distancing restrictions, dismissing coronavirus as a “phantom plague.”
Of course, it’s no surprise that anti-intellectualism also extends into the halls of Congress, where a sitting congressman declared a few years ago that evolution and the Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell,” and where the chairman of a Senate environmental committee brought a snowball into the chamber to prove that climate change is a hoax.
The coronavirus is not a hoax. It’s a mega-killer. A month after President Trump assured everyone that it would “go away,” more than 850,000 Americans have tested positive and the U.S. leads the world in the number of Covid-19-related deaths. Now, with his call over the weekend to “liberate” states imposing shelter-in-place orders, and red-state governors taking a care-free approach to social distancing, the risk of these numbers burgeoning out of control becomes very real.
Perhaps reality will sink in as the body count rises. Statistics, after all, are stubborn things. No amount of bluster, bluffing, and bullshit by the president and his enablers can obfuscate or contradict them. If there was ever a moment when it should be clear to voters why the nation needs a return to policies based on facts, knowledge, and science, this is it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-22--Why Are the U.S. and UK So Bad at Fighting the Pandemic?


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-24--Trump’s Enablers Add to His Lies About Vote-By-Mail

“ Mark my words , I think [ Trump ] is gon na try to kick back the election somehow , come up with some rationale why it can ’ t be held , ” Biden said during a Q & A at a virtual fundraising event .
He noted Trump ’ s refusal to fund the U.S .
Postal Service , which is struggling under the weight of the COVID-19 pandemic , as lawmakers across the country push for mail-in voting to keep the virus from spreading .
“ Now what in God ’ s name is that about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word out that he ’ s going to do all he can to make it very hard for people to vote ?
” Biden asked .
“ That ’ s the only way he thinks he can possibly win.
” After the debacle in Wisconsin , many states are pursing an expansion of mail-in voting .
But Trump has led the charge against that option by spouting a whole series of lies .
Jane Timm went through them one by one and fact-checked them all as false .
Here ’ s the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law expert and a professor at the University of California , Irvine , pointed to an exhaustive News21 review of voter fraud between 2000 and 2012 , which found just 491 incidents of alleged absentee voter fraud among more than a decade of elections and 146 million registered voters .
“ No means of voting is perfect , but the benefits of vote-by-mail — particularly during a pandemic — greatly exceed the risks of fraud associated with it , ” he told NBC News .
But that isn ’ t likely to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , Mark Hemingway has written a piece with this explosive title : “ 28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.
” In order to heighten the angst , Hemingway goes on to point out that “ in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by garnering over 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump .
But nearly 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016.
” To his credit , Hemingway does note in the third paragraph that “ there is no evidence that the millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he says that “ the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security.
” So what is Hemingway talking about when he refers to these 28 million missing mail-in ballots ?
The first thing to note is that he got his information from a report published by the Public Interest Legal Foundation , a group that claims that voter fraud is rampant in the U.S. and that large numbers of ineligible aliens are casting ballots .
The president of PILF—J .
Christian Adams—was appointed to serve on Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board members is Hans von Spakovsky , who has been advocating for voter suppression since he fought against motor-voter provisions in 1997 .
The report on these so-called “ missing ballots ” makes it difficult to follow their numbers , but they suggest that over 40 million mail-in ballots are sent out every election .
In looking at four elections ( 2012 , 2014 , 2016 , and 2018 ) , that would total over 160 million ballots , of which 28 million ( or roughly 17.5 percent ) went missing .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targets ( perhaps because of outdated addresses ) , some were never returned ( ie , people chose not to vote ) , and some were rejected—usually due to signature errors .
It is interesting that PILF included “ rejected ” ballots among those they suggested are “ missing.
” Checking signature against voter registrations is one of the security measures utilized with vote-by-mail .
While maintaining accurate addresses will always be a challenge for mailed ballots , the fact that some people chose not to take the opportunity to vote is hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout has hovered around 50-60 percent in recent presidential elections ( lower in midterms ) .
So overall , if 82.5 percent of mailed ballots are returned as valid , that demonstrates pretty astounding success .
Of course , the whole point of reports like this is to scare people with numbers like 28 million “ missing ” ballots without any context whatsoever .
Given what we ’ ve seen from Trump , it probably won ’ t be long before he adds to these lies and starts talking about 28 million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to either force people to vote in person during a pandemic , or , as Biden has warned , as an excuse to delay the election .

