powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Deep rot at the FBI (and the Times)

Deep rot at the FBI (and the Times)

Eli Lake takes a look at the latest Department of Justice Inspector General report on the rot at the FBI in the Bloomberg column “ The FBI Can ’ t Be Trusted With the Surveillance of Americans.
” Subhead : “ An inspector general report finds that the bureau has been systematically unscrupulous.
” I posted a copy of Horowitz ’ s OIG “ memorandum ” here yesterday .
It is not hard to believe how pervasive the rot at the FBI is , but the Horowitz memo should serve as a call to action and to the administration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , that is not quite how it is being received .
Lake writes , for example , that we have “ a system that relies almost exclusively on the FBI being scrupulous with its facts .
[ Yet ] Horowitz ’ s findings show that the bureau has been systematically unscrupulous.
” Eli doesn ’ t call out the New York Times , but the Times is Exhibit A of what he calls “ the twisted politics of the Trump era.
” How twisted ?
This twisted : In the twisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bureau ’ s defenders might actually view this report as good news : It shows that the investigation of the Trump campaign was not necessarily politically motivated .
The bureau made the same kinds of mistakes with suspects who were not connected to the Trump campaign .
That ’ s hardly reassuring — and the malpractice that the report uncovers is a much larger problem than the FBI and its defenders may wish to admit .
So far , the response to Horowitz ’ s December report has been a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that FBI field offices preserve their “ Woods files ” and a mandate for new FISA training for FBI lawyers and agents .
That ’ s all well and good .
But one need not go back to the bad old days of J. Edgar Hoover to see that the bureau has been careless in its monitoring of U.S. citizens .
The Woods procedures were issued in 2001 after Congress obtained a memo from the FBI ’ s counterterrorism division detailing surveillance abuse in the late 1990s .
One target ’ s cell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and the number was reassigned to a different person .
Another FBI field office videotaped a meeting , despite a clear prohibition on that technique in its FISA warrant .
In 2003 , an interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that the 2001 memo showed “ the FBI was experiencing more systemic problems related to the implementation of FISA orders ” than a problem with the surveillance law itself .
Very little has changed in the intervening 17 years .
That ’ s why it ’ s foolish to expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
A better approach would be an aggressive policy to prosecute FBI agents and lawyers who submit falsehoods to the surveillance court .
The best way to prevent future violations is to severely punish those who commit them in the present .
The New York Times is illustrative of “ the twisted politics of the Trump era.
” Daniel Chaitin covers the Times angle in his Examiner article “ ‘ Biased and out of control ’ : Devin Nunes rips New York Times reporting on FISA memo.
” Chaitin reports on Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Connor : Radio host Larry O ’ Connor read a passage from the [ Times ’ s ] report [ on the Horowitz memo ] to Nunes during the Examining Politics podcast on Tuesday .
It said DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz ’ s report “ helps the FBI politically because it undercuts the narrative among President Trump and his supporters that the bureau cut corners to surveil the adviser , Carter Page , as part of a politically motivated conspiracy.
” “ So , the good news for the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rights all over the place , not just people who worked with Donald Trump ’ s campaign , ” O ’ Connor said .
“ Is that the takeaway we should have here congressman ?
” You can hear Rep. Nunes ’ s response in the podcast of the interview segment below , preceded by Larry ’ s interview with Mark Cuban .
Quotable quote ( Chaitin quoting the Times ) : “ The finding of systemic incompetence is devastating for the FBI .
But , in the Trump era , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit for the bureau : It undercuts the narrative fostered by President Trump and his supporters that the botching of applications to surveil his campaign adviser Carter Page is evidence that the FBI engaged in a politically biased conspiracy .
”

Eli Lake takes a look at the latest Department of Justice Inspector General report on the rot at the FBI in the Bloomberg column “The FBI Can’t Be Trusted With the Surveillance of Americans.” Subhead: “An inspector general report finds that the bureau has been systematically unscrupulous.” I posted a copy of Horowitz’s OIG “memorandum” here yesterday.
It is not hard to believe how pervasive the rot at the FBI is, but the Horowitz memo should serve as a call to action and to the administration of justice in the matter of Donald Trump. However, that is not quite how it is being received. Lake writes, for example, that we have “a system that relies almost exclusively on the FBI being scrupulous with its facts. [Yet] Horowitz’s findings show that the bureau has been systematically unscrupulous.” Eli doesn’t call out the New York Times, but the Times is Exhibit A of what he calls “the twisted politics of the Trump era.” How twisted? This twisted:
In the twisted politics of the Trump Era, some of bureau’s defenders might actually view this report as good news: It shows that the investigation of the Trump campaign was not necessarily politically motivated. The bureau made the same kinds of mistakes with suspects who were not connected to the Trump campaign. That’s hardly reassuring — and the malpractice that the report uncovers is a much larger problem than the FBI and its defenders may wish to admit. So far, the response to Horowitz’s December report has been a series of administrative reforms, such as a requirement that FBI field offices preserve their “Woods files” and a mandate for new FISA training for FBI lawyers and agents. That’s all well and good. But one need not go back to the bad old days of J. Edgar Hoover to see that the bureau has been careless in its monitoring of U.S. citizens. The Woods procedures were issued in 2001 after Congress obtained a memo from the FBI’s counterterrorism division detailing surveillance abuse in the late 1990s. One target’s cell phone remained tapped after he gave it up and the number was reassigned to a different person. Another FBI field office videotaped a meeting, despite a clear prohibition on that technique in its FISA warrant. In 2003, an interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that the 2001 memo showed “the FBI was experiencing more systemic problems related to the implementation of FISA orders” than a problem with the surveillance law itself. Very little has changed in the intervening 17 years. That’s why it’s foolish to expect new and better procedures will work this time. A better approach would be an aggressive policy to prosecute FBI agents and lawyers who submit falsehoods to the surveillance court. The best way to prevent future violations is to severely punish those who commit them in the present.
The New York Times is illustrative of “the twisted politics of the Trump era.” Daniel Chaitin covers the Times angle in his Examiner article “‘Biased and out of control’: Devin Nunes rips New York Times reporting on FISA memo.” Chaitin reports on Rep. Devin Nunes’s interview with Larry O’Connor:
Radio host Larry O’Connor read a passage from the [Times’s] report [on the Horowitz memo] to Nunes during the Examining Politics podcast on Tuesday. It said DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report “helps the FBI politically because it undercuts the narrative among President Trump and his supporters that the bureau cut corners to surveil the adviser, Carter Page, as part of a politically motivated conspiracy.” “So, the good news for the FBI is that they trampled on people’s rights all over the place, not just people who worked with Donald Trump’s campaign,” O’Connor said. “Is that the takeaway we should have here congressman?”
You can hear Rep. Nunes’s response in the podcast of the interview segment below, preceded by Larry’s interview with Mark Cuban.
Quotable quote (Chaitin quoting the Times): “The finding of systemic incompetence is devastating for the FBI. But, in the Trump era, the discovery is leavened by an unusual side benefit for the bureau: It undercuts the narrative fostered by President Trump and his supporters that the botching of applications to surveil his campaign adviser Carter Page is evidence that the FBI engaged in a politically biased conspiracy.”


I like Mike

Following up on “ Was it something he said ?
, ” I want to note that the FOX Business Channel invited Minnesota ’ s own Mike Lindell to respond to the media nutters whom he triggered with his remarks at the White House daily coronavirus task force briefing in the Rose Garden on Monday .
The Daily Caller ’ s Scott Morefield embeds Lindell ’ s appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight in “ ‘ This Is Evil ’ : MyPillow ’ s Mike Lindell Punches Back At Jim Acosta , Other Media Critics Of White House Appearance.
” Below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on FBN with Charles Payne .
This segment more or less encapsulates the whole saga .
The Star Tribune , by contrast , has nada , and they ’ re sticking with it .
David Harsanyi takes up the case of Lindell in the Rose Garden and the triggering of the media nutters in the NR column “ Mike Lindell , Not Yamiche Alcindor , Is the Hero.
” Please check it out .
The column is some kind of a classic .
Harsanyi administers justice in an eloquent and measured fashion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our media culture has spent so much time politicizing the world that they ’ ve confused patriotism with victimhood .
Or maybe they ’ re so obsessed with fighting the president that they can ’ t recognize that his fans might be capable of a good deed .
But if where you stand on Trump is your guiding definition of patriotism and heroism , your moral compass might be broken .
”

Following up on “Was it something he said?,” I want to note that the FOX Business Channel invited Minnesota’s own Mike Lindell to respond to the media nutters whom he triggered with his remarks at the White House daily coronavirus task force briefing in the Rose Garden on Monday. The Daily Caller’s Scott Morefield embeds Lindell’s appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight in “‘This Is Evil’: MyPillow’s Mike Lindell Punches Back At Jim Acosta, Other Media Critics Of White House Appearance.” Below I have embedded Lindell’s appearance on FBN with Charles Payne. This segment more or less encapsulates the whole saga. The Star Tribune, by contrast, has nada, and they’re sticking with it.
David Harsanyi takes up the case of Lindell in the Rose Garden and the triggering of the media nutters in the NR column “Mike Lindell, Not Yamiche Alcindor, Is the Hero.” Please check it out. The column is some kind of a classic. Harsanyi administers justice in an eloquent and measured fashion, concluding: “[P]erhaps our media culture has spent so much time politicizing the world that they’ve confused patriotism with victimhood. Or maybe they’re so obsessed with fighting the president that they can’t recognize that his fans might be capable of a good deed. But if where you stand on Trump is your guiding definition of patriotism and heroism, your moral compass might be broken.”


