powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Burn Down the Regulatory House

Burn Down the Regulatory House

The Wuhan epidemic is bringing to light many regulations and processes that have needlessly impeded efforts to fight the virus by private industry , as well as by government .
Quite a few such regulations are now being suspended , causing many to ask , why did we have them in the first place ?
At Center of the American Experiment ’ s web site , economist John Phelan offers a textbook example from our state of Minnesota .
Minnesota ’ s governor has ordered a draconian shutdown that is devastating the state ’ s economy and will bankrupt thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere , to “ flatten the curve.
” The concern is that Minnesota doesn ’ t have enough hospital beds and , especially , enough ICU beds to accommodate COVID-19 patients who will need them during the height of the epidemic .
That is the fundamental reason why millions of Minnesotans have been ordered to stay home , at great cost .
But why is the state so short of hospital beds ?
John Phelan explains .
( Forgive the long quote , but the point is vitally important .
Links are omitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hospital construction moratorium .
This prohibits the building of new hospitals as well as “ any erection , building , alteration , reconstruction , modernization , improvement , extension , lease or other acquisition by or on behalf of a hospital that increases bed capacity of a hospital.
” Whenever hospitals or provider groups propose an exception to the moratorium , the Minnesota Legislature requires the Department of Health to conduct a “ public interest review.
” *** [ I ] t is incredible to note that , as with [ Certificate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this system is to make it harder to provide hospital beds in Minnesota .
[ Researcher Patrick ] Moran says : “ Policymakers hoped that the moratorium would be more effective than CON in reducing the growth of hospital beds.
” They would appear to have been successful .
In the twenty years from 1984 through 2004 , 16 exceptions were granted permitting just 94 additional licensed beds .
As the chart below shows , between 1996 and 2016 , the number of licensed beds in Minnesota actually fell by 921 while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The moratorium fixes supply the supply of beds .
This encourages medical providers to shift them around in search of the best return .
Moran explains : Many hospitals have strategically “ banked ” beds , allowing them to circumvent the review process .
In 2005 , while there were only 11,650 available beds , there were 16,392 licensed beds in the state , allowing many hospitals to rely on unused bed capacity when they expand services .
This is why , as the chart above shows , in 2016 29 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now paying a heavy price for government policies that deliberately suppressed the building of new hospital capacity in our state .
How did such a crazy policy come to be ?
No doubt , many Minnesotans would be wondering why state government seeks to limit the expansion of hospital beds .
The rationale for Minnesota ’ s hospital moratorium is no different from the rationale for [ Certificate of Need ] laws .
The only reason we favor the former over the latter is , as Patrick Moran points out , that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting hospital expansion .
Policymakers want to do that – they claim – because otherwise medical providers would over-invest in capacity which would drive up prices , raise health care costs , and restrict access to these services for the poor .
This is a bizarre argument .
The reason we don ’ t have a McDonald ’ s on every block isn ’ t because state government protects us from this , but because it makes no economic sense for McDonald ’ s to expand capacity with no regard to the demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , research finds that [ Certificate of Need ] laws – or analogous laws like Minnesota ’ s moratorium – do little to increase access to health care for the poor , but , instead , limit the supply of such services .
But then that is their express intention .
As my colleague Martha Njolomole wrote last week : Findings show that controlling for other factors “ CON laws seem to limit access to healthcare , fail to increase the quality of care , and contribute to higher costs.
” Additionally there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly beneficial to states .
“ Researchers have found that states that have removed these rules have more hospitals and more ambulatory surgery centers per capita .
They also have more hospital beds , dialysis clinics , and hospice care facilities .
Patients in non-CON states are more likely to utilize medical imaging technologies and less likely to leave their communities in search of care .
Though CON advocates sometimes claim that the rules protect rural facilities , states without CON laws have more rural hospitals and more rural ambulatory surgery centers than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one of many instances where irrational laws and regulations have impeded our ability to respond to the Wuhan virus .
Via InstaPundit , this excellent piece by the New York Post editorial board , titled “ How Red Tape Has Crippled America ’ s Coronavirus Response.
” I will cite just one example from the editorial : It took weeks for the feds to waive regs even on coronavirus testing kits .
For more than a month , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention only allowed the use of its test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the time — even as companies were champing at the bit to produce better and faster kits .
Perhaps one silver lining of the Wuhan virus is that Americans will see , vividly demonstrated , how poor regulation not only makes all of us poorer , but can threaten our lives .
This could provide renewed energy for President Trump ’ s assault on the federal swamp during his second term , and for similar efforts in the states .

The Wuhan epidemic is bringing to light many regulations and processes that have needlessly impeded efforts to fight the virus by private industry, as well as by government. Quite a few such regulations are now being suspended, causing many to ask, why did we have them in the first place?
At Center of the American Experiment’s web site, economist John Phelan offers a textbook example from our state of Minnesota. Minnesota’s governor has ordered a draconian shutdown that is devastating the state’s economy and will bankrupt thousands of small businesses. Why? As elsewhere, to “flatten the curve.” The concern is that Minnesota doesn’t have enough hospital beds and, especially, enough ICU beds to accommodate COVID-19 patients who will need them during the height of the epidemic. That is the fundamental reason why millions of Minnesotans have been ordered to stay home, at great cost.
But why is the state so short of hospital beds? John Phelan explains. (Forgive the long quote, but the point is vitally important. Links are omitted.)
In 1984, Minnesota enacted a hospital construction moratorium. This prohibits the building of new hospitals as well as “any erection, building, alteration, reconstruction, modernization, improvement, extension, lease or other acquisition by or on behalf of a hospital that increases bed capacity of a hospital.” Whenever hospitals or provider groups propose an exception to the moratorium, the Minnesota Legislature requires the Department of Health to conduct a “public interest review.”
***
[I]t is incredible to note that, as with [Certificate of Need] laws, the purpose of this system is to make it harder to provide hospital beds in Minnesota. [Researcher Patrick] Moran says: “Policymakers hoped that the moratorium would be more effective than CON in reducing the growth of hospital beds.” They would appear to have been successful. In the twenty years from 1984 through 2004, 16 exceptions were granted permitting just 94 additional licensed beds. As the chart below shows, between 1996 and 2016, the number of licensed beds in Minnesota actually fell by 921 while the population increased by 81,000. …
The moratorium fixes supply the supply of beds. This encourages medical providers to shift them around in search of the best return. Moran explains: Many hospitals have strategically “banked” beds, allowing them to circumvent the review process. In 2005, while there were only 11,650 available beds, there were 16,392 licensed beds in the state, allowing many hospitals to rely on unused bed capacity when they expand services. This is why, as the chart above shows, in 2016 29% of licensed beds were unavailable.
We are now paying a heavy price for government policies that deliberately suppressed the building of new hospital capacity in our state. How did such a crazy policy come to be?
No doubt, many Minnesotans would be wondering why state government seeks to limit the expansion of hospital beds. The rationale for Minnesota’s hospital moratorium is no different from the rationale for [Certificate of Need] laws. The only reason we favor the former over the latter is, as Patrick Moran points out, that we think it will be more effective at limiting hospital expansion. Policymakers want to do that – they claim – because otherwise medical providers would over-invest in capacity which would drive up prices, raise health care costs, and restrict access to these services for the poor. This is a bizarre argument. The reason we don’t have a McDonald’s on every block isn’t because state government protects us from this, but because it makes no economic sense for McDonald’s to expand capacity with no regard to the demand for it. And, in fact, research finds that [Certificate of Need] laws – or analogous laws like Minnesota’s moratorium – do little to increase access to health care for the poor, but, instead, limit the supply of such services. But then that is their express intention. As my colleague Martha Njolomole wrote last week: Findings show that controlling for other factors “CON laws seem to limit access to healthcare, fail to increase the quality of care, and contribute to higher costs.” Additionally there is proof that repealing CON laws is highly beneficial to states. “Researchers have found that states that have removed these rules have more hospitals and more ambulatory surgery centers per capita. They also have more hospital beds, dialysis clinics, and hospice care facilities. Patients in non-CON states are more likely to utilize medical imaging technologies and less likely to leave their communities in search of care. Though CON advocates sometimes claim that the rules protect rural facilities, states without CON laws have more rural hospitals and more rural ambulatory surgery centers than states with CON laws.”
This is just one of many instances where irrational laws and regulations have impeded our ability to respond to the Wuhan virus. Via InstaPundit, this excellent piece by the New York Post editorial board, titled “How Red Tape Has Crippled America’s Coronavirus Response.” I will cite just one example from the editorial:
It took weeks for the feds to waive regs even on coronavirus testing kits. For more than a month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention only allowed the use of its test — which proved to be inaccurate much of the time — even as companies were champing at the bit to produce better and faster kits.
Perhaps one silver lining of the Wuhan virus is that Americans will see, vividly demonstrated, how poor regulation not only makes all of us poorer, but can threaten our lives. This could provide renewed energy for President Trump’s assault on the federal swamp during his second term, and for similar efforts in the states.