Joe Biden is sounding the alarm.
“Mark my words, I think [Trump] is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” Biden said during a Q&A at a virtual fundraising event. He noted Trump’s refusal to fund the U.S. Postal Service, which is struggling under the weight of the COVID-19 pandemic, as lawmakers across the country push for mail-in voting to keep the virus from spreading. “Now what in God’s name is that about, other than trying to let the word out that he’s going to do all he can to make it very hard for people to vote?” Biden asked. “That’s the only way he thinks he can possibly win.”
After the debacle in Wisconsin, many states are pursing an expansion of mail-in voting. But Trump has led the charge against that option by spouting a whole series of lies. Jane Timm went through them one by one and fact-checked them all as false. Here’s the bottom line.
Richard Hasen, an election law expert and a professor at the University of California, Irvine, pointed to an exhaustive News21 review of voter fraud between 2000 and 2012, which found just 491 incidents of alleged absentee voter fraud among more than a decade of elections and 146 million registered voters. “No means of voting is perfect, but the benefits of vote-by-mail — particularly during a pandemic — greatly exceed the risks of fraud associated with it,” he told NBC News.
But that isn’t likely to stop the president’s enablers. For example, Mark Hemingway has written a piece with this explosive title: “28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.”
Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail.
In order to heighten the angst, Hemingway goes on to point out that “in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by garnering over 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump. But nearly 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016.”
To his credit, Hemingway does note in the third paragraph that “there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently.” Nevertheless, he says that “the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security.”
So what is Hemingway talking about when he refers to these 28 million missing mail-in ballots? The first thing to note is that he got his information from a report published by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a group that claims that voter fraud is rampant in the U.S. and that large numbers of ineligible aliens are casting ballots. The president of PILF—J. Christian Adams—was appointed to serve on Trump’s voter fraud commission and one of their board members is Hans von Spakovsky, who has been advocating for voter suppression since he fought against motor-voter provisions in 1997.
The report on these so-called “missing ballots” makes it difficult to follow their numbers, but they suggest that over 40 million mail-in ballots are sent out every election. In looking at four elections (2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018), that would total over 160 million ballots, of which 28 million (or roughly 17.5 percent) went missing. They note that some never reached the intended targets (perhaps because of outdated addresses), some were never returned (ie, people chose not to vote), and some were rejected—usually due to signature errors.
It is interesting that PILF included “rejected” ballots among those they suggested are “missing.” Checking signature against voter registrations is one of the security measures utilized with vote-by-mail. While maintaining accurate addresses will always be a challenge for mailed ballots, the fact that some people chose not to take the opportunity to vote is hardly a problem, especially given that voter turnout has hovered around 50-60 percent in recent presidential elections (lower in midterms). So overall, if 82.5 percent of mailed ballots are returned as valid, that demonstrates pretty astounding success.
Of course, the whole point of reports like this is to scare people with numbers like 28 million “missing” ballots without any context whatsoever. Given what we’ve seen from Trump, it probably won’t be long before he adds to these lies and starts talking about 28 million people casting fraudulent mail-in ballots as a reason to either force people to vote in person during a pandemic, or, as Biden has warned, as an excuse to delay the election.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-24--The President Is Impossibly Stupid

The President Is Impossibly Stupid

If you took yesterday off from politics to focus on the NFL Draft , you might have woken up this morning wondering what everyone was talking about .
Why , for example , is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on NPR saying , “ We seemed to have a quack medicine salesman on television .
He ’ s talking about things like disinfectant in the lungs ?
” What does that mean ?
What does the former First Lady mean by this ?
So , the president went on television and told people to poison themselves and put disinfectant in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Wait , what ?
He told people to slam Lysol into their veins ?
What else did he say ?
Trump suggested at a White House news briefing Thursday that scientists should test beaming ultraviolet light “ inside the body ” and injecting disinfectants in an effort to find new coronavirus remedies .
“ Supposing you hit the body with ultraviolet or just very powerful light , ” Trump said .
“ And I think you said that hasn ’ t been checked , but you ’ re going to test it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought the light inside the body , either through the skin or some other way .
And I think you said , you ’ re going to test that , too.
” Unless you ’ re going to crack open people ’ s ribs , there ’ s only so many orifices to choose from if you want to shine a light “ inside the body.
” It looks like Trump has been surfing Facebook again : Facebook pages created in late March sold UV “ sanitizer ” lights , promising “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the “ most effective way to kill viruses.
” The companies , which had names like “ Beam Sanitizer , ” ran ads on Instagram and Facebook in March , according to Facebook ’ s ad library .
Some ads , including ones from companies including UV Sanitizers , and Uvlizer , were still active as of Friday morning .
The products apparently evaded the company ’ s ban of ads for coronavirus miracle cures instituted last month .
In an effort to quell the impact of viral social media posts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March stating that “ UV lamps should not be used to sterilize hands or other areas of skin as UV radiation can cause skin irritation.
” Fortunately , the president left us a brief clue about where he got these ideas .
Someone told him that you can kill the virus on surfaces very quickly by using anti-viral wipes or UV light .
I might add that soapy water works just as well , but for some reason he didn ’ t suggest we inhale soapy water .
“ I see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute , one minute , ” Trump said during Thursday ’ s coronavirus press briefing .
“ And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside , or almost a cleaning ?
Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs , so it would be interesting to check that.
” To say that the president is biology-challenged would be an understatement .
The virus does its damage by invading cells , not by living on their surface .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lungs and wipe them down with Clorox wipes .
So , Hillary Clinton was right .
The president did essentially tell people to poison themselves because he thought it was a good idea .
Only an impossibly stupid person would think this was a good idea , but we have an impossibly stupid person running our country .
Meanwhile , the Food and Drug Administration finally issued a finding that Trump ’ s “ miracle cure ” for Covid-19 will get you killed .
The Food and Drug Administration warned Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19 outside of a hospital or formal clinical trial , citing reports of “ serious heart rhythm problems.
” Many of those adverse effects occurred in patients with the virus who were treated with the anti-malaria drugs , often in combination with azithromycin , also known as Z-Pak .
President Trump has described such drugs as a potential “ game-changer , ” although results from clinical trials are not yet in to show whether they are effective… …The adverse events reported include abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation , and in some cases , death , the agency said .
I ’ ve often compared Trump to the generic drunk at the end of the bar who spends his time regaling other patrons and the bartender with his unhinged conspiracy theories .
That ’ s who we elected president , and when we had a chance to remove him office while there was still time to save the country , the Republicans balked out of pure cowardice .
Now there ’ s a body count that just @ @ @ @ @