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Midweek in Pictures: April Fool’s Day Edition

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-04-02--Coronavirus Brings Out the Worst In France

The London Times reports from France .
Even if we discount a bit for the fact that the British have often taken a jaundiced view of the French , the report is troubling : The wartime appetite for la délation — reporting wrongdoers to the authorities — has reappeared .
In country towns , people are denouncing neighbours to the gendarmerie for breaching le confinement and leaving their homes too often .
… Tempers are fraying in supermarkets , with unsmiling shoppers in the Paris suburbs treating others with suspicion .
Angry locals in coastal areas are seething over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fled the capital to spend the lockdown in their holiday homes .
Some have been refused service and Parisian cars have been vandalised in Brittany and the southwest .
That ’ s bad , and I don ’ t think we have seen anything like it in the U.S .
This is worse : Lots of old prejudices are bubbling to the surface : Conspiracy theories , long popular in France and a fixture of the yellow vest movement , blame the capitalist elite and also Jewish people for starting the epidemic or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shared millions of times on social media , talk of a “ military virus ” deliberately spread with the aim , variously , of boosting drug company profits , killing the elderly or delivering the country into the hands of multi-nationals or the secret “ illuminati ” .
One popular belief is that the virus was invented by the Paris Institut Pasteur .
We have our nutters too , of course , but I am not aware of such theories gaining credence here .
The Times says that both left-wing and right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while centrists are more or less paralyzed .
President Macron is trying to catch up : Attempting to reassure the country , Mr Macron no longer disguises his anger over the populists and the “ self-proclaimed experts ” who are attacking his handling of the crisis and undermining the unity that he is preaching .
Unpopular before the crisis began , he enjoyed a surge of public support at the outset but only 44 per cent now say he has responded well ; an 11-point drop over a month .
The virus ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been , from my perspective , mostly appalling : A big majority of the country wants a more powerful protective state to emerge from the crisis .
More than 70 per cent want the state to curb capitalism and nationalise key sectors , according to a Viavoice poll for today ’ s Libération newspaper .
A similar reflex led Charles de Gaulle to nationalise big industries after the German occupation .
Over half the country wants to impose tight curbs on foreign goods , whether from Europe or beyond , the poll found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ curbing capitalism ” has to do with the COVID-19 virus .
The predominant French reaction seems to be , “ The government is corrupt , it lies about everything and betrays its citizens , let ’ s give it more power !
” In tune with the public , Mr Macron proclaimed this week that the pandemic has “ changed the world ” and signalled the return of the protective state in the face of globalisation .
“ We must produce more in France and reduce our dependence ” on imported goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of war against the virus on March 12 , he promised a break with the past .
“ There are goods and services that must be placed beyond the laws of the market place.
” Notice he is talking about producing in France , not the EU .
The coronavirus might bring about the demise of the European Union , or at least its diminution–if so , one of its few happy effects .
Freedom is fragile .
When people are frightened , it tends to be the first casualty .

The London Times reports from France. Even if we discount a bit for the fact that the British have often taken a jaundiced view of the French, the report is troubling:
The wartime appetite for la délation — reporting wrongdoers to the authorities — has reappeared. In country towns, people are denouncing neighbours to the gendarmerie for breaching le confinement and leaving their homes too often. … Tempers are fraying in supermarkets, with unsmiling shoppers in the Paris suburbs treating others with suspicion. Angry locals in coastal areas are seething over the 400,000 Parisians who are estimated to have fled the capital to spend the lockdown in their holiday homes. Some have been refused service and Parisian cars have been vandalised in Brittany and the southwest.
That’s bad, and I don’t think we have seen anything like it in the U.S. This is worse:
Nurses are being threatened by people who see them as carriers of infection.
Lots of old prejudices are bubbling to the surface:
Conspiracy theories, long popular in France and a fixture of the yellow vest movement, blame the capitalist elite and also Jewish people for starting the epidemic or encouraging it. Many of the claims, shared millions of times on social media, talk of a “military virus” deliberately spread with the aim, variously, of boosting drug company profits, killing the elderly or delivering the country into the hands of multi-nationals or the secret “illuminati”. One popular belief is that the virus was invented by the Paris Institut Pasteur.
We have our nutters too, of course, but I am not aware of such theories gaining credence here.
The Times says that both left-wing and right-wing politicians are demagoguing the COVID-19 epidemic, while centrists are more or less paralyzed. President Macron is trying to catch up:
Attempting to reassure the country, Mr Macron no longer disguises his anger over the populists and the “self-proclaimed experts” who are attacking his handling of the crisis and undermining the unity that he is preaching. Unpopular before the crisis began, he enjoyed a surge of public support at the outset but only 44 per cent now say he has responded well; an 11-point drop over a month.
The virus’s impact on French political attitudes has been, from my perspective, mostly appalling:
A big majority of the country wants a more powerful protective state to emerge from the crisis. More than 70 per cent want the state to curb capitalism and nationalise key sectors, according to a Viavoice poll for today’s Libération newspaper. A similar reflex led Charles de Gaulle to nationalise big industries after the German occupation. Over half the country wants to impose tight curbs on foreign goods, whether from Europe or beyond, the poll found.
I can’t explain what “curbing capitalism” has to do with the COVID-19 virus. The predominant French reaction seems to be, “The government is corrupt, it lies about everything and betrays its citizens, let’s give it more power!”
In tune with the public, Mr Macron proclaimed this week that the pandemic has “changed the world” and signalled the return of the protective state in the face of globalisation. “We must produce more in France and reduce our dependence” on imported goods, he said. In his declaration of war against the virus on March 12, he promised a break with the past. “There are goods and services that must be placed beyond the laws of the market place.”
Notice he is talking about producing in France, not the EU. The coronavirus might bring about the demise of the European Union, or at least its diminution–if so, one of its few happy effects.
Mr Macron’s new gospel marks a U-turn from the liberal pro-market doctrines that won him the election: his aides are already signalling that reconstruction after this war effort means the end of the programme of pro-market reforms that he waged against public resistance since 2017.
Freedom is fragile. When people are frightened, it tends to be the first casualty.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--Are People Catching On?

Are People Catching On?

The poll data I have seen indicate that Americans are very much behind their governments ’ efforts to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 virus .
But today ’ s Rasmussen Reports also finds widespread concern that the cure–massive shutdown of our economy–could turn out to be worse than the disease : Regular readers will not be surprised to know that I am one of the 32 % who are Very Concerned .
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 36 % of Likely U.S .
Voters think the United States can afford to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to limit the spread of the coronavirus .
A plurality ( 46 % ) believes America can ’ t afford an indefinite shutdown , while 18 % are not sure .
“ [ L ] argely shut down for an indefinite period ” was the language used in the survey .
I am unsure how anyone could think that we can afford a shutdown for an indefinite period , but maybe a lot of respondents construed “ indefinite ” to mean a matter of weeks .
I hope that is the case @ @ @

The poll data I have seen indicate that Americans are very much behind their governments’ efforts to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 virus. But today’s Rasmussen Reports also finds widespread concern that the cure–massive shutdown of our economy–could turn out to be worse than the disease:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters are concerned that the government’s #cure for the #coronavirus threat may be worse than the problem, with 32% who are Very Concerned… https://t.co/1f6edFkvqk pic.twitter.com/LgSDaoc4if — Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) April 1, 2020
Regular readers will not be surprised to know that I am one of the 32% who are Very Concerned.
Rasmussen also finds this:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 36% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States can afford to remain largely shutdown for an indefinite period of time to limit the spread of the coronavirus. A plurality (46%) believes America can’t afford an indefinite shutdown, while 18% are not sure.
“[L]argely shut down for an indefinite period” was the language used in the survey. I am unsure how anyone could think that we can afford a shutdown for an indefinite period, but maybe a lot of respondents construed “indefinite” to mean a matter of weeks. I hope that is the case, anyway.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--What stay-at-home orders can and can’t accomplish