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Trump DOJ defends female athletes

Trump DOJ defends female athletes

The Justice Department has filed a statement of interest in a case challenging a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference ( CIAC ) policy that enables biological males to compete against biological females .
Attorney General Barr explained : In our pluralistic society we generally try to accommodate how individuals desire to live their lives up to the point where those desires impinge on the other people ’ s rights .
Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes .
Sports are an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provide an arena where individual discipline can result in achievement and recognition .
The purpose of all-female athletics is to ensure that women have an equal opportunity to participate , compete and excel in this important part of life .
Title IX has been a major step forward in the long fight to achieve this equality .
As reflected in Title IX , the basis for single-sex athletics , is rooted in the reality of biological differences between the sexes .
Clearly then , eligibility to participate on a single-sex team must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Girls should not be forced , through the dismantling of Title IX , to be sidelined in their own sports .
Of course they shouldn ’ t be .
Only a society gone mad would conclude otherwise .
From a legal standpoint , it ’ s important to note that Title IX of the Civil Righs Act and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination “ on the basis of sex , ” not on the basis of transgender status .
Therefore , the law neither requires nor authorizes CIAC ’ s transgender policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of Title IX ’ s core purposes is to ensure that women have an “ equal athletic opportunity ” to participate in school athletic programs .
This purpose is fulfilled by the establishment of separate athletic teams for men and women and by ensuring that those teams are on equal footing .
Because of the physiological differences between men and women , the existence of women ’ s sports teams permits women to participate more fully in athletics than they otherwise could .
Allowing biological men who identify as women to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to actual women .
By taking this stance in the Connecticut litigation , the Trump Justice Department once again demonstrates its seriousness in enforcing civil rights laws as written , not as distorted by political correctness and “ woke ” attitudes .

The Justice Department has filed a statement of interest in a case challenging a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) policy that enables biological males to compete against biological females. Attorney General Barr explained:
In our pluralistic society we generally try to accommodate how individuals desire to live their lives up to the point where those desires impinge on the other people’s rights. Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes. Sports are an important part of education and character development and provide an arena where individual discipline can result in achievement and recognition. The purpose of all-female athletics is to ensure that women have an equal opportunity to participate, compete and excel in this important part of life. Title IX has been a major step forward in the long fight to achieve this equality. As reflected in Title IX, the basis for single-sex athletics, is rooted in the reality of biological differences between the sexes. Clearly then, eligibility to participate on a single-sex team must be based on objective biological fact. Girls should not be forced, through the dismantling of Title IX, to be sidelined in their own sports.
Of course they shouldn’t be. Only a society gone mad would conclude otherwise.
From a legal standpoint, it’s important to note that Title IX of the Civil Righs Act and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination “on the basis of sex,” not on the basis of transgender status. Therefore, the law neither requires nor authorizes CIAC’s transgender policy.
Moreover, as the Attorney General explained, one of Title IX’s core purposes is to ensure that women have an “equal athletic opportunity” to participate in school athletic programs. This purpose is fulfilled by the establishment of separate athletic teams for men and women and by ensuring that those teams are on equal footing.
Because of the physiological differences between men and women, the existence of women’s sports teams permits women to participate more fully in athletics than they otherwise could. Allowing biological men who identify as women to compete against biological women denies equal athletic opportunity to actual women.
By taking this stance in the Connecticut litigation, the Trump Justice Department once again demonstrates its seriousness in enforcing civil rights laws as written, not as distorted by political correctness and “woke” attitudes.


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Joe Biden Can’t Be President (2)

Joe Biden Can’t Be President (2)

Evidence of Biden ’ s incapacity continues to pile up .
Earlier today , he gave an interview to MSNBC in which he pontificated about the coronavirus , or tried to .
It was a sad spectacle .
He apparently tried to read notes that he had before him , but was unable to do so , and lapsed into frustration and incoherence : No doubt Democratic Party leaders have been calculating ways of denying Biden their nomination , or getting him off the ticket after the fact .
The former is tricky : Biden is still around 750 delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 1,217 delegates committed ) and some state primaries have been postponed .
Biden could drop out , but that might leave Bernie Sanders in the driver ’ s seat , the last thing the DNC wants .
So the safest course might be to nominate Biden and then have him resign for unspecified health reasons .
Assuming that Biden could be persuaded , the rest is relatively easy : Article 3.1 ( c ) of the Charter of the Democratic Party gives the DNC broad authority to “ [ fill ] vacancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President and Vice President.
” There is a timing issue , as the DNC would have to nominate a new candidate in time to satisfy the states ’ various filing deadlines .
That works , according to Ballotpedia , as long as the DNC acts quickly after the Democratic Convention , which could be awkward .
But the main difficulty is political , not legal .
Whom would the DNC select to replace Biden ?
If they plan ahead , they perhaps can coerce Biden to select that person as his running mate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But who might that person be ?
The DNC is hemmed in by the fact that Biden has said that his running mate will be a woman .
Which could be a problem .
If Bernie Sanders ’ voters continue to turn out in the primaries , he could finish a relatively close second .
Denying him the nomination , if Biden withdraws , could depress turnout .
Likewise , if the DNC failed to select one of the candidates who competed for the nomination , many Democratic voters would see themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk of selecting Andy Cuomo , who would create problems in that regard .
And he also is not a woman , so the ground presumably can ’ t be prepared by making him the vice presidential nominee .
Further , he presides over the state that has the worst record with regard to the Wuhan virus , not a sterling qualification under the circumstances .
So it is hard to see that boomlet going anywhere .
The bottom line is that the Democrats are in a tough spot .
Their presumptive nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties of the presidency–not to carry them out well , but to carry them out at all .
I wouldn ’ t like to be in their shoes .

Three weeks ago I wrote a post titled Joe Biden Can’t Be President:
I’m not saying Biden shouldn’t be president. That has always been true. I am saying that he lacks the physical and mental qualities necessary to to the job–not to do it well, but to do it at all.
Evidence of Biden’s incapacity continues to pile up. Earlier today, he gave an interview to MSNBC in which he pontificated about the coronavirus, or tried to. It was a sad spectacle. He apparently tried to read notes that he had before him, but was unable to do so, and lapsed into frustration and incoherence:
This sums up pretty much everything you need to know about Joe Biden. ▶Biden makes no sense.
▶Biden is even reading notes during a live TV interview.
▶Biden doesn't know what he plan is. pic.twitter.com/rnO9fAl6og — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 30, 2020
No doubt Democratic Party leaders have been calculating ways of denying Biden their nomination, or getting him off the ticket after the fact. The former is tricky: Biden is still around 750 delegates short of clinching the nomination (he has 1,217 delegates committed) and some state primaries have been postponed. Biden could drop out, but that might leave Bernie Sanders in the driver’s seat, the last thing the DNC wants.
So the safest course might be to nominate Biden and then have him resign for unspecified health reasons. Assuming that Biden could be persuaded, the rest is relatively easy: Article 3.1(c) of the Charter of the Democratic Party gives the DNC broad authority to “[fill] vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President.” There is a timing issue, as the DNC would have to nominate a new candidate in time to satisfy the states’ various filing deadlines. That works, according to Ballotpedia, as long as the DNC acts quickly after the Democratic Convention, which could be awkward.
But the main difficulty is political, not legal. Whom would the DNC select to replace Biden? If they plan ahead, they perhaps can coerce Biden to select that person as his running mate and thereby make the transition seem natural. But who might that person be? The DNC is hemmed in by the fact that Biden has said that his running mate will be a woman.
Which could be a problem. If Bernie Sanders’ voters continue to turn out in the primaries, he could finish a relatively close second. Denying him the nomination, if Biden withdraws, could depress turnout. Likewise, if the DNC failed to select one of the candidates who competed for the nomination, many Democratic voters would see themselves as disenfranchised. Recently there has been talk of selecting Andy Cuomo, who would create problems in that regard. And he also is not a woman, so the ground presumably can’t be prepared by making him the vice presidential nominee. Further, he presides over the state that has the worst record with regard to the Wuhan virus, not a sterling qualification under the circumstances. So it is hard to see that boomlet going anywhere.
The bottom line is that the Democrats are in a tough spot. Their presumptive nominee is plainly unable to carry out the duties of the presidency–not to carry them out well, but to carry them out at all. I wouldn’t like to be in their shoes.


powerlineblog--2020-03-30--Update on the Wuhan coronavirus in Italy

A week ago , I reported the number of Wuhan coronavirus cases in Italy by region .
Today , I ’ ll update these numbers , my main interest being in how regions that were slow to be hit by the virus — i.e .
southern Italian regions — are doing .
Let ’ s start with northern Italy , though .
A week ago , the Lombardy region , where the virus first hit hard , had around 28,000 reported cases .
As of yesterday , it had around 41,000 — about a 50 percent increase .
The numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , for southern Italy .
The Lazio region includes Rome , with a population of more than 4 million .
A week ago , it reported 1,363 cases .
Yesterday , it reported 2,706 — a doubling .
The same basic picture emerges from the Campagna region , which includes Naples , population around 2 million .
It reported 936 cases a week ago , compared to 1,739 as of yesterday .
Do the numbers from the south amount to good news or bad news ?
I ’ m not sure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus is being mitigated but not contained ( if I understand correctly what these catch words mean in this context ) .
It is spreading in the south , but not as rapidly as one might have feared .
Rome and Naples , for example , do not appear to be overwhelmed with new cases , so far .
Both cities have been locked down for most of the month .
Perhaps this suggests that , with a lockdown , certain regions and cities in the U.S. can avoid large scale infection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s being widely reported that the number of new cases and new deaths declined somewhat yesterday ( March 29 ) .
I don ’ t put much stock in a less than dramatic one-day drop .
Somewhat more encouraging was a sharp decline in the number of new people being taken into intensive care with this virus .
It fell from 124 on Saturday to 50 on Sunday ( yesterday ) .
Again , however , that ’ s just one day .
We can ’ t yet conclude that a favorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole .

A week ago, I reported the number of Wuhan coronavirus cases in Italy by region. Today, I’ll update these numbers, my main interest being in how regions that were slow to be hit by the virus — i.e. southern Italian regions — are doing.
Let’s start with northern Italy, though. A week ago, the Lombardy region, where the virus first hit hard, had around 28,000 reported cases. As of yesterday, it had around 41,000 — about a 50 percent increase.
The numbers for some other northern regions are:
Emilia Romagna — around 7,500 cases a week ago, around 13,000 yesterday
Veneto — around 5,000 cases a week ago, around 8,300 yesterday
Piedmont — around 4,500 cases a week ago, around 8,200 yesterday
Now, for southern Italy. The Lazio region includes Rome, with a population of more than 4 million. A week ago, it reported 1,363 cases. Yesterday, it reported 2,706 — a doubling.
The same basic picture emerges from the Campagna region, which includes Naples, population around 2 million. It reported 936 cases a week ago, compared to 1,739 as of yesterday.
Sicily reported 630 cases a week ago. Yesterday, it reported 1,460.
Do the numbers from the south amount to good news or bad news? I’m not sure. To me, they suggest that the virus is being mitigated but not contained (if I understand correctly what these catch words mean in this context). It is spreading in the south, but not as rapidly as one might have feared.
Rome and Naples, for example, do not appear to be overwhelmed with new cases, so far. Both cities have been locked down for most of the month. Perhaps this suggests that, with a lockdown, certain regions and cities in the U.S. can avoid large scale infection.
As for nationwide Italian stats, it’s being widely reported that the number of new cases and new deaths declined somewhat yesterday (March 29). I don’t put much stock in a less than dramatic one-day drop.
Somewhat more encouraging was a sharp decline in the number of new people being taken into intensive care with this virus. It fell from 124 on Saturday to 50 on Sunday (yesterday).
Again, however, that’s just one day. We can’t yet conclude that a favorable trend is emerging in Italy as a whole.


powerlineblog--2020-03-31--Why are the airlines still flying out of New York?

At the moment , the greater New York area is at the center of the coronavirus crisis in the United States , and yet Kayak confirms that , even today , anyone from the city and its environs can get on a plane and travel almost anywhere within the United States .
.
.
.
Given the seriousness of the pandemic — and the number of businesses that have been shuttered as a precaution — this seems downright bizarre .
When China was at the center of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic , President Trump wisely banned entry into the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning travel within the U.S. is considerably more draconian than banning travel to the U.S. from a foreign country .
Any sort of domestic ban should be imposed only in exigent circumstances .
I believe the current circumstances in New York City are exigent .
Thus , it would make sense to ban air travel from New York , the current center of the pandemic , to the rest of the U.S. As Cooke points out , Trump considered a federal quarantine of the New York City area last week , but decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been difficult to enforce .
No such difficulty would attach to banning air travel out of the city , and such a ban , at least as it applied to travel outside of New York State , is within the federal government ’ s power to impose .
So why hasn ’ t this happened ?

Charlie Cooke poses the question. It’s a good one.
Cooke writes:
At the moment, the greater New York area is at the center of the coronavirus crisis in the United States, and yet Kayak confirms that, even today, anyone from the city and its environs can get on a plane and travel almost anywhere within the United States. . . . Given the seriousness of the pandemic — and the number of businesses that have been shuttered as a precaution — this seems downright bizarre.
When China was at the center of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, President Trump wisely banned entry into the U.S. from China. To be sure, banning travel within the U.S. is considerably more draconian than banning travel to the U.S. from a foreign country. Any sort of domestic ban should be imposed only in exigent circumstances.
I believe the current circumstances in New York City are exigent. Thus, it would make sense to ban air travel from New York, the current center of the pandemic, to the rest of the U.S.
As Cooke points out, Trump considered a federal quarantine of the New York City area last week, but decided against it. Such a quarantine would have been difficult to enforce.
No such difficulty would attach to banning air travel out of the city, and such a ban, at least as it applied to travel outside of New York State, is within the federal government’s power to impose. So why hasn’t this happened?


powerlineblog--2020-03-31--Horowitz audits the FBI

Horowitz audits the FBI

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has just issued his follow-up audit of the FBI ’ s compliance with procedures intended to confirm the accuracy of its FISA warrant applications .
I have embedded the report below via Scribd .
Based on the FBI ’ s execution of the four Carter Page warrant applications on which Horowitz previously reported , Horowitz had his doubts that all was well .
This is a sideshow to the FBI ’ s investigation of the Trump campaign and Trump presidency , with respect to which we impatiently await the administration of justice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wild-eyed notion that something is rotten in the state of the FBI .
The FBI , however , assures us that all is now well .
As the New York Times puts it : “ In a statement appended to the report , the F.B.I .
said it accepted the findings but also said that it believed it is addressing the source of the problems through corrective steps it put in place following the earlier report about Mr .
Page — like greater training and new checklists that officials preparing documents for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an excerpt of Horowitz memo : [ I ] n December 2019 , my office initiated an audit to examine more broadly the FBI ’ s execution of , and compliance with , its Woods Procedures relating to U.S .
Persons covering the period from October 2014 to September 2019 .
As an initial step in our audit , over the past 2 months , we visited 8 FBI field offices of varying sizes and reviewed a judgmentally selected sample of 29 applications relating to U.S .
Persons and involving both counterintelligence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a dataset provided by the FBI that contained more than700 applications relating to U.S .
Persons submitted by those 8 field offices over a 5-year period .
The proportion of counterintelligence and counterterrorism applications within our sample roughly models the ratio of the case types within that total of FBI FISA applications .
Our initial review of these applications has consisted solely of determining whether the contents of theFBI ’ s Woods File supported statements of fact in the associated FISA application ; our review did not seek to determine whether support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FISA application ( such as in the case file ) , or if relevant information had been omitted from the application .
For all of the FISA applications that we have reviewed to date , the period of court-authorized surveillance had been completed and no such surveillance was active at the time of our review .
We reviewed these applications , and met with available case agents or supervisors who were responsible for them , to assess whether the FBI complied with its Woods Procedures for FISA applications submitted to the Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We also obtained and reviewed information from the FBI and the Department of Justice ’ s ( Department or DOJ ) National Security Division ( NSD ) about their FISA application oversight mechanisms .
Specifically , in addition to interviewing FBI and NSD officials , we reviewed 34 FBI and NSD accuracy review reports covering the period fromOctober 2014 to September 2019—which originated from the 8 field offices we have visited to date and addressed a total of 42 U.S .
Person FISA applications , only one of which was also included among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a result of our audit work to date and as described below , we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy… .
I ’ m sure this will all come as a great shock to James Comey .
We can look forward to another effusion of his deep thoughts on Twitter .

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has just issued his follow-up audit of the FBI’s compliance with procedures intended to confirm the accuracy of its FISA warrant applications. I have embedded the report below via Scribd.
Based on the FBI’s execution of the four Carter Page warrant applications on which Horowitz previously reported, Horowitz had his doubts that all was well. This is a sideshow to the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and Trump presidency, with respect to which we impatiently await the administration of justice. Yet the current OIG report further supports the wild-eyed notion that something is rotten in the state of the FBI.
The FBI, however, assures us that all is now well. As the New York Times puts it: “In a statement appended to the report, the F.B.I. said it accepted the findings but also said that it believed it is addressing the source of the problems through corrective steps it put in place following the earlier report about Mr. Page — like greater training and new checklists that officials preparing documents for FISA applications must follow.”
Here is an excerpt of Horowitz memo:
[I]n December 2019, my office initiated an audit to examine more broadly the FBI’s execution of, and compliance with, its Woods Procedures relating to U.S. Persons covering the period from October 2014 to September 2019. As an initial step in our audit, over the past 2 months, we visited 8 FBI field offices of varying sizes and reviewed a judgmentally selected sample of 29 applications relating to U.S. Persons and involving both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. This sample was selected from a dataset provided by the FBI that contained more than700 applications relating to U.S. Persons submitted by those 8 field offices over a 5-year period. The proportion of counterintelligence and counterterrorism applications within our sample roughly models the ratio of the case types within that total of FBI FISA applications. Our initial review of these applications has consisted solely of determining whether the contents of theFBI’s Woods File supported statements of fact in the associated FISA application; our review did not seek to determine whether support existed elsewhere for the factual assertion in the FISA application (such as in the case file), or if relevant information had been omitted from the application. For all of the FISA applications that we have reviewed to date, the period of court-authorized surveillance had been completed and no such surveillance was active at the time of our review. We reviewed these applications, and met with available case agents or supervisors who were responsible for them, to assess whether the FBI complied with its Woods Procedures for FISA applications submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). We also obtained and reviewed information from the FBI and the Department of Justice’s (Department or DOJ) National Security Division (NSD) about their FISA application oversight mechanisms. Specifically, in addition to interviewing FBI and NSD officials, we reviewed 34 FBI and NSD accuracy review reports covering the period fromOctober 2014 to September 2019—which originated from the 8 field offices we have visited to date and addressed a total of 42 U.S. Person FISA applications, only one of which was also included among the 29 FISA applications that we reviewed. As a result of our audit work to date and as described below, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy….
I’m sure this will all come as a great shock to James Comey. We can look forward to another effusion of his deep thoughts on Twitter.
Horowitz OIG Management Advisory by Scott Johnson on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-03-31--Some Wuhan coronavirus numbers from yesterday