If you took yesterday off from politics to focus on the NFL Draft, you might have woken up this morning wondering what everyone was talking about. Why, for example, is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on NPR saying, “We seemed to have a quack medicine salesman on television. He’s talking about things like disinfectant in the lungs?”
What does that mean? What does the former First Lady mean by this?
So, the president went on television and told people to poison themselves and put disinfectant in their lungs? Can that be right?
The manufacturer for Lysol, a disinfectant spray and cleaning product, issued a statement warning against any internal use after President Trump suggested that people could get an “injection” of “the disinfectant that knocks coronavirus out in a minute,” NBC News reports.
Wait, what? He told people to slam Lysol into their veins? What else did he say?
Trump suggested at a White House news briefing Thursday that scientists should test beaming ultraviolet light “inside the body” and injecting disinfectants in an effort to find new coronavirus remedies. “Supposing you hit the body with ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” Trump said. “And I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it? Then I said supposing that you brought the light inside the body, either through the skin or some other way. And I think you said, you’re going to test that, too.”
Unless you’re going to crack open people’s ribs, there’s only so many orifices to choose from if you want to shine a light “inside the body.” It looks like Trump has been surfing Facebook again:
Facebook pages created in late March sold UV “sanitizer” lights, promising “a proven impact on COVID-19” and to be the “most effective way to kill viruses.” The companies, which had names like “Beam Sanitizer,” ran ads on Instagram and Facebook in March, according to Facebook’s ad library. Some ads, including ones from companies including UV Sanitizers, and Uvlizer, were still active as of Friday morning. The products apparently evaded the company’s ban of ads for coronavirus miracle cures instituted last month. In an effort to quell the impact of viral social media posts, the World Health Organization released a warning in March stating that “UV lamps should not be used to sterilize hands or other areas of skin as UV radiation can cause skin irritation.”
Fortunately, the president left us a brief clue about where he got these ideas. Someone told him that you can kill the virus on surfaces very quickly by using anti-viral wipes or UV light. I might add that soapy water works just as well, but for some reason he didn’t suggest we inhale soapy water.
“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute,” Trump said during Thursday’s coronavirus press briefing. “And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”
To say that the president is biology-challenged would be an understatement. The virus does its damage by invading cells, not by living on their surface. You can’t just open up people’s lungs and wipe them down with Clorox wipes.
Dr. Vin Gupta, a pulmonologist and global health policy expert who is an NBC News and MSNBC contributor, told NBC News on Thursday that “injecting or ingesting any type of cleansing product into the body is irresponsible, and it’s dangerous.” “It’s a common method that people utilize when they want to kill themselves,” Gupta said.
So, Hillary Clinton was right. The president did essentially tell people to poison themselves because he thought it was a good idea. Only an impossibly stupid person would think this was a good idea, but we have an impossibly stupid person running our country.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration finally issued a finding that Trump’s “miracle cure” for Covid-19 will get you killed.
The Food and Drug Administration warned Friday that people should not take chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19 outside of a hospital or formal clinical trial, citing reports of “serious heart rhythm problems.” Many of those adverse effects occurred in patients with the virus who were treated with the anti-malaria drugs, often in combination with azithromycin, also known as Z-Pak. President Trump has described such drugs as a potential “game-changer,” although results from clinical trials are not yet in to show whether they are effective… …The adverse events reported include abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation, dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, and in some cases, death, the agency said.
I’ve often compared Trump to the generic drunk at the end of the bar who spends his time regaling other patrons and the bartender with his unhinged conspiracy theories. That’s who we elected president, and when we had a chance to remove him office while there was still time to save the country, the Republicans balked out of pure cowardice.
Now there’s a body count that just officially surpassed fifty thousand.