Florida governor Ron DeSantis today issued a 30-day stay-at-home order for the state .
Florida ’ s approximately 21 million residents are instructed to remain at home unless they are pursuing “ essential services or activities.
” It ’ s not clear what DeSantis accomplished by delaying this effort to mitigate the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic .
Florida ’ s economy will now be hammered .
The state might experience the worst of all worlds .
The bigger question , which John raised last night in a thoughtful and informative post , is the degree to which stay-at-home orders will save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place won ’ t prevent the COVID-19 virus from working its way through the population , it will just do so more slowly.
” That view is widely shared by epidemiologists .
This doesn ’ t mean that sheltering in place won ’ t save lives .
It will .
For one thing , as John noted , lives will be saved by “ flattening ” the infection curve because if the same number of infections is spread out over time , hospitals will be better able to prevent the infected from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be the kinds of acute shortages of equipment , such as ventilators , that we experience during extreme peaks of infection .
That ’ s not necessarily all .
While the spread is delayed , we may find medicines that treat the infection effectively .
Delaying the spread might also mean reducing the spread if it turns out that the virus doesn ’ t do well in warm weather .
It ’ s even possible that , over time , the virus mutates or simply goes away .
So sheltering in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many ?
We don ’ t know .
But I think it was reasonable for John to conclude that it won ’ t save nearly as many lives as some modelers and politicians would have us believe .
It seems implausible that in Britain , the ways in which staying at home reduces fatalities ( as described above ) can swing the number of deaths from around 500,000 to fewer than 20,000 , as Dr. Neil Ferguson ’ s models indicate .
And it seems absurd to suppose that staying at home in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from more than 70,000 ( as the governor ’ s model apparently forecasts ) to a little more than 1,000 ( as a University of Washington model , IHME ) predicts .
In absolute numbers , staying at home might well produce a substantial reduction in deaths without decreasing the total number of infections .
But I doubt it will produce such a reduction in large multiples .
This raises the question of whether such orders are desirable , given their economic impact .
More acutely , it raises the question of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yesterday , I learned from one of my daughters that Ralph Northam , the governor of Virginia ( Mr. Black Face himself ) , has directed that citizens of the Commonwealth stay at home until June 10 .
Virginians would surely balk at an order of this duration if informed that complying won ’ t reduce the odds of them becoming infected , but will only delay the date of infection .
This is particularly true given that a very high percentage of those infected won ’ t die from the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it really the case that staying at home has no effect on the number of infections ( absent a “ hot weather ” effect of which we are unsure ) ?
Would all of the 77 people said to have become infected at a Biotech conference in Boston have been infected eventually , even absent the conference and even if they stayed at home for two and a half months ?
Would all of the hundreds of people in South Korea said to have been infected by “ Patient 31 ” after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected eventually anyway ?
I ’ m not sure about Boston , but I believe most of the people in South Korea who were infected thanks to Patient 31 would have avoided infection had she stayed at home .
Why ?
Because South Korea was still in containment mode .
In other words , it was ( or is said to have been ) effectively testing , tracking , and isolating .
As I understand it , when a country or area is in that mode , infections on a large scale can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Korea .
The infected are identified through tracking and testing .
Isolated , they either die or get better and ( we think ) are no longer capable of transmitting the virus .
The rest of the population mostly avoids infection ( though the tracking/testing/isolation cycle must be continued ) .
The problem in the U.S. is that , at least until recently , we didn ’ t have nearly enough tests to do tracking/testing/isolation .
( For a good explanation of why that was , go here . )
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least in much of the country .
Thus , we ’ re in “ mitigation ” mode , which means flattening the infection curve but not reducing total infections .
However , it may be possible that , by staying at home , we can get back to containment mode .
While we self isolate , the infected die or get better and can ( we think ) no longer transmit the virus .
Thus , the infection rate is sharply reduced , as is the number of now-current infections .
To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extinguished even after months of sheltering in place , and once the stay-at-home order is lifted , the infected will be able to start spreading the virus rapidly .
However , the number of now-current infections might be low enough that we can restore our missed opportunity to contain the virus through testing , tracking , and isolating the reduced number of carriers .
( This assumes , of course , that we have enough tests .
We should , by then . )
In this way , the sheltering in place will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection curve , but also to reduce the number of infections .
The purpose of this post is not to defend or attack stay-at-home orders in general or any such order in particular ( okay , I am attacking the Virginia governor ’ s order ) .
The purpose is to try to advance my understanding , and perhaps that of others , of the virtues and limits of such orders from a public health perspective .
As always , the economic effects of such orders must also be considered .

Florida governor Ron DeSantis today issued a 30-day stay-at-home order for the state. Florida’s approximately 21 million residents are instructed to remain at home unless they are pursuing “essential services or activities.”
It’s not clear what DeSantis accomplished by delaying this effort to mitigate the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Florida’s economy will now be hammered. The state might experience the worst of all worlds.
The bigger question, which John raised last night in a thoughtful and informative post, is the degree to which stay-at-home orders will save lives. John wrote: “Sheltering in place won’t prevent the COVID-19 virus from working its way through the population, it will just do so more slowly.” That view seems to be widely shared by epidemiologists.
This doesn’t mean that sheltering in place won’t save lives. It will. For one thing, as John noted, lives will be saved by “flattening” the infection curve because if the same number of infections is spread out over time, hospitals will be better able to prevent the infected from dying. Why? Because there won’t be the kinds of acute shortages of equipment, such as ventilators, and staff that we experience during extreme peaks of infection.
That’s not necessarily all. While the spread is delayed, we may find medicines that treat the infection effectively. Delaying the spread might also mean reducing the spread if it turns out that the virus doesn’t do well in warm weather. It’s even possible that, over time, the virus mutates or simply goes away.
So sheltering in place will save lives. But how many?
We don’t know. But I think it was reasonable for John to conclude that it won’t save nearly as many lives as some modelers and politicians would have us believe.
It seems implausible that in Britain, the ways in which staying at home reduces fatalities (as described above) can swing the number of deaths from around 500,000 to fewer than 20,000, as Dr. Neil Ferguson’s models indicate. And it seems absurd to suppose that staying at home in Minnesota will reduce the death total there from more than 70,000 (as the governor’s model apparently forecasts) to a little more than 1,000 (as a University of Washington model, IHME) predicts.
In absolute numbers, staying at home might well produce a substantial reduction in deaths without decreasing the total number of infections. But I doubt it will produce such a reduction in large multiples.
This raises the question of whether such orders are desirable, given their economic impact. More acutely, it raises the question of how long such orders should remain in place.
Yesterday, I learned from one of my daughters that Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia (Mr. Black Face himself), has directed that citizens of the Commonwealth stay at home until June 10. Virginians would surely balk at an order of this duration if informed that complying won’t reduce the odds of them becoming infected, but will only delay the date of infection. This is particularly true given that a very high percentage of those infected won’t die from the virus even if hospitals are flooded.
But is it really the case that staying at home has no effect on the number of infections (absent a “hot weather” effect of which we are unsure)? Would all of the 77 people said to have become infected at a Biotech conference in Boston have been infected eventually, even absent the conference and even if they stayed at home for two and a half months? Would all of the hundreds of people in South Korea said to have been infected by “Patient 31” after she attended two church services have been infected eventually anyway?
I’m not sure about Boston, but I believe most of the people in South Korea who were infected thanks to Patient 31 would have avoided infection had she stayed at home.
Why? Because South Korea was still in containment mode. In other words, it was (or is said to have been) effectively testing, tracking, and isolating. As I understand it, when a country or area is in that mode, infections on a large scale can be avoided, as apparently happened in South Korea.
The infected are identified through tracking and testing. Isolated, they either die or get better and (we think) are no longer capable of transmitting the virus. The rest of the population mostly avoids infection (though the tracking/testing/isolation cycle must be continued).
The problem in the U.S. is that, at least until recently, we didn’t have nearly enough tests to do tracking/testing/isolation. (For a good explanation of why that was, go here.) Now, it’s too late, at least in much of the country. Thus, we’re in “mitigation” mode, which means flattening the infection curve but not reducing total infections.
However, it may be possible that, by staying at home, we can get back to containment mode. While we self isolate, the infected die or get better and can (we think) no longer transmit the virus. Thus, the infection rate is sharply reduced, as is the number of now-current infections.
To be sure, not all infections will be extinguished even after months of sheltering in place, and once the stay-at-home order is lifted, the infected will be able to start spreading the virus rapidly. However, the number of now-current infections might be low enough that we can restore our missed opportunity to contain the virus through testing, tracking, and isolating the reduced number of carriers. (This assumes, of course, that we have enough tests. We should, by then.)
In this way, the sheltering in place will enable us not just to flatten the infection curve, but also to reduce the number of infections.
The purpose of this post is not to defend or attack stay-at-home orders in general or any such order in particular (okay, I am attacking the Virginia governor’s order). The purpose is to try to advance my understanding, and perhaps that of others, of the virtues and limits of such orders from a public health perspective. As always, the economic effects of such orders must also be considered.