Yesterday , March 30 , the number of reported deaths in the U.S. from the Wuhan coronavirus passed 3,000 .
The current total , 3,141 , exceeds the number of Americans killed on 9/11 .
No one knows how many Americans will die from this virus .
However , the death toll is likely to be somewhere between 10 and 100 times that of 9/11 .
In Italy , the daily death count ticked upwards after two days of decline .
However , the number of new reported cases continued to fall .
Yesterday , that number was around 4,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently reporting about 6,000 new cases .
Spain seems well on its way to becoming the new epicenter of the virus in Europe .
It has been reporting more new cases than Italy for a while now .
Yesterday , it reported nearly twice as many .
In both of the past two days , it has also reported more deaths than Italy .
In all , Spain has around 88,000 reported cases , compared to around 102,000 in Italy .
The death count in Spain is 7,846 .
In Italy it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is around 46 million ; Italy ’ s is around 60 million .

Yesterday, March 30, the number of reported deaths in the U.S. from the Wuhan coronavirus passed 3,000. The current total, 3,141, exceeds the number of Americans killed on 9/11.
No one knows how many Americans will die from this virus. However, the death toll is likely to be somewhere between 10 and 100 times that of 9/11.
In Italy, the daily death count ticked upwards after two days of decline. However, the number of new reported cases continued to fall. Yesterday, that number was around 4,000. Late last week, Italy was consistently reporting about 6,000 new cases.
Spain seems well on its way to becoming the new epicenter of the virus in Europe. It has been reporting more new cases than Italy for a while now. Yesterday, it reported nearly twice as many. In both of the past two days, it has also reported more deaths than Italy.
In all, Spain has around 88,000 reported cases, compared to around 102,000 in Italy. The death count in Spain is 7,846. In Italy it’s 11,591. Spain’s population is around 46 million; Italy’s is around 60 million.


Who’s Fiddling?

I don ’ t watch television , so I am spared much of the madness that most people have to absorb .
But I take it that the Democrats and their press are still doing their best to blame COVID-19 on President Trump .
This makes no sense , obviously , but when has that ever stopped them ?
On CNN on Sunday , Nancy Pelosi said , “ As the President ‘ fiddles , ’ people are dying.
” That is an absurd way to charactrize the frenetic activity being engaged in by the administration , but CNN had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where Chuck Todd hopefully asked Joe Biden whether it is fair to say that President Trump has “ blood on his hands ” over the epidemic .
Trump responded to Pelosi ’ s smear by saying , “ She ’ s a sick puppy , in my opinion.
” Meanwhile , what was Pelosi doing when the coronavirus was spreading , and she now says the president ’ s response was not sufficiently draconian ?
This is how she spent her day on February 24 : promoting tourism in Chinatown .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan flu on President Trump is insane , but not surprising .
Glenn Reynolds sums up succinctly what is going on : There was a sea change with Katrina , where they realized that if they all agreed on a narrative , even if it was false , and all stuck to it despite all criticism , they could swing an election .
Since then , they ’ ve doubled down repeatedly , and every time you think they ’ ve bottomed out , they go lower .
That they do this without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be doing to their audience or to the nation is particularly reprehensible .
It ’ s no surprise that some call them enemies of the people .

I don’t watch television, so I am spared much of the madness that most people have to absorb. But I take it that the Democrats and their press are still doing their best to blame COVID-19 on President Trump. This makes no sense, obviously, but when has that ever stopped them?
On CNN on Sunday, Nancy Pelosi said, “As the President ‘fiddles,’ people are dying.” That is an absurd way to charactrize the frenetic activity being engaged in by the administration, but CNN had no problem with it. Likewise NBC, where Chuck Todd hopefully asked Joe Biden whether it is fair to say that President Trump has “blood on his hands” over the epidemic. Trump responded to Pelosi’s smear by saying, “She’s a sick puppy, in my opinion.”
Meanwhile, what was Pelosi doing when the coronavirus was spreading, and she now says the president’s response was not sufficiently draconian? This is how she spent her day on February 24: promoting tourism in Chinatown.
Pelosi, touring San Fran’s Chinatown Feb. 24: “We do want to say to people, come to Chinatown, here we are … come join us” pic.twitter.com/0FEOq9t4VM — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 29, 2020
The press’s attempt to blame the Wuhan flu on President Trump is insane, but not surprising. Glenn Reynolds sums up succinctly what is going on:


powerlineblog--2020-03-31--Was it something he said?

Was it something he said?

Minnesota ’ s MyPillow man Mike Lindell joined President Trump and chief executive officers Darius Adamczyk ( Honeywell ) , Debra Waller ( Jockey — great ! )
, Greg Hayes ( United Technologies ) , and David Taylor ( Proctor and Gamble ) at yesterday ’ s daily White House Coronavirus task force briefing .
Lindell is a recovering addict , an outspoken Christian , a fervent Trump supporter , a successful entrepreneur and all-around remarkable gentleman .
Lindell spoke for less than three minutes ( video below ) .
He announced that MyPillow was repurposing part of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care workers .
It will be cranking out 50,000 masks a day by the end of the week .
Lindell added a few words expressing his gratitude for Trump ’ s election and urging Americans to pray .
As a result , he set off a wave of hatred and contempt on Twitter .
FOX News has compiled a useful selection in “ MyPillow founder Mike Lindell , at White House coronavirus briefing , tells people to pray during crisis.
” If it weren ’ t for contempt and will to power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all to offer .
In case you missed yesterday ’ s briefing , you may want to check out Lindell ’ s remarks yourself .
( The linked story also includes a video of Neil Cavuto ’ s interview with Lindell explaining the company ’ s efforts . )
Need I add that the Star Tribune has no story of its own on the local Lindell/COVID-19 angle ?
I don ’ t need to , but it helps fill out the story of our own private Idaho in Minnesota .
Quotable quote ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you ’ re angry at the guy shifting over his factory to produce 50,000 facemasks a day for medical professionals , you ’ re doing being human wrong .
”

Minnesota’s MyPillow man Mike Lindell joined President Trump and chief executive officers Darius Adamczyk (Honeywell), Debra Waller (Jockey — great!), Greg Hayes (United Technologies), and David Taylor (Proctor and Gamble) at yesterday’s daily White House Coronavirus task force briefing. Lindell is a recovering addict, an outspoken Christian, a fervent Trump supporter, a successful entrepreneur and all-around remarkable gentleman. Lindell spoke for less than three minutes (video below). He announced that MyPillow was repurposing part of its factory to make cotton face masks for health care workers. It will be cranking out 50,000 masks a day by the end of the week.
Lindell added a few words expressing his gratitude for Trump’s election and urging Americans to pray. As a result, he set off a wave of hatred and contempt on Twitter. FOX News has compiled a useful selection in “MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, at White House coronavirus briefing, tells people to pray during crisis.” If it weren’t for contempt and will to power, these people would have nothing at all to offer. In case you missed yesterday’s briefing, you may want to check out Lindell’s remarks yourself. (The linked story also includes a video of Neil Cavuto’s interview with Lindell explaining the company’s efforts.)
Need I add that the Star Tribune has no story of its own on the local Lindell/COVID-19 angle? I don’t need to, but it helps fill out the story of our own private Idaho in Minnesota.
Quotable quote (Ben Shapiro via FOX News): “If you’re angry at the guy shifting over his factory to produce 50,000 facemasks a day for medical professionals, you’re doing being human wrong.”


The Intolerant Left

The reaction of the media and the left ( but I repeat myself ) to Mike Lindell ’ s public profession of piety at the White House this week is one more vivid reminder that liberals are the most intolerant people around today .
No wonder they talk about “ tolerance ” so much : they are compensating for their obvious lack of it .
I have an idea for Trump .
As the coronavirus crisis continues , and especially as we run up to election day in November , he should make a point of quoting Franklin Roosevelt ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause leftists to have an embolism .
As I explain in one of my old books : FDR , an Episcopalian , made the kind of remarks about religion that send the American Civil Liberties Union into paroxysms of rage when someone like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin say the same thing today .
Democracy and Christianity , he said , were “ two phases of the same civilization.
” “ We can not read the history of our rise and development as a nation , ” he said , “ without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic.
” During World War II FDR wrote a preface for an edition of the New Testament that was distributed to American troops : “ As Commander-in-Chief , I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.
” On the eve of the 1940 election , FDR said in a radio address : “ Freedom of speech is of no use to a man who has nothing to say and freedom of worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has lost his God.
” On June 6 , 1944 , FDR led the nation in prayer for our armed forces on live radio , and in his final inaugural address in 1945 he said , “ So we pray to Him for the vision to see our way clearly … to achievement of His will.
” Today ’ s liberals would regard these statements and acts as grounds for impeachment .
People often remark that John F. Kennedy couldn ’ t be nominated by today ’ s Democratic Party .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right about FDR .