powerlineblog--2020-04-01--The Power Line Show, Ep 177: FDR—Conservative Hero?, and Other Reader Questions

As promised ( or threatened , depending in your point of view ) , another bonus episode of our podcast .
Conrad Black argued this week that Franklin Roosevelt deserves to be regarded as a conservative champion , or at least that conservatives should steal him away from Democrats .
FDR himself argued that Democrats should steal Lincoln from Republicans , so why not return the favor ?
I take up this exotic perspective with Power Line ’ s International Woman of Mystery , “ Lucretia , ” along with reader questions in this largely corornavirus-free episode , because aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24/7 ?
We also take a stab at answering several reader questions about presidential power , the virtues and virtues of Trump , Joe Biden ’ s odds of making it to election day in November ( in two words—not good ) , how the “ right to privacy ” should be understood constitutionally , why I took up my peculiar new hobby of trainspotting , and what are some of our favorite things to cook on the grill .
All in all , a nice respite from martial law .
We did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most and least favorite Supreme Court justices , or the ones with the most rad beards in the 19th century .
( My favorite name for a Supreme Court justice , for the record , is Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar , who served on the Court from 1888-1893 . )
You know what to do now : listen here , download from our hosts at Ricochet , or from your favorite podcast platform .

As promised (or threatened, depending in your point of view), another bonus episode of our podcast.
Conrad Black argued this week that Franklin Roosevelt deserves to be regarded as a conservative champion, or at least that conservatives should steal him away from Democrats. FDR himself argued that Democrats should steal Lincoln from Republicans, so why not return the favor? I take up this exotic perspective with Power Line’s International Woman of Mystery, “Lucretia,” along with reader questions in this largely corornavirus-free episode, because aren’t we getting tired of COVID-19 24/7?
We also take a stab at answering several reader questions about presidential power, the virtues and virtues of Trump, Joe Biden’s odds of making it to election day in November (in two words—not good), how the “right to privacy” should be understood constitutionally, why I took up my peculiar new hobby of trainspotting, and what are some of our favorite things to cook on the grill. All in all, a nice respite from martial law.
We did, unfortunately, forget to name our most and least favorite Supreme Court justices, or the ones with the most rad beards in the 19th century. (My favorite name for a Supreme Court justice, for the record, is Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, who served on the Court from 1888-1893.)
You know what to do now: listen here, download from our hosts at Ricochet, or from your favorite podcast platform.


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--2020-04-02--More bad Wuhan coronavirus numbers

More bad Wuhan coronavirus numbers

According to this report , Vice President Pence said yesterday that the U.S. trajectory for the Wuhan coronavirus most closely resembles that of Italy .
I hope Pence was talking about the trajectory of infections , rather than deaths .
Italy ’ s population is thought by some to be more susceptible to dying from the virus than ours because of its age and propensity to smoke .
In addition , Italy ’ s hospitals are said by some to be less able to handle a pandemic than ours .
But even if all of this is so , word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s trajectory for infections strikes an extremely discouraging , if not altogether surprising , note .
The latest numbers from Italy continue to suggest that new infections are down from their peak .
They are holding steady in the 4,000s per day , down somewhat from the 6,000s a few days ago .
Deaths remain in the 700 to 900 per day range , with yesterday ’ s total in the low end at 727 .
Spain , with a smaller population than Italy , seems likely to pass Italy ’ s total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s death count remains well below Italy ’ s , but it reported 923 deaths from the virus yesterday .
With more than 8,000 reported new cases per day , Spain ’ s death total might well surpass Italy ’ s eventually .
The U.S. numbers are discouraging even without being compared to Italy .
With more than 26,000 new reported cases yesterday ( April 1 ) , we surpassed 200,000 .
And for the first day , our daily death total surpassed 1,000 .
Total reported deaths reached 5,102 .
The University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now forecasting that the total U.S. death count from the virus will slightly exceed 90,000 .
A few days ago , it was saying slightly more than 80,000 .
And the IHME model seems to be one of the more optimistic ones .
I can ’ t find good news in the numbers from any of the countries I ’ m following — Italy , Spain , the U.S , Germany , France , and the UK — except , perhaps , the fact that new infections in Italy seem to have leveled @ @ @ @ @ @

According to this report, Vice President Pence said yesterday that the U.S. trajectory for the Wuhan coronavirus most closely resembles that of Italy. I hope Pence was talking about the trajectory of infections, rather than deaths.
Italy’s population is thought by some to be more susceptible to dying from the virus than ours because of its age and propensity to smoke. In addition, Italy’s hospitals are said by some to be less able to handle a pandemic than ours.
But even if all of this is so, word that we’re on Italy’s trajectory for infections strikes an extremely discouraging, if not altogether surprising, note.
The latest numbers from Italy continue to suggest that new infections are down from their peak. They are holding steady in the 4,000s per day, down somewhat from the 6,000s a few days ago. Deaths remain in the 700 to 900 per day range, with yesterday’s total in the low end at 727.
Spain, with a smaller population than Italy, seems likely to pass Italy’s total infection number pretty soon. Spain’s death count remains well below Italy’s, but it reported 923 deaths from the virus yesterday. With more than 8,000 reported new cases per day, Spain’s death total might well surpass Italy’s eventually.
The U.S. numbers are discouraging even without being compared to Italy. With more than 26,000 new reported cases yesterday (April 1), we surpassed 200,000. And for the first day, our daily death total surpassed 1,000. Total reported deaths reached 5,102.
The University of Washington’s IHME model is now forecasting that the total U.S. death count from the virus will slightly exceed 90,000. A few days ago, it was saying slightly more than 80,000. And the IHME model seems to be one of the more optimistic ones.
I can’t find good news in the numbers from any of the countries I’m following — Italy, Spain, the U.S, Germany, France, and the UK — except, perhaps, the fact that new infections in Italy seem to have leveled off and probably ticked down.


powerlineblog--2020-04-02--Japanese movies, the essentials

Japanese movies, the essentials

I hope some of our readers followed Scott ’ s recommendation and watched or taped a few of the Akira Kurosawa films that TCM showed yesterday .
I watched High and Low for the first time and loved it .
Here are a few more recommendations for those interested in Japanese films from the Kurosawa era : Ikiru : TCM didn ’ t show this movie , but it ’ s one of my favorite Kurosawa films .
Ikiru is a scathing attack on the Japanese bureaucracy .
An aging bureaucrat who has made an art form of blocking worthwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He becomes desperate to give meaning to his life by completing a project he has blocked — the conversion of a cesspool to a playground .
To do this , he must overcome obstacle after obstacle .
Tokyo Story : Kurosawa wasn ’ t the only great Japanese director of his era .
Yasujirō Ozu rates alongside him in the estimation of many critics .
Tokyo Story is among his masterpieces which also include Late Spring and Floating Weeds .
Ozu ’ s post World War II films are understated and austere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ugetsu : Directed by Kenji Mizoguchi , Ugetsu is one of the strangest movies I ’ ve ever seen , and one of the best .
It ’ s a ghost story , a war story , and a family drama rolled into one .
The cinematography is unparalleled .
As a critique of feudal Japan and Japanese militarism , which Mizoguchi had championed before the war , Ugetsu apparently received a lukewarm reception when released in 1953 .
However , it won acclaim abroad .
It regularly appears well up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know to what extent these films are available to American audiences through various media , but for film buffs , especially lovers of Japanese movies , they should be considered among the essentials .

I hope some of our readers followed Scott’s recommendation and watched or taped a few of the Akira Kurosawa films that TCM showed yesterday. I watched High and Low for the first time and loved it.
Here are a few more recommendations for those interested in Japanese films from the Kurosawa era:
Ikiru: TCM didn’t show this movie, but it’s one of my favorite Kurosawa films. Ikiru is a scathing attack on the Japanese bureaucracy. An aging bureaucrat who has made an art form of blocking worthwhile projects learns he’s terminally ill. He becomes desperate to give meaning to his life by completing a project he has blocked — the conversion of a cesspool to a playground. To do this, he must overcome obstacle after obstacle.
Tokyo Story: Kurosawa wasn’t the only great Japanese director of his era. Yasujirō Ozu rates alongside him in the estimation of many critics. Tokyo Story is among his masterpieces which also include Late Spring and Floating Weeds. Ozu’s post World War II films are understated and austere, and full of nuance and humanity.
Ugetsu: Directed by Kenji Mizoguchi, Ugetsu is one of the strangest movies I’ve ever seen, and one of the best. It’s a ghost story, a war story, and a family drama rolled into one. The cinematography is unparalleled.
As a critique of feudal Japan and Japanese militarism, which Mizoguchi had championed before the war, Ugetsu apparently received a lukewarm reception when released in 1953. However, it won acclaim abroad. It regularly appears well up the list of all-time top-100 films.
I don’t know to what extent these films are available to American audiences through various media, but for film buffs, especially lovers of Japanese movies, they should be considered among the essentials.
.


The China syndrome

Further to Paul Mirengoff ’ s “ Don ’ t let China off the hook , ” I want to offer a few resources that I have found to be helpful so far : • First and foremost among those I have saved is Jim Geraghty ’ s NR Morning Jolt The Comprehensive Timeline of China ’ s COVID-19 Lies.
” Subhead : “ A day-by-day , month-by-month breakdown of China ’ s coronavirus coverup and the irreparable damage it has caused around the globe.
” The whole thing is full of links that document Geraghty ’ s timeline .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic is still being written .
But at this early date , we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring .
You have probably heard variations of , “ Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.
” What you have probably not heard is how emphatically , loudly , and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible , long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion , despite the suspicions of other outside health experts .
• Kapil Komireddi adds this narrative exposition in The Critic ( UK ) : “ The Coronavirus Cover-Up.
” Subhead : “ How the West ’ s fear of appearing racist obscures the blunders at the beginning of this outbreak.
” • Nick Wadhams and Jennifer Jacobs report today for Bloomberg News : “ China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak , U.S. Intelligence Says.
” No subhead !
• Rebecca Heinrichs writes for Hudson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on China : “ What Americans Can Learn From Taiwan , Hong Kong , and Macau About Limiting Coronavirus.
” Subhead : “ We treasure our civil liberties and aren ’ t going to sign up to permit the government to track our movements , but we can learn from the principles applied by Taiwan , Hong Kong , and Macau.
” • Paul and I have drawn on the works of the Hoover Institution ’ s Michael Auslin .
Hoover has compiled his articles and interviews here .
• And the China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization .
Ben Weingarten writes at the Federalist : “ As Long As Communist China Controls The World Health Organization , It ’ s Completely Unreliable.
” Subhead : “ While the WHO gives China its imprimatur , evidence continues to mount of China ’ s malign role in every aspect of this pandemic .
”

Further to Paul Mirengoff’s “Don’t let China off the hook,” I want to offer a few resources that I have found to be helpful so far:
• First and foremost among those I have saved is Jim Geraghty’s NR Morning Jolt The Comprehensive Timeline of China’s COVID-19 Lies.” Subhead: “A day-by-day, month-by-month breakdown of China’s coronavirus coverup and the irreparable damage it has caused around the globe.” The whole thing is full of links that document Geraghty’s timeline. It opens:
The story of the coronavirus pandemic is still being written. But at this early date, we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring. You have probably heard variations of, “Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.” What you have probably not heard is how emphatically, loudly, and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible, long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded human transmission was ongoing — and how the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion, despite the suspicions of other outside health experts.
Whole thing here.
• Kapil Komireddi adds this narrative exposition in The Critic (UK): “The Coronavirus Cover-Up.” Subhead: “How the West’s fear of appearing racist obscures the blunders at the beginning of this outbreak.”
• Nick Wadhams and Jennifer Jacobs report today for Bloomberg News: “China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak, U.S. Intelligence Says.” No subhead!
• Rebecca Heinrichs writes for Hudson and the Federalist with a few more notes on China: “What Americans Can Learn From Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau About Limiting Coronavirus.” Subhead: “We treasure our civil liberties and aren’t going to sign up to permit the government to track our movements, but we can learn from the principles applied by Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau.”
• Paul and I have drawn on the works of the Hoover Institution’s Michael Auslin. Hoover has compiled his articles and interviews here.
• And the China syndrome extends to the so-called World Health Organization. Ben Weingarten writes at the Federalist: “As Long As Communist China Controls The World Health Organization, It’s Completely Unreliable.” Subhead: “While the WHO gives China its imprimatur, evidence continues to mount of China’s malign role in every aspect of this pandemic.”


powerlineblog--2020-04-02--The Wuhan Virus: Where We Are Now [Updated]

When the news consists just about entirely of the Wuhan virus , and seemingly every death merits a headline , it is easy to lose perspective .
So it is time to update this chart , which I have posted a couple of times before .
It is very simple : it shows 1 ) the average number of deaths per year , worldwide , due to the seasonal flu virus , which is around 470,000 ; 2 ) the total number of Wuhan virus deaths as of yesterday , as reported by the World Health Organization , 40,598 ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. in the 2017-18 flu season , 61,000 ; and the number of Wuhan deaths so far in the U.S. , as reported yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control , 3,603 .
Click to enlarge : The global number is undoubtedly low due to false reporting from China and ( I assume ) Iran , but even if you multiply the Chinese figure by 10 and the Iranian by 3 , we are still only one-sixth of the way to a normal flu season , in terms of fatalities .
Given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I assume the Wuhan virus will , in the end , at least be equal to an average flu season , both globally and in the U.S .
But at the moment , it is hard to see how we are going to get there .
UPDATE : Yesterday was a bad day for deaths in the U.S. , so I have updated the chart to reflect the most recent numbers .

When the news consists just about entirely of the Wuhan virus, and seemingly every death merits a headline, it is easy to lose perspective. So it is time to update this chart, which I have posted a couple of times before. It is very simple: it shows 1) the average number of deaths per year, worldwide, due to the seasonal flu virus, which is around 470,000; 2) the total number of Wuhan virus deaths as of yesterday, as reported by the World Health Organization, 40,598; the number of flu deaths in the U.S. in the 2017-18 flu season, 61,000; and the number of Wuhan deaths so far in the U.S., as reported yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control, 3,603. Click to enlarge:
The global number is undoubtedly low due to false reporting from China and (I assume) Iran, but even if you multiply the Chinese figure by 10 and the Iranian by 3, we are still only one-sixth of the way to a normal flu season, in terms of fatalities. Given the hysteria with which we are inundated, I assume the Wuhan virus will, in the end, at least be equal to an average flu season, both globally and in the U.S. But at the moment, it is hard to see how we are going to get there.
UPDATE: Yesterday was a bad day for deaths in the U.S., so I have updated the chart to reflect the most recent numbers.


powerlineblog--2020-04-02--The Wuhan virus: Six notes & queries

The Wuhan virus: Six notes & queries

The economic devastation wrought by the pandemic continues as we see from the news this morning that another 6.6 million Americans filed unemployment compensation claims last week .
For those keeping score at home , that brings the two-week total to about 10 million due to the self-imposed economic shutdown .
In the spirit of inquiry and concern , and subject to correction , I have put my head together with that of our friend Brian Sullivan to compile the following notes and queries in the form of bullet points .
I trust there is no harm in asking : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan virus cases per capita than the rest of the country .
If banning travel from China made sense , why doesn ’ t it make sense to restrict the interstate travel of New Yorkers in some fashion ?
• The elderly and those with underlying health issues are most at risk of dying from Wuhan virus .
Why don ’ t we find ways to isolate and protect them without shutting the entire country down ?
• The United States has reported 14 deaths per million of population .
Italy and Spain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
France , England , and Germany have reported an average of 35 deaths per million .
Critics claim Trump ’ s response is costing American lives .
If relatively fewer Americans have died than every other major European country , what is the basis for the critics ’ charge ?
• Governor Cuomo said New York would start enrolling patients in clinical trials to test hydroxychloroquine last week , but the trials are described as “ not yet recruiting ” on the ClinicalTrials.gov site ?
Why are these trials delayed ?
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is typically a long lag time from the time you post a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov to the time it is activated and ready to enroll patients…my concern is about whether NY and the feds can get out of the way so the regulatory and logistical burdens that hamper rapid activation and then enrollment are eliminated.
” ) • On January 21 the first case of Wuhan virus was confirmed .
Ten days later , after Trump promulgated his order limiting travel from China , critics condemned the step as unnecessary and xenophobic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion ?
( Note : Thank “ The Senator who saw the coronavirus coming.
” ) • The model Minnesota government officials used to justify our current shutdown policies projected that 1.5 percent , or 74,000 , of all Minnesotans could die from the Wuhan virus .
If these modelers used these same assumptions to estimate deaths in the United States , their model would project 5,000,000 Americans deaths .
This is roughly 3 times more deaths per capita than died from the Spanish flu in 1918-19 .
Do Minnesota government officials think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly than the Spanish flu ?
What model are they using ?
NOTE : I should have made Kevin Roche ’ s proviso explicit : “ Be careful with comparing per capita death rates now .
Time from onset of disease to death can average over three weeks , so if we are just on the front end of a surge in cases , and other countries are further along , it isn ’ t an apples to apples comparison….I would still think , however , that our per capita death rates may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other countries.
” I ’ m with Victor Davis Hanson : “ Humility , not certainty—much less accusation and panic—should be the order of the day .
”