The reaction of the media and the left (but I repeat myself) to Mike Lindell’s public profession of piety at the White House this week is one more vivid reminder that liberals are the most intolerant people around today. No wonder they talk about “tolerance” so much: they are compensating for their obvious lack of it.
I have an idea for Trump. As the coronavirus crisis continues, and especially as we run up to election day in November, he should make a point of quoting Franklin Roosevelt’s many pious declarations. It will cause leftists to have an embolism. As I explain in one of my old books:
FDR, an Episcopalian, made the kind of remarks about religion that send the American Civil Liberties Union into paroxysms of rage when someone like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin say the same thing today. Democracy and Christianity, he said, were “two phases of the same civilization.” “We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation,” he said, “without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic.” During World War II FDR wrote a preface for an edition of the New Testament that was distributed to American troops: “As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.” On the eve of the 1940 election, FDR said in a radio address: “Freedom of speech is of no use to a man who has nothing to say and freedom of worship is of no use to a man who has lost his God.” On June 6, 1944, FDR led the nation in prayer for our armed forces on live radio, and in his final inaugural address in 1945 he said, “So we pray to Him for the vision to see our way clearly … to achievement of His will.” Today’s liberals would regard these statements and acts as grounds for impeachment.
People often remark that John F. Kennedy couldn’t be nominated by today’s Democratic Party. Neither could FDR. Maybe Conrad Black is right about FDR.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Send in Questions for the Next Podcast!

Send in Questions for the Next Podcast!

Readers : As promised , I ’ m going to step up the frequency of podcasts for the duration of the COVID-19 martial law , and I ’ ve got several guests lined up for conversations over the next few days .
But tomorrow ( Wednesday ) I ’ ll be hooking up with “ Lucretia , ” Power Line ’ s International Woman of Mystery , to catch up and kick things around .
We ’ re both really desperate to talk about anything besides the coronavirus , and we ’ ve decided to take audience questions .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to do a live show—maybe some time in the next couple weeks—but if you want to send in a question , post it up in the comments section here , or if you aren ’ t fixed up with Disqus , send an email to our general comment line , and we ’ ll do our best to answer as many as we can .
Ask about anything : best wines , whisky , the worst Supreme Court decision ever , which Supreme Court justice of the 1880s had the most rad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wendell Holmes ( let me count the ways ! )
, why Cass Sunstein should be required to buy single-use plastic bags , whether Trump is totally awesome or merely godlike , who we predict will win the NCAA basketball tournament this year , etc .
Nothing off limits .
Just get your questions in by 2 pm eastern time .

Readers: As promised, I’m going to step up the frequency of podcasts for the duration of the COVID-19 martial law, and I’ve got several guests lined up for conversations over the next few days. But tomorrow (Wednesday) I’ll be hooking up with “Lucretia,” Power Line’s International Woman of Mystery, to catch up and kick things around. We’re both really desperate to talk about anything besides the coronavirus, and we’ve decided to take audience questions. We aren’t set up (yet) to do a live show—maybe some time in the next couple weeks—but if you want to send in a question, post it up in the comments section here, or if you aren’t fixed up with Disqus, send an email to our general comment line, and we’ll do our best to answer as many as we can.
Ask about anything: best wines, whisky, the worst Supreme Court decision ever, which Supreme Court justice of the 1880s had the most rad beard, what was wrong with Oliver Wendell Holmes (let me count the ways!), why Cass Sunstein should be required to buy single-use plastic bags, whether Trump is totally awesome or merely godlike, who we predict will win the NCAA basketball tournament this year, etc. Nothing off limits. Just get your questions in by 2 pm eastern time.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Are COVID-19 Models a Sound Basis For Public Policy? [with comment by Paul]

Most Americans are now subject to “ stay-home ” orders of one kind or another , issued by state and local authorities , and countless “ nonessential ” businesses have been shut down .
Millions have been thrown out of work , and thousands of businesses that have been shuttered will never reopen .
The stock market has crashed , destroying the life ’ s savings of millions .
Many millions of lives , in short , have been devastated by governments ’ responses to the COVID-19 virus .
The justification for stay-home orders , closing of “ non-essential ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have often been told , is “ flattening the curve.
” Sheltering in place won ’ t prevent the COVID-19 virus from working its way through the population , it will just do so more slowly .
The idea is that if we all get sick at once , it will overstrain medical resources , especially ICU beds and ventilators , while if we stretch out the timing of the epidemic , a similar number of people may ultimately get sick , but a higher percentage of seriously ill persons will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have all seen this graph , which illustrates the point , many times : One can estimate the number of lives saved through stay-home orders and other curve-flattening measures in this way : Create two graphs , in the manner illustrated in the above chart .
Case A represents the natural course of the disease with no flattening measures .
( Or , perhaps , with certain baseline measures , e.g.
, restricting travel from China .
I have never seen this made clear . )
Case A estimates the number of infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for whom a ventilator will be indicated , over the course of the epidemic , and compares those estimates to the quantity of ICU rooms and ventilators available in a given location ( e.g.
, a state ) .
This yields a number of patients who ought to receive such treatments , but don ’ t .
Next we apply mortality statistics : we assume , for example , that patients for whom a ventilator is indicated have a 75 % chance of survival if they get a ventilator , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
The numbers might look like this : Start with a state with a population of 1 million ; assume that one-half of them contract the virus .
Of those 500,000 , assume that 5 percent , or 25,000 , will need a ventilator at some point .
Calculate further that due to a spike in demand from the epidemic , only 15,000 will have timely access to a ventilator , while 10,000 will not .
The number who die among those who needed a ventilator , on these assumptions , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .75 x 10,000 = 7,500 , or 11,250 .
We then compare that to Case B , where the curve is flattened .
Let ’ s assume that the flattening is entirely successful , so that every one of the 25,000 who need a ventilator gets access to one .
The death toll on Case B is then .25 x 25,000 = 6,250 .
So on these assumptions , flattening the curve can be expected to save 5,000 lives .
( I am not , of course , suggesting that these numbers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to illustrate how curve-flattening is supposed to work . )
One could perform a similar analysis for ICU beds and add those numbers to the ventilator analysis , although that probably wouldn ’ t add much , if anything , since for the present purpose an ICU room is basically a room with a ventilator .
As usual with models , the math is relatively simple .
It is the assumptions that are critical .
In the U.K. , Imperial College scientist Neil Ferguson notoriously revised his U.K. fatality projection from 500,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those being people who would have died this year , anyway .
Ferguson said this drastic reassessment was due to the draconian stay-home order promulgated by the British government .
I am not calling Ferguson a liar , but I would love to see the assumptions and calculations underlying his about-face .
Are there really numbers for Case A ( 500,000 fatalities ) and Case B ( fewer than 20,000 ) attributable to curve-flattening that 1 ) are plausible on their face , and 2 ) have substantial empirical support ?
Consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has a set of coronavirus mortality projections that have been getting a lot of attention .
I wrote about them here .
I characterized the IHME numbers as relatively optimistic , because they forecast a total of a little over 81,000 deaths in the U.S .
I am particularly interested in the IHME project because it includes state-by-state forecasts .
For Minnesota , it currently projects 1,039 deaths .
This is in marked contrast with the model on which Minnesota ’ s governor claims to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shutdown order .
That model , according to the governor , projected more than 70,000 deaths in the state unless people were ordered to stay home and businesses were closed .
He hasn ’ t said , to my knowledge , how much good his stay-home order will do , according to the same model .
In commenting on my post , Paul suggested that the difference between the two projections—1,039 vs. more than 70,000—is that the University of Washington analysis takes into account the impact of the stay-home order , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so on , so that the difference represents the benefit of our governor ’ s order .
That was a plausible assumption , but I don ’ t think it is correct .
Did IHME project 70,000 deaths in Minnesota , and revise that prediction dramatically downward when Governor Walz issued his order ?
I can ’ t be certain as I didn ’ t see the IHME site until after the fact , and I can ’ t find versions of the model predating March 30 on the IHME site .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 70,000 could never have been a reasonable mortality projection for Minnesota when the entire nation is only a little over 80,000 , I don ’ t think that is what happened .
IHME ’ s state-by-state projections do not appear to vary depending on the prophylactic actions taken ( or not taken ) by each state ’ s government .
Thus , here is the projection for Minnesota , which has a harsh shutdown order in place .
Currently it projects 1,039 deaths .
Click to enlarge : IHME notes that Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as of March 27 .
But now let ’ s compare Iowa , which , as IHME says , does not have a stay-home order and has not closed nonessential businesses : Minnesota ’ s current projection of 1,039 fatalities works out to 0.00019 of the state ’ s population .
Iowa ’ s projected 777 deaths equal 0.00025 of its population , slightly higher .
But this isn ’ t due to any apparent curve flattening in Minnesota , as both states show a peak resource use on April 18 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 5,568 works out to 0.00026 of the state ’ s population .
Florida has no stay-home order and hasn ’ t closed nonessential businesses .
Missouri has no shutdown order and has not closed nonessential businesses , and its predicted death total of 1,219 represents 0.00019 of its population , the same as Minnesota ’ s .
Further , I can ’ t see from studying the IHME ’ s charts that the infection curves , or resource usage curves , are any flatter for the states that have shutdown orders than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can look at them for yourself and see if you think I am missing something .
All indications are that this model is drastically different from those that have been used to justify radical prophylactic measures in Minnesota and other states .
For one thing , the model relied on by the State of Minnesota assumes that 2.4 million Minnesotans will catch COVID-19 , and 3 percent of them will die .
That 3 percent mortality rate is regarded by most observers as ridiculous .
It is double the mortality rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example .
Moreover , with a population of 51 million and the epidemic now dying out there , South Korea has recorded only 162 deaths—0.000003 of its population .
Why do some modelers assume the U.S. will do so poorly ?
Let ’ s see the assumptions and the calculations .
The University of Washington is to be commended because its model is relatively transparent , although , for the reasons stated , it leaves lots of questions unanswered .
But all models that are used to drive public policy decisions should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to see , in detail , the assumptions and calculations on which each model depends , so we can critique them .
For example , what do the models assume about the manufacture and supply of more ventilators ?
Many efforts to build and procure ventilators are being made .
To cite just one instance , President Trump has ordered General Motors to produce tens of thousands of ventilators under the Defense Production Act .
Have the modelers taken that into account ?
The IHME model projects that at the epidemic ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation as a whole will need 26,381 ventilators .
Will there actually be a shortage in two weeks ’ time , given the massive efforts to produce new ventilators that are now underway ?
Some common-sense observers would say , if the purpose of shutting down our economy is to assure an adequate supply of ventilators over the coming months , maybe we should forget about destroying the economy and build more ventilators instead .
Further , many more masks are now being produced and made available .
It appears that widespread mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus in Asia , and “ experts ” are now backing off their earlier statements that wearing masks would not be useful here .
Has the wider utilization of masks been factored into mortality models ?
Has any modeler tried to figure out whether governors would do more good , at infinitely less cost , by encouraging the wearing of masks rather than by shutting down businesses ?
How about promising therapies for COVID-19 , like the hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin combination ?
What do the models assume about the effectiveness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how widely they will be deployed ?
My guess is that they ignore these promising medical developments entirely .
It is also curious that certain policy issues of interest to the public seem never to be addressed by modelers .
For instance , President Trump toyed with the idea of quarantining New York City , but backed off after vigorous objections from New York ’ s Governor Andy Cuomo .
But wouldn ’ t quarantining New York ( or just banning flights out of New York , as Scott and Paul have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And isn ’ t it an article of faith among modelers that flattening the curve saves lives ?
Why has no one , as far as I know , attempted this analysis ?
After all , to quote Governor Cuomo , if quarantining New York saved just one life , it would be worth it .
Why , in this case , are our modelers so discreet ?
Is curve flattening , via stay-home orders and business closures , really as valuable as certain modelers and many politicians allege ?
It may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to generate newspaper headlines were made fully transparent and subjected to rigorous analysis , the value of stretching out the COVID-19 epidemic to flatten the demand curve for medical services would prove to be minimal .
And yet , this is the theory on which millions of American lives are now being ruined .
PAUL ADDS : In my response to an earlier post by John , to which he refers above , I didn ’ t purport to explain differences between two models — a model by the University of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model relied on the by governor of Minnesota .
I said nothing about Minnesota ’ s governor , his model , or his order .
I did not say or suggest that the difference between the number of deaths in Minnesota predicted by the University of Washington model and the Minnesota governor ’ s model — 1,039 vs. more than 70,000 — is explained by the efficacy of stay-home order , business closings , restrictions on meetings , etc .
Nor did I attempt to quantify the benefit of the Minnesota governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not address that order or the governor ’ s model , whatever it might have been .
What I said was that the number of deaths projected in the University of Washington model John was citing , 81,000 , “ assumes the strong measures that have been taken to limit the spread of this virus in the U.S. ” and that “ without these measures , the University of Washington would very likely be projecting a great many more than 81,000 deaths.
” I certainly did not suggest that the University of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times that number of deaths in the absence of strong measures .