The economic devastation wrought by the pandemic continues as we see from the news this morning that another 6.6 million Americans filed unemployment compensation claims last week. For those keeping score at home, that brings the two-week total to about 10 million due to the self-imposed economic shutdown. In the spirit of inquiry and concern, and subject to correction, I have put my head together with that of our friend Brian Sullivan to compile the following notes and queries in the form of bullet points. I trust there is no harm in asking:
• New York has 10 times more Wuhan virus cases per capita than the rest of the country. If banning travel from China made sense, why doesn’t it make sense to restrict the interstate travel of New Yorkers in some fashion?
• The elderly and those with underlying health issues are most at risk of dying from Wuhan virus. Why don’t we find ways to isolate and protect them without shutting the entire country down?
• The United States has reported 14 deaths per million of population. Italy and Spain have reported over 200 deaths per million. France, England, and Germany have reported an average of 35 deaths per million. Critics claim Trump’s response is costing American lives. If relatively fewer Americans have died than every other major European country, what is the basis for the critics’ charge?
• Governor Cuomo said New York would start enrolling patients in clinical trials to test hydroxychloroquine last week, but the trials are described as “not yet recruiting” on the ClinicalTrials.gov site? Why are these trials delayed? (Note: Brian adds: “There is typically a long lag time from the time you post a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov to the time it is activated and ready to enroll patients…my concern is about whether NY and the feds can get out of the way so the regulatory and logistical burdens that hamper rapid activation and then enrollment are eliminated.”)
• On January 21 the first case of Wuhan virus was confirmed. Ten days later, after Trump promulgated his order limiting travel from China, critics condemned the step as unnecessary and xenophobic. Are these critics still of the same opinion? (Note: Thank “The Senator who saw the coronavirus coming.”)
• The model Minnesota government officials used to justify our current shutdown policies projected that 1.5 percent, or 74,000, of all Minnesotans could die from the Wuhan virus. If these modelers used these same assumptions to estimate deaths in the United States, their model would project 5,000,000 Americans deaths. This is roughly 3 times more deaths per capita than died from the Spanish flu in 1918-19. Do Minnesota government officials think the Wuhan virus is possibly 3x more deadly than the Spanish flu? What model are they using?
NOTE: I should have made Kevin Roche’s proviso explicit: “Be careful with comparing per capita death rates now. Time from onset of disease to death can average over three weeks, so if we are just on the front end of a surge in cases, and other countries are further along, it isn’t an apples to apples comparison….I would still think, however, that our per capita death rates may end up being much lower than that of other countries.” I’m with Victor Davis Hanson: “Humility, not certainty—much less accusation and panic—should be the order of the day.”


powerlineblog--2020-04-03--A letter to Chuck Schumer

A letter to Chuck Schumer

President Trump has responded in a public letter to criticism from Sen. Chuck Schumer of his handling of the Wuhan coronavirus .
The text is here .
Trump begins by thanking Schumer for his “ Democrat public relations letter and incorrect soundbites which are wrong in every way.
” He then corrects Schumer ’ s claim that the president hasn ’ t adequately utilized the Defense Production Act .
The president reminds Schumer that the Act “ has been consistently used by my team and me for the purchase of billions of dollars ’ worth of equipment , medical supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He also explains the obvious — that the threat of invoking the Act spurs companies to produce needed items without being ordered to .
Next , Trump responds to Schumer ’ s call for the president to establish a “ czar ” with a military background to oversee the production of medical equipment .
He tells Schumer that he has a senior military officer , Rear Admiral Polowczyk , in charge of purchasing and distributing equipment and “ working 24 hours a day.
” Trump adds that the White House so informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposes , you chose to ignore it.
” Schumer “ should have had New York much better prepared than you did , ” Trump chides .
He adds that “ New York was very late in its fight against the virus.
” Trump is just getting started .
“ If you spent less time on your ridiculous impeachment hoax .
.
.and instead focused on helping the people of New York , then New York would not have been so completely unprepared for the ‘ invisible enemy . '
” There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had nothing to do with the New York ’ s level of preparedness for the Wuhan coronavirus .
Trump taunts Schumer , saying it ’ s “ no wonder AOC and others are thinking about running against you in the primary.
” Trump opines that “ if they did , they would probably win.
” Trump then contrasts Schumer to Gov .
Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio , with whom the president has been working .
Unlike these officials , Schumer has “ been missing in action , except when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t like Cuomo , Trump admonishes the Minority Leader nonetheless to “ start working alongside [ the governor ] for the good of all New Yorkers.
” I ’ ve known you for many years , but I never knew how bad a senator you are for the state of New York , until I became president .
If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call .
Or , in the alternative , call Rear Admiral Polowczyk .
Trump has Schumer ’ s number .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s barbs have a strong basis in reality .
Schumer is , first and foremost , a world class grandstander .
Even so , it would be nice if the president could refrain from this sort of childish letter , especially at a time like this .
But at a time like this , when the president and his team are working around the clock to cope with a crisis not of their making and especially to help New York , it must be difficult — and not just for Trump — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer .

President Trump has responded in a public letter to criticism from Sen. Chuck Schumer of his handling of the Wuhan coronavirus. The text is here.
Trump begins by thanking Schumer for his “Democrat public relations letter and incorrect soundbites which are wrong in every way.” He then corrects Schumer’s claim that the president hasn’t adequately utilized the Defense Production Act.
The president reminds Schumer that the Act “has been consistently used by my team and me for the purchase of billions of dollars’ worth of equipment, medical supplies, ventilators, and other related items.” He also explains the obvious — that the threat of invoking the Act spurs companies to produce needed items without being ordered to.
Next, Trump responds to Schumer’s call for the president to establish a “czar” with a military background to oversee the production of medical equipment. He tells Schumer that he has a senior military officer, Rear Admiral Polowczyk, in charge of purchasing and distributing equipment and “working 24 hours a day.” Trump adds that the White House so informed Schumer, but “for public relations purposes, you chose to ignore it.”
Schumer “should have had New York much better prepared than you did,” Trump chides. He adds that “New York was very late in its fight against the virus.”
Trump is just getting started. “If you spent less time on your ridiculous impeachment hoax. . .and instead focused on helping the people of New York, then New York would not have been so completely unprepared for the ‘invisible enemy.'”
There’s no merit in this claim. Impeachment had nothing to do with the New York’s level of preparedness for the Wuhan coronavirus.
Trump taunts Schumer, saying it’s “no wonder AOC and others are thinking about running against you in the primary.” Trump opines that “if they did, they would probably win.”
They probably wouldn’t.
Trump then contrasts Schumer to Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio, with whom the president has been working. Unlike these officials, Schumer has “been missing in action, except when it comes to the press.”
Noting that Schumer doesn’t like Cuomo, Trump admonishes the Minority Leader nonetheless to “start working alongside [the governor] for the good of all New Yorkers.”
Trump concludes the letter with a parting shot:
I’ve known you for many years, but I never knew how bad a senator you are for the state of New York, until I became president. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Or, in the alternative, call Rear Admiral Polowczyk.
Trump has Schumer’s number. I don’t doubt that most of Trump’s barbs have a strong basis in reality. Schumer is, first and foremost, a world class grandstander.
Even so, it would be nice if the president could refrain from this sort of childish letter, especially at a time like this. But at a time like this, when the president and his team are working around the clock to cope with a crisis not of their making and especially to help New York, it must be difficult — and not just for Trump — to refrain from lashing out against the odious Chuck Schumer.