Most Americans are now subject to “stay-home” orders of one kind or another, issued by state and local authorities, and countless “nonessential” businesses have been shut down. Millions have been thrown out of work, and thousands of businesses that have been shuttered will never reopen. The stock market has crashed, destroying the life’s savings of millions. Many millions of lives, in short, have been devastated by governments’ responses to the COVID-19 virus.
The justification for stay-home orders, closing of “non-essential” businesses, and so on, as we have often been told, is “flattening the curve.” Sheltering in place won’t prevent the COVID-19 virus from working its way through the population, it will just do so more slowly. The idea is that if we all get sick at once, it will overstrain medical resources, especially ICU beds and ventilators, while if we stretch out the timing of the epidemic, a similar number of people may ultimately get sick, but a higher percentage of seriously ill persons will have access to those medical resources. We have all seen this graph, which illustrates the point, many times:
One can estimate the number of lives saved through stay-home orders and other curve-flattening measures in this way:
Create two graphs, in the manner illustrated in the above chart. Case A represents the natural course of the disease with no flattening measures. (Or, perhaps, with certain baseline measures, e.g., restricting travel from China. I have never seen this made clear.) Case A estimates the number of infected people for whom hospitalization will be indicated, and for whom a ventilator will be indicated, over the course of the epidemic, and compares those estimates to the quantity of ICU rooms and ventilators available in a given location (e.g., a state). This yields a number of patients who ought to receive such treatments, but don’t.
Next we apply mortality statistics: we assume, for example, that patients for whom a ventilator is indicated have a 75% chance of survival if they get a ventilator, but only 25% if they don’t. The numbers might look like this: Start with a state with a population of 1 million; assume that one-half of them contract the virus. Of those 500,000, assume that 5 percent, or 25,000, will need a ventilator at some point. Calculate further that due to a spike in demand from the epidemic, only 15,000 will have timely access to a ventilator, while 10,000 will not. The number who die among those who needed a ventilator, on these assumptions, is .25 x 15,000 = 3,750, plus .75 x 10,000 = 7,500, or 11,250.
We then compare that to Case B, where the curve is flattened. Let’s assume that the flattening is entirely successful, so that every one of the 25,000 who need a ventilator gets access to one. The death toll on Case B is then .25 x 25,000 = 6,250. So on these assumptions, flattening the curve can be expected to save 5,000 lives. (I am not, of course, suggesting that these numbers are correct or reasonable, but simply using them to illustrate how curve-flattening is supposed to work.) One could perform a similar analysis for ICU beds and add those numbers to the ventilator analysis, although that probably wouldn’t add much, if anything, since for the present purpose an ICU room is basically a room with a ventilator.
As usual with models, the math is relatively simple. It is the assumptions that are critical.
In the U.K., Imperial College scientist Neil Ferguson notoriously revised his U.K. fatality projection from 500,000 to fewer than 20,000, with most of those being people who would have died this year, anyway. Ferguson said this drastic reassessment was due to the draconian stay-home order promulgated by the British government.
I am not calling Ferguson a liar, but I would love to see the assumptions and calculations underlying his about-face. Are there really numbers for Case A (500,000 fatalities) and Case B (fewer than 20,000) attributable to curve-flattening that 1) are plausible on their face, and 2) have substantial empirical support? Consider me skeptical.
The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has a set of coronavirus mortality projections that have been getting a lot of attention. I wrote about them here. I characterized the IHME numbers as relatively optimistic, because they forecast a total of a little over 81,000 deaths in the U.S.
I am particularly interested in the IHME project because it includes state-by-state forecasts. For Minnesota, it currently projects 1,039 deaths. This is in marked contrast with the model on which Minnesota’s governor claims to have relied when he issued the state’s shutdown order. That model, according to the governor, projected more than 70,000 deaths in the state unless people were ordered to stay home and businesses were closed. He hasn’t said, to my knowledge, how much good his stay-home order will do, according to the same model.
In commenting on my post, Paul suggested that the difference between the two projections—1,039 vs. more than 70,000—is that the University of Washington analysis takes into account the impact of the stay-home order, business closings, restrictions on meetings, and so on, so that the difference represents the benefit of our governor’s order.
That was a plausible assumption, but I don’t think it is correct. Did IHME project 70,000 deaths in Minnesota, and revise that prediction dramatically downward when Governor Walz issued his order? I can’t be certain as I didn’t see the IHME site until after the fact, and I can’t find versions of the model predating March 30 on the IHME site. But, even apart from the fact that 70,000 could never have been a reasonable mortality projection for Minnesota when the entire nation is only a little over 80,000, I don’t think that is what happened.
IHME’s state-by-state projections do not appear to vary depending on the prophylactic actions taken (or not taken) by each state’s government. Thus, here is the projection for Minnesota, which has a harsh shutdown order in place. Currently it projects 1,039 deaths. Click to enlarge:
IHME notes that Minnesota has a “stay at home order” as of March 27. But now let’s compare Iowa, which, as IHME says, does not have a stay-home order and has not closed nonessential businesses:
Minnesota’s current projection of 1,039 fatalities works out to 0.00019 of the state’s population. Iowa’s projected 777 deaths equal 0.00025 of its population, slightly higher. But this isn’t due to any apparent curve flattening in Minnesota, as both states show a peak resource use on April 18. Similarly, Florida’s fatality projection of 5,568 works out to 0.00026 of the state’s population. Florida has no stay-home order and hasn’t closed nonessential businesses. Missouri has no shutdown order and has not closed nonessential businesses, and its predicted death total of 1,219 represents 0.00019 of its population, the same as Minnesota’s.
Further, I can’t see from studying the IHME’s charts that the infection curves, or resource usage curves, are any flatter for the states that have shutdown orders than for the states that don’t. You can look at them for yourself and see if you think I am missing something. All indications are that this model is drastically different from those that have been used to justify radical prophylactic measures in Minnesota and other states.
For one thing, the model relied on by the State of Minnesota assumes that 2.4 million Minnesotans will catch COVID-19, and 3 percent of them will die. That 3 percent mortality rate is regarded by most observers as ridiculous. It is double the mortality rate for confirmed cases in South Korea, for example. Moreover, with a population of 51 million and the epidemic now dying out there, South Korea has recorded only 162 deaths—0.000003 of its population. Why do some modelers assume the U.S. will do so poorly? Let’s see the assumptions and the calculations.
The University of Washington is to be commended because its model is relatively transparent, although, for the reasons stated, it leaves lots of questions unanswered. But all models that are used to drive public policy decisions should be fully transparent. We should be able to see, in detail, the assumptions and calculations on which each model depends, so we can critique them.
For example, what do the models assume about the manufacture and supply of more ventilators? Many efforts to build and procure ventilators are being made. To cite just one instance, President Trump has ordered General Motors to produce tens of thousands of ventilators under the Defense Production Act. Have the modelers taken that into account?
The IHME model projects that at the epidemic’s peak on April 15, the nation as a whole will need 26,381 ventilators. Will there actually be a shortage in two weeks’ time, given the massive efforts to produce new ventilators that are now underway? Some common-sense observers would say, if the purpose of shutting down our economy is to assure an adequate supply of ventilators over the coming months, maybe we should forget about destroying the economy and build more ventilators instead.
Further, many more masks are now being produced and made available. It appears that widespread mask usage has helped to limit the spread of the virus in Asia, and “experts” are now backing off their earlier statements that wearing masks would not be useful here. Has the wider utilization of masks been factored into mortality models? Has any modeler tried to figure out whether governors would do more good, at infinitely less cost, by encouraging the wearing of masks rather than by shutting down businesses?
How about promising therapies for COVID-19, like the hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin combination? What do the models assume about the effectiveness of such treatments, and about how soon and how widely they will be deployed? My guess is that they ignore these promising medical developments entirely.
It is also curious that certain policy issues of interest to the public seem never to be addressed by modelers. For instance, President Trump toyed with the idea of quarantining New York City, but backed off after vigorous objections from New York’s Governor Andy Cuomo. But wouldn’t quarantining New York (or just banning flights out of New York, as Scott and Paul have advocated) have flattened the curve elsewhere? And isn’t it an article of faith among modelers that flattening the curve saves lives? Why has no one, as far as I know, attempted this analysis? After all, to quote Governor Cuomo, if quarantining New York saved just one life, it would be worth it. Why, in this case, are our modelers so discreet?
Is curve flattening, via stay-home orders and business closures, really as valuable as certain modelers and many politicians allege? It may be that if the models now being used to generate newspaper headlines were made fully transparent and subjected to rigorous analysis, the value of stretching out the COVID-19 epidemic to flatten the demand curve for medical services would prove to be minimal. And yet, this is the theory on which millions of American lives are now being ruined.
PAUL ADDS: In my response to an earlier post by John, to which he refers above, I didn’t purport to explain differences between two models — a model by the University of Washington (the IHME model) and some model relied on the by governor of Minnesota. I said nothing about Minnesota’s governor, his model, or his order.
I did not say or suggest that the difference between the number of deaths in Minnesota predicted by the University of Washington model and the Minnesota governor’s model — 1,039 vs. more than 70,000 — is explained by the efficacy of stay-home order, business closings, restrictions on meetings, etc. Nor did I attempt to quantify the benefit of the Minnesota governor’s stay-home order. My post did not address that order or the governor’s model, whatever it might have been.
What I said was that the number of deaths projected in the University of Washington model John was citing, 81,000, “assumes the strong measures that have been taken to limit the spread of this virus in the U.S.” and that “without these measures, the University of Washington would very likely be projecting a great many more than 81,000 deaths.” I certainly did not suggest that the University of Washington would be projecting anything remotely like 70 times that number of deaths in the absence of strong measures.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Don’t let China off the hook

Don’t let China off the hook

Our friend Michael Auslin explains the importance of pushing back against China ’ s effort to deflect blame for the origin and spread of the Wuhan coronavirus .
The case for holding China accountable is founded in morality , global governance , and the need to protect against future pandemics .
The moral case stems from the Chinese government ’ s reprehensible response to the early outbreak of the pandemic there .
Auslin reminds us : Chinese officials knew of the seriousness of the pandemic as early as December , yet waited weeks to begin restricting travel , allowing millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country and abroad for Lunar New Year celebrations , spreading the virus as they went .
British scientists have argued that if Beijing had acted just three weeks earlier , it could have reduced the spread of the virus by 95 percent .
We also know that in the time before the outbreak ’ s seriousness became apparent outside China , the CCP destroyed laboratory samples and punished the brave doctors and citizens who tried to warn their countrymen and the world about the pathogen , while refusing foreign offers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing dramatically underreported the number of deaths in Wuhan , and is no longer reporting new infections in China .
China is morally culpable for the worldwide pandemic .
We should never forget this .
From the standpoint of global governance , China was bound , as a party to the 2005 International Health Regulations , to “ provide expedited , timely , accurate , and sufficiently detailed information to [ the World Health Organization ] about .
.
.
potential public health emergencies ” such as the Wuhan coronavirus .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Red Chinese actively misled the WHO about the crucial fact that the pathogen is transmitted between humans .
In addition , Auslin points out , Beijing is reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in profits by selling equipment to panic-stricken governments abroad .
Much of that equipment has proved to be useless and is being returned by Spain , the Czech Republic , and Malaysia , among other countries .
Those who believe that good global governance , however flawed , is an important tool for maintaining international peace and for contributing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the CCP is undermining the liberal international architecture and suborning global institutions to its will .
The normalization of such misbehavior can not be allowed to stand .
Finally , there ’ s the matter of preventing future pandemics .
If nations don ’ t understand that there will be repercussions for the kind of egregious conduct China has engaged in , then , as Auslin says , “ our globalized world will suffer more coronavirus-style pandemics in the future.
” In this regard , it ’ s worth noting that China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wet markets.
” The wet market in Wuhan is thought to be ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak .
Gordon Chang has more on this development .
He calls the reopening of the wet markets “ an invitation to fuel a disease.
” I call failure to insist on China ’ s responsibility for this pandemic an invitation to future pandemics .

Our friend Michael Auslin explains the importance of pushing back against China’s effort to deflect blame for the origin and spread of the Wuhan coronavirus. The case for holding China accountable is founded in morality, global governance, and the need to protect against future pandemics.
The moral case stems from the Chinese government’s reprehensible response to the early outbreak of the pandemic there. Auslin reminds us:
Chinese officials knew of the seriousness of the pandemic as early as December, yet waited weeks to begin restricting travel, allowing millions of Wuhan residents to visit relatives elsewhere in the country and abroad for Lunar New Year celebrations, spreading the virus as they went. British scientists have argued that if Beijing had acted just three weeks earlier, it could have reduced the spread of the virus by 95 percent. We also know that in the time before the outbreak’s seriousness became apparent outside China, the CCP destroyed laboratory samples and punished the brave doctors and citizens who tried to warn their countrymen and the world about the pathogen, while refusing foreign offers of help. We are almost certain that Beijing dramatically underreported the number of deaths in Wuhan, and is no longer reporting new infections in China.
China is morally culpable for the worldwide pandemic. We should never forget this.
From the standpoint of global governance, China was bound, as a party to the 2005 International Health Regulations, to “provide expedited, timely, accurate, and sufficiently detailed information to [the World Health Organization] about . . . potential public health emergencies” such as the Wuhan coronavirus. Instead of doing so in this case, the Red Chinese actively misled the WHO about the crucial fact that the pathogen is transmitted between humans.
In addition, Auslin points out, Beijing is reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in profits by selling equipment to panic-stricken governments abroad. Much of that equipment has proved to be useless and is being returned by Spain, the Czech Republic, and Malaysia, among other countries.
Auslin concludes:
Those who believe that good global governance, however flawed, is an important tool for maintaining international peace and for contributing to development and growth should be appalled at how the CCP is undermining the liberal international architecture and suborning global institutions to its will. The normalization of such misbehavior cannot be allowed to stand.
Finally, there’s the matter of preventing future pandemics. If nations don’t understand that there will be repercussions for the kind of egregious conduct China has engaged in, then, as Auslin says, “our globalized world will suffer more coronavirus-style pandemics in the future.”
In this regard, it’s worth noting that China reportedly is reopening some of its “wet markets.” The wet market in Wuhan is thought to be ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak.
Gordon Chang has more on this development. He calls the reopening of the wet markets “an invitation to fuel a disease.”
I call failure to insist on China’s responsibility for this pandemic an invitation to future pandemics.