powerlineblog--2020-04-03--The Mirror & The Light

The Mirror & The Light

One thing about self-isolating , you have plenty of time to read .
Yesterday I finished The Mirror & The Light , the concluding volume of Hilary Mantel ’ s trilogy starring Thomas Cromwell .
The first book , Wolf Hall , covered Cromwell ’ s rise to power , first as an aide to Cardinal Wolsey , then , surviving Wolsey ’ s fall , as a key adviser to Henry VIII .
Wolf Hall concludes with Cromwell ’ s victory over Thomas More .
Cromwell was a protestant ( although not , as he had to repeat often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry to extricate himself from his first marriage to the Catholic Katherine of Aragon and to satisfy his desire to marry the protestant ( and more nubile ) Anne Boleyn .
The politics of religion loomed large throughout the 16th Century .
Bring Up the Bodies , the second book , is dominated by Henry ’ s stormy relationship with Anne and ends with her beheading , which Cromwell was instrumental in arranging .
The Mirror & The Light covers the apex of Cromwell ’ s career as Henry ’ s right-hand man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the 16th Century , dynastic politics were mixed with Henry ’ s own proclivities , which were distorted , perhaps , by his declining powers .
Cromwell ’ s role in arranging the ill-fated and brief marriage between Henry and Anne of Cleves led , proximately , to his demise , although Mantel suggests that Cromwell ’ s successes , more than his failures , caused Henry to resent his growing power .
Mantel is , in my opinion , a brilliant novelist .
Her style is unique and takes a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen through Cromwell ’ s eyes .
“ He ” means Cromwell .
She renders dialogue beautifully , with Cromwell ’ s thoughts interspersed .
Cromwell was a nobody , in Mantel ’ s telling the son of a crude , violent blacksmith and brewer who left home as a boy , learned his various trades in Italy , and became the second most powerful man in England .
Cromwell was formidable in many ways ; as a lawyer , a politician , and if need be , a brawler .
Mantel ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely sympathetic .
Her depiction of Henry is mostly positive , too , at least until the end .
The burdens of kingship are clear : Cromwell says at one point that Anne Boleyn ’ s mistake was thinking that Henry was only a man .
A sovereign is not just a man .
England in the 16th Century was a fascinating and colorful place that lives on in the popular imagination .
Mantel ’ s books bring the era to life , to an extraordinary extent .
I found them hugely enjoyable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long , weighing in at just over 800 pages .
Some have criticized its length , but not me .
Sure , it may reflect Mantel ’ s reluctance to let go of her hero , whom she clearly admires .
But for me , anyway , the interest never flagged .
I like historical novels in general , and Mantel ’ s are among the very best–great works of fiction , in my opinion .
And if you are alert , you may spot sly references to persons as diverse as Stendahl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books have been much honored , and I think the honors are richly deserved .
A final note : I reviewed , if that is not too pretentious a term , Anthony Roberts ’ Napoleon : A Life here .
I was happy to see that Roberts took note of my post and tweeted a link to it : Like a lot of tweets , I think it was done rapidly and the second “ Napoleon ” was intended to be Churchill .
In any event , I don ’ t expect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she is on Twitter , and I am pretty sure she is not a Power Line reader .
Nevertheless , if you haven ’ t checked out Wolf Hall and its successors , I encourage you to do so .

One thing about self-isolating, you have plenty of time to read. Yesterday I finished The Mirror & The Light, the concluding volume of Hilary Mantel’s trilogy starring Thomas Cromwell. The first book, Wolf Hall, covered Cromwell’s rise to power, first as an aide to Cardinal Wolsey, then, surviving Wolsey’s fall, as a key adviser to Henry VIII. Wolf Hall concludes with Cromwell’s victory over Thomas More.
Cromwell was a protestant (although not, as he had to repeat often, a Lutheran) and he helped Henry to extricate himself from his first marriage to the Catholic Katherine of Aragon and to satisfy his desire to marry the protestant (and more nubile) Anne Boleyn. The politics of religion loomed large throughout the 16th Century. Bring Up the Bodies, the second book, is dominated by Henry’s stormy relationship with Anne and ends with her beheading, which Cromwell was instrumental in arranging.
The Mirror & The Light covers the apex of Cromwell’s career as Henry’s right-hand man and ends with his inevitable downfall. In the 16th Century, dynastic politics were mixed with Henry’s own proclivities, which were distorted, perhaps, by his declining powers. Cromwell’s role in arranging the ill-fated and brief marriage between Henry and Anne of Cleves led, proximately, to his demise, although Mantel suggests that Cromwell’s successes, more than his failures, caused Henry to resent his growing power.
Mantel is, in my opinion, a brilliant novelist. Her style is unique and takes a bit of getting used to. Everything is seen through Cromwell’s eyes. “He” means Cromwell. She renders dialogue beautifully, with Cromwell’s thoughts interspersed. Cromwell was a nobody, in Mantel’s telling the son of a crude, violent blacksmith and brewer who left home as a boy, learned his various trades in Italy, and became the second most powerful man in England. Cromwell was formidable in many ways; as a lawyer, a politician, and if need be, a brawler. Mantel’s portrait of him is compelling and entirely sympathetic. Her depiction of Henry is mostly positive, too, at least until the end. The burdens of kingship are clear: Cromwell says at one point that Anne Boleyn’s mistake was thinking that Henry was only a man. A sovereign is not just a man.
England in the 16th Century was a fascinating and colorful place that lives on in the popular imagination. Mantel’s books bring the era to life, to an extraordinary extent. I found them hugely enjoyable. The Mirror & The Light is long, weighing in at just over 800 pages. Some have criticized its length, but not me. Sure, it may reflect Mantel’s reluctance to let go of her hero, whom she clearly admires. But for me, anyway, the interest never flagged.
I like historical novels in general, and Mantel’s are among the very best–great works of fiction, in my opinion. And if you are alert, you may spot sly references to persons as diverse as Stendahl and Wittgenstein. Mantel’s Cromwell books have been much honored, and I think the honors are richly deserved.
A final note: I reviewed, if that is not too pretentious a term, Anthony Roberts’ Napoleon: A Life here. I was happy to see that Roberts took note of my post and tweeted a link to it:
Like a lot of tweets, I think it was done rapidly and the second “Napoleon” was intended to be Churchill.
In any event, I don’t expect to hear from Hilary Mantel. I doubt that she is on Twitter, and I am pretty sure she is not a Power Line reader. Nevertheless, if you haven’t checked out Wolf Hall and its successors, I encourage you to do so.


powerlineblog--2020-04-02--Hollywood Ignoramuses Strike Again

Hollywood Ignoramuses Strike Again

Save up for this !
The Hulu streaming channel is debuting a nine-part series called “ Mrs .
America ” on the 1970s-era clash between Gloria Steinem and Phyllis Schlafly chiefly over the Equal Rights Amendment , and given that it ’ s Hollywood ’ s take you can be sure it is fully “ nuanced.
” You know you are in trouble when the very first sentence of the review of the show in the Hollywood Reporter today runs as follows : So , I ’ m guessing the writer of this review has never heard of the Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kindof a big deal at the time ) , which includes : It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual , or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation , terms , conditions , or privileges of employment , because of such individual ’ s race , color , religion , sex , or national origin .
The rest of the article doesn ’ t get any better , but if you ’ re a glutton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above and be alternately amused and infuriated .
And I ’ ll predict that the number of Power Line readers who decide to stream this pathetic excuse for a dual biopic will asymptotically approach zero .

Save up for this! The Hulu streaming channel is debuting a nine-part series called “Mrs. America” on the 1970s-era clash between Gloria Steinem and Phyllis Schlafly chiefly over the Equal Rights Amendment, and given that it’s Hollywood’s take you can be sure it is fully “nuanced.”
You know you are in trouble when the very first sentence of the review of the show in the Hollywood Reporter today runs as follows:
A century after female suffrage became the law of the land, there is still no federal ban on legalized discrimination against women.
So, I’m guessing the writer of this review has never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (it was kindof a big deal at the time), which includes:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The rest of the article doesn’t get any better, but if you’re a glutton, you can click at the link above and be alternately amused and infuriated.
And I’ll predict that the number of Power Line readers who decide to stream this pathetic excuse for a dual biopic will asymptotically approach zero.


powerlineblog--2020-04-03--Matthew Meyerson: Five COVID-19 theses

Matthew Meyerson: Five COVID-19 theses

Dr. Matthew Meyerson wrote us yesterday to express his disagreement with the gist of a post or two on the site .
“ I think that you are underestimating the seriousness of this epidemic , ” he stated , “ and I would like to address this with you.
” I asked Dr. Meyerson for permission to post his comments and to identify him as a Power Line reader .
He has graciously granted his permission and authorized us to identify him as “ a Power Line fan !
” Holding both M.D .
and Ph.D. degrees , Dr. Meyerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard Medical School .
He is also Director of the Center for Cancer Genomics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute .
Although his research is focused on cancer genetics , he is pitching in to help out in the present emergency with COVID-19 research .
Dr. Meyerson writes : 1 .
COVID-19 is very highly transmissible .
There are numerous news stories of a single event where probably a single infected individual caused dozens or hundreds of infections and numerous deaths : a choir practice in Washington state , a funeral in Georgia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bridge tournament in El Paso county , Colorado .
These are often not high-touch environments but the transmissibility has been very high .
2 .
COVID-19 causes severe illness in medical professionals and otherwise healthy young people .
There are numerous examples of previously healthy young people , especially physicians , who are becoming severely ill or dying from COVID-19 infections .
This almost never happens in other diseases .
Now medical practice is dangerous , like serving as a soldier in a war .
And the physicians and nurses and other health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they spread the disease .
Both the risk of illness and death , and the risk of spreading disease , have caused sheer terror in the medical and other health professions .
3 .
It is hard to compare deaths from COVID-19 to deaths from influenza .
The data on influenza deaths are of limited value as we do not routinely test for influenza virus infection or other respiratory infections the way we do for COVID-19 .
We should , but we don ’ t .
So we truly have no idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respiratory viral infections or how many die from it .
The “ pneumonia and influenza ” heading in death records may represent a very broad mixture of diseases .
4 .
I do not believe that we are overreacting to COVID-19 .
We are seeing a highly transmissible disease ( as high as 100-fold transmission rate , averaging 4-fold in Chinese data with the best estimates , but almost certainly higher ) with a 1 percent to 2 percent mortality across large populations .
That would suggest the possibility of 3 million to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we got to 300 million infections , and we could .
We will likely have far fewer deaths than this , but a stronger , earlier response would have saved more .
And a stronger response today could still save far more people than a more mild response .
5 .
Until we have treatments and vaccines , preventing transmission is the only way to go .
Every blocked transmission could be a life saved—or many lives , given how transmissible the virus is .
And every person-to-person interaction that we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID19 prevented .

Dr. Matthew Meyerson wrote us yesterday to express his disagreement with the gist of a post or two on the site. “I think that you are underestimating the seriousness of this epidemic,” he stated, “and I would like to address this with you.” I asked Dr. Meyerson for permission to post his comments and to identify him as a Power Line reader. He has graciously granted his permission and authorized us to identify him as “a Power Line fan!” Holding both M.D. and Ph.D. degrees, Dr. Meyerson is professor of genetics and medicine at Harvard Medical School. He is also Director of the Center for Cancer Genomics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Although his research is focused on cancer genetics, he is pitching in to help out in the present emergency with COVID-19 research. Dr. Meyerson writes:
1. COVID-19 is very highly transmissible. There are numerous news stories of a single event where probably a single infected individual caused dozens or hundreds of infections and numerous deaths: a choir practice in Washington state, a funeral in Georgia, a medical conference in Boston, a bridge tournament in El Paso county, Colorado. These are often not high-touch environments but the transmissibility has been very high.
2. COVID-19 causes severe illness in medical professionals and otherwise healthy young people. There are numerous examples of previously healthy young people, especially physicians, who are becoming severely ill or dying from COVID-19 infections. This almost never happens in other diseases. Now medical practice is dangerous, like serving as a soldier in a war. And the physicians and nurses and other health professionals not only get the disease, they spread the disease. Both the risk of illness and death, and the risk of spreading disease, have caused sheer terror in the medical and other health professions.
3. It is hard to compare deaths from COVID-19 to deaths from influenza. The data on influenza deaths are of limited value as we do not routinely test for influenza virus infection or other respiratory infections the way we do for COVID-19. We should, but we don’t. So we truly have no idea of how many people get influenza or other respiratory viral infections or how many die from it. The “pneumonia and influenza” heading in death records may represent a very broad mixture of diseases.
4. I do not believe that we are overreacting to COVID-19. We are seeing a highly transmissible disease (as high as 100-fold transmission rate, averaging 4-fold in Chinese data with the best estimates, but almost certainly higher) with a 1 percent to 2 percent mortality across large populations. That would suggest the possibility of 3 million to 6 million deaths in the US if we got to 300 million infections, and we could. We will likely have far fewer deaths than this, but a stronger, earlier response would have saved more. And a stronger response today could still save far more people than a more mild response.
5. Until we have treatments and vaccines, preventing transmission is the only way to go. Every blocked transmission could be a life saved—or many lives, given how transmissible the virus is. And every person-to-person interaction that we don’t have could be a new case of COVID19 prevented.


powerlineblog--2020-04-03--Democrats move convention to mid-August

Democrats move convention to mid-August

The Democratic party has decided to push back the start of its national convention from July 13 to August 17 , a week before the Republican convention is set to begin .
The postponement is , of course , due to the Wuhan coronavirus .
July 13 was an unusually early date on which to hold a national convention .
The Democrats picked it to avoid a conflict with the Olympic games .
Those games will not take place this year .
I don ’ t care when the Dems hold their convention or whether they hold one at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by any indication that Americans might not be able to convene in large numbers in July .
I ’ m hoping that conditions will permit baseball to be played before live audiences by then .
Last week , Marquette University took a poll to find out how Wisconsin voters feel about the Democrats convening in Milwaukee , given the pandemic .
According to this report , 62 percent did not want the convention to move forward as an in-person event .
69 percent of Democrats didn ’ t want it to .
62 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as did 55 percent of Republicans .
Make what you will of that breakdown .

The Democratic party has decided to push back the start of its national convention from July 13 to August 17, a week before the Republican convention is set to begin. The postponement is, of course, due to the Wuhan coronavirus.
July 13 was an unusually early date on which to hold a national convention. The Democrats picked it to avoid a conflict with the Olympic games. Those games will not take place this year.
I don’t care when the Dems hold their convention or whether they hold one at all. However, I’m discouraged by any indication that Americans might not be able to convene in large numbers in July. I’m hoping that conditions will permit baseball to be played before live audiences by then.
Last week, Marquette University took a poll to find out how Wisconsin voters feel about the Democrats convening in Milwaukee, given the pandemic. According to this report, 62 percent did not want the convention to move forward as an in-person event.
69 percent of Democrats didn’t want it to. 62 percent of independents shared the sentiment, as did 55 percent of Republicans. Make what you will of that breakdown.


powerlineblog--2020-04-03--Who Is Dying From COVID-19?

Who Is Dying From COVID-19?

I have been looking for data on the demographics of those who have died from the Wuhan virus , but for some reason they have been hard to find .
This article in the Times of Israel answers some of my questions : Most of Israel ’ s coronavirus fatalities have been elderly men with underlying medical conditions , in line with global averages .
The average age of Israel ’ s dead was 79.8 years old as of Thursday afternoon .
This is what I have really been looking for : Dr. Hans Kluge , head of the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent statistics showed 30,098 people had died in Europe , mostly in Italy , France and Spain .
More than half of Europe ’ s dead were over the age of 80 .
I am as sympathetic to the elderly as the next guy ; in fact , I am perilously close to that status myself .
But it is simply crazy not to recognize that the Wuhan virus , like flu viruses generally , is mostly dangerous to people who are vulnerable because of age and infirmity , and to tailor our @ @ @ @ @ @

I have been looking for data on the demographics of those who have died from the Wuhan virus, but for some reason they have been hard to find. This article in the Times of Israel answers some of my questions:
Most of Israel’s coronavirus fatalities have been elderly men with underlying medical conditions, in line with global averages. The average age of Israel’s dead was 79.8 years old as of Thursday afternoon.
This is what I have really been looking for:
Dr. Hans Kluge, head of the organization’s office in Europe, said recent statistics showed 30,098 people had died in Europe, mostly in Italy, France and Spain. More than half of Europe’s dead were over the age of 80.
I am as sympathetic to the elderly as the next guy; in fact, I am perilously close to that status myself. But it is simply crazy not to recognize that the Wuhan virus, like flu viruses generally, is mostly dangerous to people who are vulnerable because of age and infirmity, and to tailor our response to the disease accordingly.