A Partisan Virus?

A lot of people are making the usual red-versus-blue points out of this survey data reported in the New York Times , showing Democrats more alarmed by the risk of COVID-19 than Republicans : The left , and the media , say this is proof of the insensitivity or “ science denial ” of Republicans or something , though I say it reflects the superior ability of Republicans to calculate risk tradeoffs better than Democrats .
More on this point in due course .
The matter gets more interesting when you look at Gallup survey out last week that reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Gallup bar graph : The partisan divide over Trump and Pence is not remarkable at all , but it is interesting that Republicans rate hospitals and government health agencies more highly than Democrats do , and , surprisingly , that Republicans approve of Congress more than Democrats do .
Democrats , the party of government , thinks less well of government than Republicans do at the moment .
But the most revealing finding is the bottom bar , showing that a majority of Democrats ( 61 % ) approve of the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , as opposed to only 25 percent of Republicans .
This is the largest institutional gap in the survey , and quite telling , isn ’ t it ?
And a nice set-up for today ’ s comic relief video—drawn once again from the cult classic They Live :

A lot of people are making the usual red-versus-blue points out of this survey data reported in the New York Times, showing Democrats more alarmed by the risk of COVID-19 than Republicans:
The left, and the media, say this is proof of the insensitivity or “science denial” of Republicans or something, though I say it reflects the superior ability of Republicans to calculate risk tradeoffs better than Democrats. More on this point in due course.
The matter gets more interesting when you look at Gallup survey out last week that reported some curious partisan divides as noted in this Gallup bar graph:
The partisan divide over Trump and Pence is not remarkable at all, but it is interesting that Republicans rate hospitals and government health agencies more highly than Democrats do, and, surprisingly, that Republicans approve of Congress more than Democrats do. Democrats, the party of government, thinks less well of government than Republicans do at the moment.
But the most revealing finding is the bottom bar, showing that a majority of Democrats (61%) approve of the news media’s handling of the coronavirus story, as opposed to only 25 percent of Republicans. This is the largest institutional gap in the survey, and quite telling, isn’t it?
And a nice set-up for today’s comic relief video—drawn once again from the cult classic They Live:


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Biden: Hard to envision an in-person Democratic national convention

No baseball for the foreseeable future .
No NBA .
No Euro 2020 soccer tournament .
No matter what sports you enjoy watching , you ’ re missing out on pleasurable experiences above and beyond the joys of going out and about .
But there ’ s a bright side .
The Democratic national convention may not take place in its usual form .
That ’ s what Joe Biden says .
In his view , it ’ s “ hard to envision ” an in-person Democratic National Convention taking place in July as planned .
“ The fact is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he told MSNBC yesterday .
The Democratic National Convention is scheduled for July 13-16 in Milwaukee .
By then , I hope , draconian stay-home type orders will be a thing of the past .
However , a mass gathering in an arena of delegates , media , and enthusiasts might still be out of the question .
At times , Democrats seem willing to risk political suicide , as well as the economic strangulation of the country .
However , I doubt they are willing to risk the mass infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the alternatives ?
A virtual convention is one possibility .
It would feature speeches , but not before a live audience , or at least a big one .
If Bernie Sanders is still in the contest , voting would be done remotely .
If he isn ’ t , Biden could , I suppose , be nominated by some form of virtual acclamation .
Another possibility is to push the convention back to a later date .
But that might be a logistical nightmare .
Nor is it clear that , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be safe to hold a normal convention .
The Republican convention is scheduled for August 24-27 in Charlotte , North Carolina .
President Trump says there ’ s “ no way ” he ’ ll cancel that event .
But Biden was saying something similar not long ago .
Candidates often get a “ bounce ” from their political conventions , although the bounces seem less substantial these days .
Conventions can also boomerang .
The 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago , with its riots in the streets and deep divisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best example .
If the Democrats convene in Milwaukee , the possibility of a mini Chicago 1968 exists .
Bernie Sanders ’ s supporters might not take kindly to the coronation of Joe Biden , especially in the context of an abbreviated primary season .
Thus , the absence of a convention might work in Biden ’ s favor by avoiding televised unpleasantness on a large scale .
On the other other hand , the inability of Sanders ’ s fans to vent at a convention , coupled with the inability to extract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process , might make it more difficult for Democrats to unite the party .
The absence of a convention would also deprive Biden of the opportunity to overcome the image that he ’ s not quite all there .
No better opportunity exists to combat that image than reading a canned , well written , and thoroughly rehearsed speech from a teleprompter in front of a huge cheering crowd .
In the end , though , I question whether the absence of a normal Democratic convention would harm Biden ’ s chances in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
This election seems destined to turn on how the public views President Trump ’ s response to the Wuhan corornavirus and whether it believes the president can deal more effectively than Biden with the fallout .
Even a great speech by Biden at a convention in July , coupled with a Biden-Sanders love fest — the best case scenario for the Dems in Milwaukee — wouldn ’ t be likely to figure much in the electorate ’ s evaluation of these matters come November .

No baseball for the foreseeable future. No NBA. No Euro 2020 soccer tournament.
No matter what sports you enjoy watching, you’re missing out on pleasurable experiences above and beyond the joys of going out and about.
But there’s a bright side. The Democratic national convention may not take place in its usual form.
That’s what Joe Biden says. In his view, it’s “hard to envision” an in-person Democratic National Convention taking place in July as planned. “The fact is, it may have to be different,” he told MSNBC yesterday.
The Democratic National Convention is scheduled for July 13-16 in Milwaukee. By then, I hope, draconian stay-home type orders will be a thing of the past. However, a mass gathering in an arena of delegates, media, and enthusiasts might still be out of the question.
At times, Democrats seem willing to risk political suicide, as well as the economic strangulation of the country. However, I doubt they are willing to risk the mass infection of their political leaders.
What are the alternatives? A virtual convention is one possibility. It would feature speeches, but not before a live audience, or at least a big one. If Bernie Sanders is still in the contest, voting would be done remotely. If he isn’t, Biden could, I suppose, be nominated by some form of virtual acclamation.
Another possibility is to push the convention back to a later date. But that might be a logistical nightmare. Nor is it clear that, even by late August or early September, it will be safe to hold a normal convention.
The Republican convention is scheduled for August 24-27 in Charlotte, North Carolina. President Trump says there’s “no way” he’ll cancel that event. But Biden was saying something similar not long ago.
Candidates often get a “bounce” from their political conventions, although the bounces seem less substantial these days. Conventions can also boomerang. The 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, with its riots in the streets and deep divisions inside the convention hall, is the best example.
If the Democrats convene in Milwaukee, the possibility of a mini Chicago 1968 exists. Bernie Sanders’s supporters might not take kindly to the coronation of Joe Biden, especially in the context of an abbreviated primary season.
Thus, the absence of a convention might work in Biden’s favor by avoiding televised unpleasantness on a large scale. On the other other hand, the inability of Sanders’s fans to vent at a convention, coupled with the inability to extract concessions from Biden through a normal convention process, might make it more difficult for Democrats to unite the party.
The absence of a convention would also deprive Biden of the opportunity to overcome the image that he’s not quite all there. No better opportunity exists to combat that image than reading a canned, well written, and thoroughly rehearsed speech from a teleprompter in front of a huge cheering crowd.
In the end, though, I question whether the absence of a normal Democratic convention would harm Biden’s chances in November, even if the Republicans hold one. This election seems destined to turn on how the public views President Trump’s response to the Wuhan corornavirus and whether it believes the president can deal more effectively than Biden with the fallout.
Even a great speech by Biden at a convention in July, coupled with a Biden-Sanders love fest — the best case scenario for the Dems in Milwaukee — wouldn’t be likely to figure much in the electorate’s evaluation of these matters come November.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Hayek on Emergency Powers of Government

Hayek on Emergency Powers of Government

People are rightly wondering about the legal and constitutional authority to impose strict lockdowns on both the population and the @ @ @ @ @ wondering whether , like “ emergencies ” in the past , our current response will @ @ @ @ @ certain kinds of government power ( and spending ! )
, and thus yet another @ @ @ @ @ a further diminution of individual liberty .
Many “ temporary ” measures and policies seem @ @ @ @ @ becoming permanent after the emergency is over .
I decided to check out what F.A @ @ @ @ @ to say on this question , and sure enough , in his mid-1970s opus Law @ @ @ @ @ Vol .
3 , ch .
17 , he offers this extended reflection :

People are rightly wondering about the legal and constitutional authority to impose strict lockdowns on both the population and the economy, and more broadly wondering whether, like “emergencies” in the past, our current response will lead to a permanent expansion certain kinds of government power (and spending!), and thus yet another ratchet to larger government and a further diminution of individual liberty. Many “temporary” measures and policies seem to have a way of becoming permanent after the emergency is over.
I decided to check out what F.A. Hayek might have had to say on this question, and sure enough, in his mid-1970s opus Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 3, ch. 17, he offers this extended reflection: