dailysignal--2020-05-21--The Media’s Double Standard on States’ Different Approaches to COVID-19

America ’ s economy is in the early stages of “ reopening ” after dealing with the coronavirus pandemic for months .
It ’ s a process that won ’ t be easy , simple , or without hiccups .
Meanwhile , many in the mainstream media are being true to form in making it a game of ensuring conservatives and Republicans look like reckless , heartless monsters for wanting to reopen the economy sooner rather than later .
That might sound like an exaggeration , but it ’ s hard to come to any other conclusion when viewing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states and their divergent approaches to controlling the coronavirus and plans for reopening their economies .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
Consider , for example , how the media have treated Georgia , with its Republican governor , Brian Kemp , and Colorado , with its Democrat governor , Jared Polis .
Both states have moved forward with aggressive reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a torrent of criticism from legacy media outlets .
Can you guess which one ?
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote a piece in April that carried the headline , “ Georgia leads the race to become America ’ s No .
1 Death Destination.
” “ Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp is proposing to offer a new nonstop service to the Great Beyond , ” he wrote .
“ He has a bold plan to turn his state into the [ emphasis in original ] place to die.
” And Milbank wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both straight news stories and commentaries , were published suggesting pretty much the same thing .
One writer in the Atlantic called Georgia ’ s approach an “ experiment in human sacrifice.
” But there was hardly any criticism directed at Polis and Colorado for embracing a similar reopening plan .
But perhaps the most egregious example of the phenomenon is the disparity in the treatment of Florida versus New York .
Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis , a Republican , has been regularly attacked by many in the media for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic and for its early reopening , while New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , a Democrat , has been widely praised .
“ The Sunshine State has a bigger population than New York and arguably is just as international .
It has a disproportionately vulnerable and older population .
Yet Florida ’ s COVID-19 deaths per capita are less than one-tenth of New York ’ s , ” noted an editorial in the Washington Examiner .
“ DeSantis ’ s state has not only avoided the fate of Italy , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Denmark , and other European countries that have received lavish praise for limiting the human cost of the coronavirus.
” My colleague , Fred Lucas , reported Monday on the starkly different outcomes in New York and Florida .
“ New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17 , according to the [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) ] , ” Lucas wrote .
“ Florida , meanwhile , had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths .
The population of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Florida is home to 21.5 million.
” In some respects , the circumstances that led to the outcomes in those states might be comparing apples and oranges , but in terms of population , as Lucas noted , Florida and New York are comparable in size .
While Cuomo has often struck the right tone and certainly dealt with a massive challenge as New York was rocked by COVID-19 , his leadership and decisions have been far from perfect .
There was a delay in shutting down the New York City subway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sterilizations , which could have occurred much sooner .
Perhaps even more consequentially for the state ’ s COVID-19 fatality rates , Cuomo ’ s administration forced nursing homes to take in sick coronavirus patients , which led to many deaths and furthered the spread of the pandemic .
Cuomo has partially admitted to this mistake , but one does wonder whether , if he were the governor of another state and a member of another party , we would be seeing articles calling him unfit to lead the state .
It should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeSantis took heavy criticism for Florida ’ s open beaches , he also actually took early steps to ensure that sick coronavirus patients did not return to nursing homes , where there were far more vulnerable populations .
DeSantis laid out his approach to the coronavirus pandemic in a superb interview with National Review ’ s Rich Lowry , in which he explained how he gave counties latitude to pursue the policies that work best for their specific conditions .
“ I said from the beginning , ” DeSantis said in the interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , diverse state .
The epidemic is not going to affect this state uniformly , and what ’ s appropriate in Miami and Broward may not be appropriate for Jacksonville or the Panhandle .
And that ’ s pretty much the way we did it.
” On Wednesday , DeSantis torched the mainstream media over their coverage of his approach to the coronavirus pandemic and the positive data coming out of his state .
“ You ’ ve got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just like New York , ” he told reporters .
Though American government has centralized dramatically over the past century , our system continues to retain a fair amount of federalism .
States around the country have pursued their own policies , and that ’ s a good aspect of our system .
After all , the geography , population , and circumstances of , say , Wyoming , are far different from those of New York or California .
It would make sense that states would have different strategies with respect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how they approach their reopening .
Unfortunately , all too many in the media want to make this complicated process a mindless game of blaming conservatives and Republicans for bad things that happen and praising Democrats and progressives for things that go well ( or simply remain silent when they don ’ t ) .
It would be nice if our national media committed to an evenhanded treatment of the pandemic and the states ’ divergent plans for reopening , but that appears to be too much to ask for .

America’s economy is in the early stages of “reopening” after dealing with the coronavirus pandemic for months. It’s a process that won’t be easy, simple, or without hiccups.
Meanwhile, many in the mainstream media are being true to form in making it a game of ensuring conservatives and Republicans look like reckless, heartless monsters for wanting to reopen the economy sooner rather than later.
That might sound like an exaggeration, but it’s hard to come to any other conclusion when viewing the media’s coverage of the various states and their divergent approaches to controlling the coronavirus and plans for reopening their economies.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
Consider, for example, how the media have treated Georgia, with its Republican governor, Brian Kemp, and Colorado, with its Democrat governor, Jared Polis. Both states have moved forward with aggressive reopening plans, but only one has received a torrent of criticism from legacy media outlets.
Can you guess which one?
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote a piece in April that carried the headline, “Georgia leads the race to become America’s No. 1 Death Destination.”
“Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is proposing to offer a new nonstop service to the Great Beyond,” he wrote. “He has a bold plan to turn his state into the [emphasis in original] place to die.”
And Milbank wasn’t alone. Countless other articles, both straight news stories and commentaries, were published suggesting pretty much the same thing. One writer in the Atlantic called Georgia’s approach an “experiment in human sacrifice.”
But there was hardly any criticism directed at Polis and Colorado for embracing a similar reopening plan.
But perhaps the most egregious example of the phenomenon is the disparity in the treatment of Florida versus New York.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has been regularly attacked by many in the media for his state’s initial approach to the coronavirus pandemic and for its early reopening, while New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, has been widely praised.
“The Sunshine State has a bigger population than New York and arguably is just as international. It has a disproportionately vulnerable and older population. Yet Florida’s COVID-19 deaths per capita are less than one-tenth of New York’s,” noted an editorial in the Washington Examiner. “DeSantis’s state has not only avoided the fate of Italy, but it has done better than Germany, Denmark, and other European countries that have received lavish praise for limiting the human cost of the coronavirus.”
My colleague, Fred Lucas, reported Monday on the starkly different outcomes in New York and Florida.
“New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17, according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)],” Lucas wrote. “Florida, meanwhile, had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths. The population of New York state is 19.5 million, while Florida is home to 21.5 million.”
In some respects, the circumstances that led to the outcomes in those states might be comparing apples and oranges, but in terms of population, as Lucas noted, Florida and New York are comparable in size.
While Cuomo has often struck the right tone and certainly dealt with a massive challenge as New York was rocked by COVID-19, his leadership and decisions have been far from perfect.
There was a delay in shutting down the New York City subway system for a deep cleaning and nightly sterilizations, which could have occurred much sooner. Perhaps even more consequentially for the state’s COVID-19 fatality rates, Cuomo’s administration forced nursing homes to take in sick coronavirus patients, which led to many deaths and furthered the spread of the pandemic.
Cuomo has partially admitted to this mistake, but one does wonder whether, if he were the governor of another state and a member of another party, we would be seeing articles calling him unfit to lead the state.
It should be noted, too, that while DeSantis took heavy criticism for Florida’s open beaches, he also actually took early steps to ensure that sick coronavirus patients did not return to nursing homes, where there were far more vulnerable populations.
DeSantis laid out his approach to the coronavirus pandemic in a superb interview with National Review’s Rich Lowry, in which he explained how he gave counties latitude to pursue the policies that work best for their specific conditions.
“I said from the beginning,” DeSantis said in the interview, “we’re a big, diverse state. The epidemic is not going to affect this state uniformly, and what’s appropriate in Miami and Broward may not be appropriate for Jacksonville or the Panhandle. And that’s pretty much the way we did it.”
On Wednesday, DeSantis torched the mainstream media over their coverage of his approach to the coronavirus pandemic and the positive data coming out of his state.
“You’ve got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks about how Florida was going to be just like New York,” he told reporters.
DeSantis says any insinuation Florida doesn't have best data is typical partisan narrative.
"You've got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks about how Florida was going to be just like NY."https://t.co/jTzJmKk8X0 pic.twitter.com/1sGw3Z1P3V — WFLA NEWS (@WFLA) May 20, 2020
Well said.
Though American government has centralized dramatically over the past century, our system continues to retain a fair amount of federalism. States around the country have pursued their own policies, and that’s a good aspect of our system.
After all, the geography, population, and circumstances of, say, Wyoming, are far different from those of New York or California. It would make sense that states would have different strategies with respect to how they seek to contain the pandemic and how they approach their reopening.
Unfortunately, all too many in the media want to make this complicated process a mindless game of blaming conservatives and Republicans for bad things that happen and praising Democrats and progressives for things that go well (or simply remain silent when they don’t).
It would be nice if our national media committed to an evenhanded treatment of the pandemic and the states’ divergent plans for reopening, but that appears to be too much to ask for.


dailysignal--2020-05-20--Scientists Are Studying Hydroxychloroquine as a Preventative Drug for COVID-19

President Donald Trump is again at the center of another hydroxychloroquine controversy after he disclosed earlier in the week that he has been taking the drug as prophylaxis in a manner being investigated for use by front-line health care workers .
Media outlets and left-wing politicians predictably have been quick to criticize the president for that , with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi feigning concern that the drug might be harmful to him because of his “ age group ” and his “ weight group , ” calling the president “ morbidly obese.
” Neither of those are particular risk factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
Former Vice President Joe Biden offered his opinion , saying , “ [ T ] his is absolutely irresponsible .
There ’ s no serious medical personnel out there saying to use that drug.
” Biden also said that taking hydroxychloroquine was “ like saying maybe if you injected Clorox into your blood , maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both should leave the serious medical opinions to serious medical personnel .
Or , for that matter , serious people .
Biden seems very concerned about the president possibly misleading people by example , causing them to poison themselves with hydroxychloroquine .
As a prescription drug with zero recreational purpose , it would be very difficult for the average American to obtain a course of it from either the pharmacy or from the nonexistent black market .
The bigger concern , if taking hydroxychloroquine is truly akin to injecting Clorox , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of doses specifically for use on patients with COVID-19 .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo might be to blame for some tragic failings in his state ’ s pandemic response , but the mass poisoning of New Yorkers by hydroxychloroquine is not one of them .
Hydroxychloroquine is a generally well-tolerated drug that has been in use for decades against malaria .
It is related to quinine , which is a bark extract that has been used as an antimalarial drug for centuries .
Recent uses , especially where malaria is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus .
As of 2017 , more than 5.6 million prescriptions were written for it .
That ’ s not to say that hydroxychloroquine is benign .
( There are no benign drugs . )
The most common side effect is what ’ s called “ QT prolongation , ” which is when the electrical signals that coordinate heart rhythms begin to slow down and take more time to complete .
That ’ s a potentially dangerous situation that can predispose a patient to arrhythmias .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a single physician , and certainly not the president ’ s , who would write a prescription for hydroxychloroquine without a close eye on the patient ’ s heart health , or on any of the other potential side effects .
Furthermore , the president is frequently surrounded by the highly qualified physicians who make up the White House ’ s Coronavirus Task Force and who undoubtedly are taking a keen interest in the president ’ s drug regimen .
That ’ s a long way of saying that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while taking this drug .
But will he benefit ?
That ’ s a more difficult question to answer .
Much of the early excitement was based on a French study that found that patients treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin , a commonly used and widely available antibiotic , were able to clear the virus from their systems earlier than comparable patients who were given neither hydroxychloroquine , nor the combination .
A different study in the United Arab Emirates found the opposite—that patients treated with hydroxychloroquine took longer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these studies were relatively small , with fewer than 100 patients involved in each .
Many similar studies have been conducted around the world with hydroxychloroquine , either alone or in combination with other drugs , and the results were generally mixed .
One group of researchers based in India reviewed 11 studies that accounted for the results of 4,306 patients , some of whom did not receive the drug to act as a control group .
In this meta-analysis , hydroxychloroquine did not seem to provide any benefit to COVID-19 recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include a somewhat promising new study from New York that found that , among patients who were not admitted to the intensive care unit , the addition of supplemental zinc to the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with less mortality .
The same trend was present in patients who were admitted to the ICU , but the finding was not statistically significant .
The verdict is still out on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on patients with COVID-19 , with the body of research largely ambivalent on its use .
Without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it will be impossible to tell whether the president is benefiting from it , but he might .
The health care workers who are currently in the prophylaxis study may benefit from it .
Or some will and others won ’ t , or none will .
Those are all open questions at this time , and politicizing its use in the middle of the pandemic is only going to be detrimental to the cause of public health .
If politicians continue to insist on demagoguing questions of public health , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug , they ultimately will subject the public ’ s health not to critical health findings and medical evidence , but to the angry whims of partisans and politicos .

President Donald Trump is again at the center of another hydroxychloroquine controversy after he disclosed earlier in the week that he has been taking the drug as prophylaxis in a manner being investigated for use by front-line health care workers.
Media outlets and left-wing politicians predictably have been quick to criticize the president for that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi feigning concern that the drug might be harmful to him because of his “age group” and his “weight group,” calling the president “morbidly obese.”
Neither of those are particular risk factors for potential side effects of hydroxychloroquine.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
Former Vice President Joe Biden offered his opinion, saying, “[T]his is absolutely irresponsible. There’s no serious medical personnel out there saying to use that drug.” Biden also said that taking hydroxychloroquine was “like saying maybe if you injected Clorox into your blood, maybe it’ll cure you.”
Perhaps both should leave the serious medical opinions to serious medical personnel. Or, for that matter, serious people.
Biden seems very concerned about the president possibly misleading people by example, causing them to poison themselves with hydroxychloroquine. As a prescription drug with zero recreational purpose, it would be very difficult for the average American to obtain a course of it from either the pharmacy or from the nonexistent black market.
The bigger concern, if taking hydroxychloroquine is truly akin to injecting Clorox, is that New York state had obtained tens of thousands of doses specifically for use on patients with COVID-19.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo might be to blame for some tragic failings in his state’s pandemic response, but the mass poisoning of New Yorkers by hydroxychloroquine is not one of them.
Hydroxychloroquine is a generally well-tolerated drug that has been in use for decades against malaria. It is related to quinine, which is a bark extract that has been used as an antimalarial drug for centuries.
Recent uses, especially where malaria is not endemic, include for rheumatological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus. As of 2017, more than 5.6 million prescriptions were written for it.
That’s not to say that hydroxychloroquine is benign. (There are no benign drugs.) The most common side effect is what’s called “QT prolongation,” which is when the electrical signals that coordinate heart rhythms begin to slow down and take more time to complete. That’s a potentially dangerous situation that can predispose a patient to arrhythmias.
And that side effect is very well-known. There isn’t a single physician, and certainly not the president’s, who would write a prescription for hydroxychloroquine without a close eye on the patient’s heart health, or on any of the other potential side effects.
Furthermore, the president is frequently surrounded by the highly qualified physicians who make up the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force and who undoubtedly are taking a keen interest in the president’s drug regimen.
That’s a long way of saying that the president is probably going to be OK while taking this drug.
But will he benefit? That’s a more difficult question to answer.
Much of the early excitement was based on a French study that found that patients treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, a commonly used and widely available antibiotic, were able to clear the virus from their systems earlier than comparable patients who were given neither hydroxychloroquine, nor the combination.
A different study in the United Arab Emirates found the opposite—that patients treated with hydroxychloroquine took longer to test negative for the virus.
Both of these studies were relatively small, with fewer than 100 patients involved in each. Many similar studies have been conducted around the world with hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with other drugs, and the results were generally mixed.
One group of researchers based in India reviewed 11 studies that accounted for the results of 4,306 patients, some of whom did not receive the drug to act as a control group. In this meta-analysis, hydroxychloroquine did not seem to provide any benefit to COVID-19 recovery.
However, that review did not include a somewhat promising new study from New York that found that, among patients who were not admitted to the intensive care unit, the addition of supplemental zinc to the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with less mortality.
The same trend was present in patients who were admitted to the ICU, but the finding was not statistically significant.
The verdict is still out on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on patients with COVID-19, with the body of research largely ambivalent on its use. Without the results from studies on its prophylactic use, it will be impossible to tell whether the president is benefiting from it, but he might.
The health care workers who are currently in the prophylaxis study may benefit from it. Or some will and others won’t, or none will. Those are all open questions at this time, and politicizing its use in the middle of the pandemic is only going to be detrimental to the cause of public health.
If politicians continue to insist on demagoguing questions of public health, including about the use of a potentially beneficial drug, they ultimately will subject the public’s health not to critical health findings and medical evidence, but to the angry whims of partisans and politicos.


dailysignal--2020-05-19--7 Highlights From National Coronavirus Recovery Panel’s New Recommendations

State and local governments should get ready to reopen K-12 schools , but also prepare hospitals and public transportation systems for a possible second wave of COVID-19 , according to a new round of recommendations from the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission .
The new suggestions , released Tuesday , are part of the fifth phase of the commission ’ s work , which is to “ reduce future risks of pandemics.
” The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , assembled by The Heritage Foundation , is made up of 17 experts with experience in government , public health , disaster response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business , and the faith community .
Launched April 6 , the panel now has released a total of 264 recommendations .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
The latest recommendations focus on determining how big government policies failed in response to the spread of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus , and on providing better solutions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the next potential public health crisis .
“ Saving lives and livelihoods in the wake of the coronavirus requires policymakers to honestly evaluate what went wrong as we prepare for another wave of the virus and future pandemics , ” Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James , the commission ’ s chairwoman , said in a prepared statement .
Previous rounds have focused on reopening the economy , averting a depression , and fast-tracking approval of new medicines .
Also Tuesday , President Donald Trump signed an executive order to help slash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s order directs agencies to use all emergency authorities to identify and rescind or temporarily waive regulations to promote job creation and economic growth .
It also includes a “ Regulatory Bill of Rights ” —a set of 10 basic principles to govern administrative enforcement .
As of Tuesday , the United States had 322,457 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 91,661 related deaths , according to Johns Hopkins University ’ s tracker .
In June , the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission expects to deliver a last report with final recommendations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to COVID-19 .
“ While we move to get Americans safely back to work , governments must resist the urge to spend more money and create new programs without even examining what actually works , ” James said , adding : The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation .
Here are seven highlights from the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission ’ s new recommendations .
State and local governments should work to reopen classrooms for grades K-12 , but take targeted measures to protect the health of students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favors the reopening of schools , although his health experts have warned that local and state officials should take precautions .
As the threat of COVID-19 became clear , Trump assembled a White House coronavirus task force made up of officials from nearly every government department and headed by Vice President Mike Pence .
The Trump administration should develop and submit to Congress a plan to restructure and reform the functions of federal public health agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services .
The goal : to ensure quicker and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and infectious diseases .
Trump should sign an executive order tasking his Cabinet with examining and evaluating the crisis response systems related to the COVID-19 pandemic , and developing recommendations for future preparedness .
Federal agencies should streamline access to spectrum to accelerate deployment of the 5G network .
State legislatures should review , and possibly revise , the granting of emergency powers to governors in light of some executive actions taken by various governors during the pandemic .
Several governors came under criticism for overreaching and encroaching on individual liberties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report doesn ’ t name any governors , but raises concerns with separation of powers .
State policymakers should set up a new strategy to better equip hospitals for dealing with a major pandemic , and states should work with Congress when necessary on this front .
Many hospitals faced a strain as the COVID-19 crisis unfolded , and those in New York were overwhelmed .
Trump ordered a Navy hospital ship to New York City to offer assistance .
Congress should pay for some of its trillions of dollars in stimulus spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress should create a more friendly business and tax environment to encourage medical supply and pharmaceutical companies , researchers , and investment to return to the United States .
Congress thus far has spent more than $ 3 trillion in response to the coronavirus , and is developing a plan for more aid to states , individuals , companies , and nonprofits .
State and local governments should set aside a minimum of two months ’ worth of operating expenditures , or roughly 16 % of expenditures , for times of crisis as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Responding to the pandemic led to massive spending by federal , state , and local governments .
Some state governments have demanded bailouts from federal taxpayers to cover costs not related to the virus , such as pension fund shortfalls .
State and local governments should put in place plans for mass transit systems that protect both the public and transit workers during future epidemics .
This would mean reforming transit agency operations to reduce financial vulnerability .
Public transportation in major cities is a particular concern during the spread of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced criticism for being slow to sanitize the subway system on a nightly basis .

State and local governments should get ready to reopen K-12 schools, but also prepare hospitals and public transportation systems for a possible second wave of COVID-19, according to a new round of recommendations from the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission.
The new suggestions, released Tuesday, are part of the fifth phase of the commission’s work, which is to “reduce future risks of pandemics.”
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, assembled by The Heritage Foundation, is made up of 17 experts with experience in government, public health, disaster response and relief, academia and education, business, and the faith community. Launched April 6, the panel now has released a total of 264 recommendations.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
The latest recommendations focus on determining how big government policies failed in response to the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, and on providing better solutions for federal, state, and local governments for the next potential public health crisis.
“Saving lives and livelihoods in the wake of the coronavirus requires policymakers to honestly evaluate what went wrong as we prepare for another wave of the virus and future pandemics,” Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James, the commission’s chairwoman, said in a prepared statement.
Previous rounds have focused on reopening the economy, averting a depression, and fast-tracking approval of new medicines.
Also Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to help slash government regulations to boost the economy. Trump’s order directs agencies to use all emergency authorities to identify and rescind or temporarily waive regulations to promote job creation and economic growth. It also includes a “Regulatory Bill of Rights”—a set of 10 basic principles to govern administrative enforcement.
As of Tuesday, the United States had 322,457 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 91,661 related deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University’s tracker.
In June, the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission expects to deliver a last report with final recommendations and an assessment of each state’s response to COVID-19.
“While we move to get Americans safely back to work, governments must resist the urge to spend more money and create new programs without even examining what actually works,” James said, adding:
More now than ever, we know the American spirit of freedom and free enterprise will play a defining role in empowering workers, businesses, health providers, patients, and all Americans to defeat the coronavirus.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.
Here are seven highlights from the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission’s new recommendations.
1. Reopening Schools
State and local governments should work to reopen classrooms for grades K-12, but take targeted measures to protect the health of students and teachers.
Trump has said he favors the reopening of schools, although his health experts have warned that local and state officials should take precautions.
As the threat of COVID-19 became clear, Trump assembled a White House coronavirus task force made up of officials from nearly every government department and headed by Vice President Mike Pence.
2. Actions by the Administration
The Trump administration should develop and submit to Congress a plan to restructure and reform the functions of federal public health agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. The goal: to ensure quicker and more effective responses to future epidemics, pandemics, and infectious diseases.
Trump should sign an executive order tasking his Cabinet with examining and evaluating the crisis response systems related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and developing recommendations for future preparedness.
Federal agencies should streamline access to spectrum to accelerate deployment of the 5G network.
3. Governors’ Executive Actions
State legislatures should review, and possibly revise, the granting of emergency powers to governors in light of some executive actions taken by various governors during the pandemic.
Several governors came under criticism for overreaching and encroaching on individual liberties in their states. The commission’s report doesn’t name any governors, but raises concerns with separation of powers.
4. Hospital Preparation
State policymakers should set up a new strategy to better equip hospitals for dealing with a major pandemic, and states should work with Congress when necessary on this front.
Many hospitals faced a strain as the COVID-19 crisis unfolded, and those in New York were overwhelmed. Trump ordered a Navy hospital ship to New York City to offer assistance.
5. Role of Congress
Congress should pay for some of its trillions of dollars in stimulus spending with the sale of federal property.
Congress should create a more friendly business and tax environment to encourage medical supply and pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and investment to return to the United States.
Congress thus far has spent more than $3 trillion in response to the coronavirus, and is developing a plan for more aid to states, individuals, companies, and nonprofits.
6. Fiscal Responsibility
State and local governments should set aside a minimum of two months’ worth of operating expenditures, or roughly 16% of expenditures, for times of crisis as suggested by the Government Finance Officers Association.
Responding to the pandemic led to massive spending by federal, state, and local governments. Some state governments have demanded bailouts from federal taxpayers to cover costs not related to the virus, such as pension fund shortfalls.
7. Public Transportation
State and local governments should put in place plans for mass transit systems that protect both the public and transit workers during future epidemics. This would mean reforming transit agency operations to reduce financial vulnerability.
Public transportation in major cities is a particular concern during the spread of a highly contagious disease. New York City faced criticism for being slow to sanitize the subway system on a nightly basis.


dailysignal--2020-05-19--Tale of 2 States: New York’s COVID-19 Death Toll Far Greater Than Florida’s

Florida and New York are states with similar population sizes , but dramatically different approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic .
New York has almost 30 times as many coronavirus-related deaths as Florida , with a heavy concentration among senior citizens , according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , a Democrat , gained praise in the media for his performance in press conferences if nothing else , while Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis , a Republican , has been heavily criticized in media reports .
> > > When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17 , according to the CDC .
Florida , meanwhile , had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths .
The population of New York state is 19.5 million , while Florida is home to 21.5 million .
“ Gov .
DeSantis understands Florida and knows how to interpret data and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this health care pandemic , ” the governor ’ s communications director , Helen Aguirre Ferre , told The Daily Signal in an email .
“ He worked quickly to protect the vulnerable , increase testing , promote social distancing , support hospitals and protect health care workers , and prevent introduction [ of the virus ] from outside of the state.
” When the media was howling because there were folks on the beach , Gov .
DeSantis prohibited visitations to assisted living facilities and nursing homes .
In addition , Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care facilities to [ allow ] COVID-19 patients who were discharged from hospitals to be returned to their facilities .
He established COVID-19 dedicated nursing homes .
In addition , he required comprehensive screening of staff and vendors entering these long-term care facilities .
Testing and contact tracing was a priority for all Florida residents in addition to providing precious PPE [ personal protective equipment ] .
Impeding those who were fleeing from other states where there was community spread of this virus was also important .
In New York , senior Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was too slow to ban European flights that primarily stop at major airports in New York or New Jersey .
From January through March , about 13,000 flights came through these airports from European locations carrying about 2 million passengers , the officials told The Daily Signal on background .
New York also does more testing for the coronavirus than other states , which is one reason the recorded rates are higher , they said .
Add to that , New York City has the most dense population in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of total COVID-19 deaths among those 65 and older .
Seniors made up 83 % of deaths in Florida , 77 % in New York .
“ In general , on a statewide basis , Florida is doing much better than New York , ” Norbert Michel , director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation , told The Daily Signal .
“ Florida has much fewer deaths and deaths per capita and per 100,000 than New York ; this fact holds even if you remove New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences are much smaller.
” The high fatality rate in New York City from the coronavirus skews the statewide numbers , he said .
Florida also is doing better during the pandemic across every category of those 45 and older , as the New York death toll is 15 to 20 times higher than Florida across every category , Michel said .
“ Regardless , the death rates by age are worse in New York .
If New York City is the primary driver of high death totals and high death rates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only thing that would change is that we would have to say New York City is doing much worse than Florida , ” Michel said .
Cuomo also has faced criticism for a March decision , later reversed , to send patients back to nursing homes after they tested positive for COVID-19 .
“ Florida and New York had very different protections for nursing home patients , ” Michel said .
“ The nursing home policy [ in New York ] was insane .
The state was basically sending someone to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case that the infection was already widespread before anyone knew about it , the state was still literally sending people back into it.
” To help free up beds in hospitals in late March , the New York state Health Department issued an order to nursing homes : “ No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the [ nursing home ] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.
” The Long Term Care Community Coalition in New York opposed the Cuomo policy of sending COVID-19 patients back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Medical Directors Association , in a March 26 statement , said : “ Unsafe transfers will increase the risk of transmission in post-acute and long-term care facilities , which will ultimately only serve to increase the return flow back to hospitals , overwhelming capacity , endangering more healthcare personnel , and escalating the death rate.
” Cuomo administration officials said residents returning to nursing homes after testing positive for the virus were quarantined from other residents , following federal guidelines for them to be kept in separate facilities with different caretakers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total of 12 % of the state ’ s fatalities were from nursing homes , a Cuomo administration official said .
“ It was one of the giant red herrings of all time , ” the official told The Daily Signal .
“ I would take our state law over any state law that says you can discriminate [ against ] potentially the most feeble , at-risk , vulnerable people in our society.
” In early May , The New York Times reported that 1,600 previously undisclosed deaths occurred in New York nursing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths at nursing homes to almost 5,000 .
One more factor : Cuomo didn ’ t order the New York City subway to be sterilized on a nightly basis until early May , even though the first COVID-19 cases were reported March 1 .
Another Cuomo administration official contended that new cleaning policies were in place March 3 , two days after the state ’ s first confirmed coronavirus case .
New York is unique among U.S. cities in having a subway that operates around the clock ; closing it was not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more often , however , it was feasible to close down for nightly sterilization beginning May 5 , the official said .
COVID-19 deaths in New York City total 1,403.72 per 100,000 for those ages 75 and older , according to the city ’ s data .
The death rate drops to 560.85 per 100,000 for those 65 to 74 ; 171.49 for ages 45 to 64 ; and 18.4 for ages 18 to 44 .
The rate is 0 for those under 18 .
Although New York City has more people living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city , specific policies played a role in the death toll for both the city and state , said Arpit Gupta , an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute who co-authored a report with recommendations for reopening New York City .
“ I would point to large , dense cities in Asia such as Seoul , Taipei , Tokyo , and in Hong Kong , ” Gupta told The Daily Signal .
“ Density is not destiny .
Those cities made policy decisions that New York didn ’ t that have contributed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” As of May 13 in Florida , COVID-19 had claimed the lives of 53 people ages 45 to 54 , or 0.24 per 100,000 ; 138 ages 55 to 64 , or 0.64 per 100,000 ; 296 ages 65 to 74 , or 1.4 ; 391 ages 75 to 84 , or 1.82 ; and 378 ages 85 and older , or 1.8 .
In New York state as of May 13 , COVID-19 had killed 1,267 people ages 45 to 54 , or 6.5 per 100,000 ; 3,039 ages 55 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4,818 ages 65 to 74 , or 24.7 ; 5,603 ages 75 to 84 , or 29 ; and 5,881 ages 85 and older , or 30.2 .

Florida and New York are states with similar population sizes, but dramatically different approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic.
New York has almost 30 times as many coronavirus-related deaths as Florida, with a heavy concentration among senior citizens, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, gained praise in the media for his performance in press conferences if nothing else, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has been heavily criticized in media reports.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
New York has had about 348,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 28,000 deaths as of May 17, according to the CDC. Florida, meanwhile, had about 46,000 cases and 2,000 deaths.
The population of New York state is 19.5 million, while Florida is home to 21.5 million.
“Gov. DeSantis understands Florida and knows how to interpret data and use science to guide the state during this health care pandemic,” the governor’s communications director, Helen Aguirre Ferre, told The Daily Signal in an email. “He worked quickly to protect the vulnerable, increase testing, promote social distancing, support hospitals and protect health care workers, and prevent introduction [of the virus] from outside of the state.”
Ferre added:
When the media was howling because there were folks on the beach, Gov. DeSantis prohibited visitations to assisted living facilities and nursing homes. In addition, Gov. DeSantis prohibited nursing homes and long-term care facilities to [allow] COVID-19 patients who were discharged from hospitals to be returned to their facilities. He established COVID-19 dedicated nursing homes. In addition, he required comprehensive screening of staff and vendors entering these long-term care facilities. Testing and contact tracing was a priority for all Florida residents in addition to providing precious PPE [personal protective equipment]. Impeding those who were fleeing from other states where there was community spread of this virus was also important.
In New York, senior Cuomo administration officials contend that the federal government was too slow to ban European flights that primarily stop at major airports in New York or New Jersey.
From January through March, about 13,000 flights came through these airports from European locations carrying about 2 million passengers, the officials told The Daily Signal on background.
New York also does more testing for the coronavirus than other states, which is one reason the recorded rates are higher, they said. Add to that, New York City has the most dense population in the United States.
New York and Florida have a similar percentage of total COVID-19 deaths among those 65 and older. Seniors made up 83% of deaths in Florida, 77% in New York.
“In general, on a statewide basis, Florida is doing much better than New York,” Norbert Michel, director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Florida has much fewer deaths and deaths per capita and per 100,000 than New York; this fact holds even if you remove New York City from the state data, though the differences are much smaller.”
The high fatality rate in New York City from the coronavirus skews the statewide numbers, he said.
Florida also is doing better during the pandemic across every category of those 45 and older, as the New York death toll is 15 to 20 times higher than Florida across every category, Michel said.
“Regardless, the death rates by age are worse in New York. If New York City is the primary driver of high death totals and high death rates, then the same comparison still applies; the only thing that would change is that we would have to say New York City is doing much worse than Florida,” Michel said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, speaks May 6 during a coronavirus briefing at Northwell Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset. (Photo: Ron Adar/Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media/Getty Images)
Cuomo also has faced criticism for a March decision, later reversed, to send patients back to nursing homes after they tested positive for COVID-19.
“Florida and New York had very different protections for nursing home patients,” Michel said. “The nursing home policy [in New York] was insane. The state was basically sending someone to an early grave. … If it is the case that the infection was already widespread before anyone knew about it, the state was still literally sending people back into it.”
To help free up beds in hospitals in late March, the New York state Health Department issued an order to nursing homes: “No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.”
The Long Term Care Community Coalition in New York opposed the Cuomo policy of sending COVID-19 patients back to nursing homes.
Similarly, the American Medical Directors Association, in a March 26 statement, said: “Unsafe transfers will increase the risk of transmission in post-acute and long-term care facilities, which will ultimately only serve to increase the return flow back to hospitals, overwhelming capacity, endangering more healthcare personnel, and escalating the death rate.”
Cuomo administration officials said residents returning to nursing homes after testing positive for the virus were quarantined from other residents, following federal guidelines for them to be kept in separate facilities with different caretakers from the rest of the population. A total of 12% of the state’s fatalities were from nursing homes, a Cuomo administration official said.
“It was one of the giant red herrings of all time,” the official told The Daily Signal. “I would take our state law over any state law that says you can discriminate [against] potentially the most feeble, at-risk, vulnerable people in our society.”
In early May, The New York Times reported that 1,600 previously undisclosed deaths occurred in New York nursing homes, bringing the total number of deaths at nursing homes to almost 5,000.
One more factor: Cuomo didn’t order the New York City subway to be sterilized on a nightly basis until early May, even though the first COVID-19 cases were reported March 1.
Another Cuomo administration official contended that new cleaning policies were in place March 3, two days after the state’s first confirmed coronavirus case.
New York is unique among U.S. cities in having a subway that operates around the clock; closing it was not an option. As more people stayed home more often, however, it was feasible to close down for nightly sterilization beginning May 5, the official said.
COVID-19 deaths in New York City total 1,403.72 per 100,000 for those ages 75 and older, according to the city’s data. The death rate drops to 560.85 per 100,000 for those 65 to 74; 171.49 for ages 45 to 64; and 18.4 for ages 18 to 44. The rate is 0 for those under 18.
Although New York City has more people living in close proximity than any other American city, specific policies played a role in the death toll for both the city and state, said Arpit Gupta, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute who co-authored a report with recommendations for reopening New York City.
“I would point to large, dense cities in Asia such as Seoul, Taipei, Tokyo, and in Hong Kong,” Gupta told The Daily Signal. “Density is not destiny. Those cities made policy decisions that New York didn’t that have contributed to the death toll we’ve seen.”
As of May 13 in Florida, COVID-19 had claimed the lives of 53 people ages 45 to 54, or 0.24 per 100,000; 138 ages 55 to 64, or 0.64 per 100,000; 296 ages 65 to 74, or 1.4; 391 ages 75 to 84, or 1.82; and 378 ages 85 and older, or 1.8.
In New York state as of May 13, COVID-19 had killed 1,267 people ages 45 to 54, or 6.5 per 100,000; 3,039 ages 55 to 64, or 15.6 per 100,000; 4,818 ages 65 to 74, or 24.7; 5,603 ages 75 to 84, or 29; and 5,881 ages 85 and older, or 30.2.


dailysignal--2020-05-19--Let’s Trust Americans to Be Careful About COVID-19

Testifying before the Senate as a member of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force , Dr. Anthony Fauci gave his assessment of the current state of the Country ’ s response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
He was both hopeful and overly cautious .
Fauci first highlighted advances made in testing for the new coronavirus , as well as the rapid progress of several promising drugs and numerous vaccines in clinical trials .
It was an assessment that should give Americans reasons for hope and optimism .
But Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasty abandonment of mitigation measures .
He summarized his concerns in response to a question from Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa. : My concern is that [ with ] states or cities or regions , their attempt , understandable , to get back to some form of normality , disregards to a greater degree the checkpoints that we ’ ve put in our guidelines about when it is safe to proceed and [ begin ] pulling back on mitigation .
I feel if that occurs , there is a real risk you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to control [ it ] which [ … ] could even set you back on the road trying to get economic recovery , turn the clock back rather than going forward .
That is my major concern , senator .
Everyone should share these concerns .
The job of policymakers now is balancing that concern against the daily hardships of Americans hurt by the harsh mitigation measures .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that out .
Learn more here .
The early phases of the pandemic response revealed weaknesses in critical equipment supply chains and health systems in Washington state and New York that were at risk of being overwhelmed .
But changes in individual behavior and state-mandated mitigation restrictions both slowed down the spread of the virus , enough so that health care capacity wasn ’ t exceeded–as evidenced by the shutdown of auxiliary field hospitals .
With regards to mitigating the spread of the virus , Americans have done well .
Rates of testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases continue to decrease .
Furthermore , efforts made by the American people have spared large parts of the country .
As this map shows , vast expanses of the United States have reported no new cases for at least the past two weeks .
However , could all those untouched places and all those potential infections become new hot spots around the country ?
This is part of the eventuality that Fauci fears .
It ’ s possible , but unlikely .
Americans have shown that they can take responsibility for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , data from OpenTable , a restaurant booking app , showed that Americans were making over 50 % fewer reservations by mid-March , even before most statewide lockdown orders took effect .
The question , then , is can we trust Americans to make good decisions ?
Will many Americans , even with relaxed mitigation rules , continue to avoid public areas , wear masks , socially distance , and maintain other mitigation practices ?
And will policymakers enable Americans to assess their own risks against their livelihoods and make the best decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regards to risk , it ’ s also important to focus on the areas that are hot spots now , or that evidence suggests could become hot spots .
It ’ s increasingly clear that , although no single group is invulnerable to the virus , nearly all of the risk lies with those older than 65 .
Fully 80 % of mortality due to COVID-19 coming from that cohort .
Special care should be given to protecting them .
Most of the cases in the U.S. are concentrated in several key hot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Fauci is keeping his eyes on them .
But these areas should not dictate a continued lockdown for the rest of the country .
Even in these hot spots , testing has increased while COVID-19 cases either remained level or decreased .
In most communities , schools and businesses likely can reopen safely with restraints on large gatherings .
Lifting restrictions won ’ t mean a sudden flurry of high-risk behaviors , but it will allow those who are confident in their safety to resume at least some part of their livelihoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track .
Fauci is not wrong to be cautious .
We all must continue to be careful while moving forward .
The American people , however , have demonstrated that they will change their behavior and do their part to limit the spread of disease .

Testifying before the Senate as a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, Dr. Anthony Fauci gave his assessment of the current state of the Country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was both hopeful and overly cautious.
Fauci first highlighted advances made in testing for the new coronavirus, as well as the rapid progress of several promising drugs and numerous vaccines in clinical trials. It was an assessment that should give Americans reasons for hope and optimism.
But Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, then cautioned against a hasty abandonment of mitigation measures. He summarized his concerns in response to a question from Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.:
My concern is that [with] states or cities or regions, their attempt, understandable, to get back to some form of normality, disregards to a greater degree the checkpoints that we’ve put in our guidelines about when it is safe to proceed and [begin] pulling back on mitigation. I feel if that occurs, there is a real risk you will trigger an outbreak and may not be able to control [it] which […] could even set you back on the road trying to get economic recovery, turn the clock back rather than going forward. That is my major concern, senator.
Everyone should share these concerns. The job of policymakers now is balancing that concern against the daily hardships of Americans hurt by the harsh mitigation measures.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
The early phases of the pandemic response revealed weaknesses in critical equipment supply chains and health systems in Washington state and New York that were at risk of being overwhelmed. But changes in individual behavior and state-mandated mitigation restrictions both slowed down the spread of the virus, enough so that health care capacity wasn’t exceeded–as evidenced by the shutdown of auxiliary field hospitals.
With regards to mitigating the spread of the virus, Americans have done well. Rates of testing for COVID-19 continue to increase while daily cases continue to decrease. Furthermore, efforts made by the American people have spared large parts of the country.
As this map shows, vast expanses of the United States have reported no new cases for at least the past two weeks.
However, could all those untouched places and all those potential infections become new hot spots around the country? This is part of the eventuality that Fauci fears.
It’s possible, but unlikely.
Americans have shown that they can take responsibility for their own health and safety. For instance, data from OpenTable, a restaurant booking app, showed that Americans were making over 50% fewer reservations by mid-March, even before most statewide lockdown orders took effect.
The question, then, is can we trust Americans to make good decisions? Will many Americans, even with relaxed mitigation rules, continue to avoid public areas, wear masks, socially distance, and maintain other mitigation practices?
And will policymakers enable Americans to assess their own risks against their livelihoods and make the best decisions for them and their families?
With regards to risk, it’s also important to focus on the areas that are hot spots now, or that evidence suggests could become hot spots.
It’s increasingly clear that, although no single group is invulnerable to the virus, nearly all of the risk lies with those older than 65. Fully 80% of mortality due to COVID-19 coming from that cohort. Special care should be given to protecting them.
Most of the cases in the U.S. are concentrated in several key hot spots, and it’s understandable that Fauci is keeping his eyes on them. But these areas should not dictate a continued lockdown for the rest of the country.
Even in these hot spots, testing has increased while COVID-19 cases either remained level or decreased. In most communities, schools and businesses likely can reopen safely with restraints on large gatherings.
Lifting restrictions won’t mean a sudden flurry of high-risk behaviors, but it will allow those who are confident in their safety to resume at least some part of their livelihoods and help get the economy back on track.
Fauci is not wrong to be cautious. We all must continue to be careful while moving forward. The American people, however, have demonstrated that they will change their behavior and do their part to limit the spread of disease.


dailysignal--2020-05-18--A Proposed ‘Health Defense Operations’ Slush Fund Won’t Protect US From Future Pandemics

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic , Congress has already approved more than $ 2.4 trillion in new deficit-increasing measures , from new spending to tax relief .
Now , Congress is considering a new slush fund to exempt certain spending from budgetary restraints in the name of combating future health crises .
Instead , lawmakers should review agency missions and projects to better prioritize spending , reduce missions creep , and focus public health agencies ’ activities on core initiatives .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
A bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House Appropriations Committee is reportedly contemplating a so-called health defense operations fund aimed at fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics .
Any money appropriated to the new fund would not be subject to the fiscal 2021 Budget Control Act spending caps , nor future spending caps .
On its face , that may sound like a reasonable idea .
The federal government was caught unprepared for an emergency on the scale of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country better prepared for the next pandemic , right ?
The answer is a resounding no .
There is no evidence that more spending on public health-oriented agencies and programs would lead to better public health outcomes .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health would be the main beneficiaries of the new health defense spending .
But both entities have already received precipitous budget increases .
Between 2011 and 2020 , the combined discretionary budgets of the CDC and NIH grew by 16.5 % on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 billion in fiscal year 2020 .
The problem is that most of the additional funding went toward tangential activities , leaving the federal government no better prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic .
Instead of more spending , Congress should examine the existing missions of the public health agencies and identify where mission creep is getting in the way of a pandemic response .
The CDC , for example , is due for scrutiny for engaging in “ social justice ” missions over preparing to deal with serious infectious disease outbreaks .
Examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obesity , to smoking and alcohol consumption , to gun control .
The NIH similarly can be criticized for funding research projects of questionable merit and those fraught with “ significant design flaws , ” as well as needlessly duplicating existing work .
Lawmakers should take a closer look at how public health agencies are currently allocating their funding and go through their budgets , line item by line item .
They should separate mission-critical projects from those “ nice to have ” initiatives that ultimately divert the agencies ’ focus .
Without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more wasteful spending to evade budget constraints , without any concomitant improvement in mitigation of pandemic risk .
The idea for a health defense operations fund arose from the Department of Defense ’ s overseas contingency operations account .
Overseas contingency operations are an emergency budget account that Congress developed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks .
The premise was that the Department of Defense would need a new temporary stream of funding to combat emerging threats across the globe .
Emergency appropriations are historically common at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually quickly incorporated into the base budget .
Overseas contingency operations funds were never intended to be permanent , yet nearly 20 years after 9/11 , Congress continues to appropriate money to the fund that is exempt from budget caps every year .
In fiscal 2020 , a time when the military is not engaged in new operations abroad , Congress appropriated $ 79.5 billion for overseas contingency operations .
At one point in time , the emergency characteristic of overseas contingency operations funding was justified .
However , that time has long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control Act spending caps , overseas contingency operations funds have increasingly been used as a “ slush fund ” to increase the base budgets of the departments of Defense and State .
A 2017 Government Accountability Office report estimated that nearly $ 50 billion per year in overseas contingency operations funding was being used for activities that would continue even if there were no overseas conflicts .
Overseas contingency operations funds have morphed from having a clear and legitimate purpose to increasingly becoming a gimmick to evade reasonable fiscal restraints .
A health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same fate .
Ultimately , the health defense operations account is a solution in search of a problem .
With its power of the purse , Congress already has great flexibility in what it can classify as emergency spending .
As with military overseas contingency operations funding ( and presumably health defense operations ) , emergency funding is not subject to budget caps or other fiscal restraints .
In other words , Congress can already appropriate additional pandemic funding if lawmakers agree that there is a need .
Congress doesn ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional money .
Creating a fund for that purpose would almost certainly guarantee additional unrestrained spending each year , regardless of whether there is a legitimate need .
Adding more spending to the nation ’ s credit card is not the answer to the COVID-19 crisis .
Instead , lawmakers should have a serious discussion about how to reduce the risks and costs associated with a future pandemic .
When that discussion happens , Congress might find that a lack of money is not the problem ; rather , it ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress has already approved more than $2.4 trillion in new deficit-increasing measures, from new spending to tax relief.
Now, Congress is considering a new slush fund to exempt certain spending from budgetary restraints in the name of combating future health crises.
Instead, lawmakers should review agency missions and projects to better prioritize spending, reduce missions creep, and focus public health agencies’ activities on core initiatives.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House Appropriations Committee is reportedly contemplating a so-called health defense operations fund aimed at fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Any money appropriated to the new fund would not be subject to the fiscal 2021 Budget Control Act spending caps, nor future spending caps.
On its face, that may sound like a reasonable idea. The federal government was caught unprepared for an emergency on the scale of COVID-19. Surely, unrestrained spending will leave the country better prepared for the next pandemic, right?
The answer is a resounding no.
There is no evidence that more spending on public health-oriented agencies and programs would lead to better public health outcomes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health would be the main beneficiaries of the new health defense spending. But both entities have already received precipitous budget increases.
Between 2011 and 2020, the combined discretionary budgets of the CDC and NIH grew by 16.5% on an inflation-adjusted basis, reaching nearly $50 billion in fiscal year 2020.
The problem is that most of the additional funding went toward tangential activities, leaving the federal government no better prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Instead of more spending, Congress should examine the existing missions of the public health agencies and identify where mission creep is getting in the way of a pandemic response.
The CDC, for example, is due for scrutiny for engaging in “social justice” missions over preparing to deal with serious infectious disease outbreaks. Examples include everything from prenatal oral health to obesity, to smoking and alcohol consumption, to gun control.
The NIH similarly can be criticized for funding research projects of questionable merit and those fraught with “significant design flaws,” as well as needlessly duplicating existing work.
Lawmakers should take a closer look at how public health agencies are currently allocating their funding and go through their budgets, line item by line item.
They should separate mission-critical projects from those “nice to have” initiatives that ultimately divert the agencies’ focus. Without that discipline, the likely outcome is more wasteful spending to evade budget constraints, without any concomitant improvement in mitigation of pandemic risk.
The idea for a health defense operations fund arose from the Department of Defense’s overseas contingency operations account. Overseas contingency operations are an emergency budget account that Congress developed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The premise was that the Department of Defense would need a new temporary stream of funding to combat emerging threats across the globe. Emergency appropriations are historically common at the outset of conflicts, but were usually quickly incorporated into the base budget.
Overseas contingency operations funds were never intended to be permanent, yet nearly 20 years after 9/11, Congress continues to appropriate money to the fund that is exempt from budget caps every year. In fiscal 2020, a time when the military is not engaged in new operations abroad, Congress appropriated $79.5 billion for overseas contingency operations.
At one point in time, the emergency characteristic of overseas contingency operations funding was justified. However, that time has long passed.
In the era of Budget Control Act spending caps, overseas contingency operations funds have increasingly been used as a “slush fund” to increase the base budgets of the departments of Defense and State.
A 2017 Government Accountability Office report estimated that nearly $50 billion per year in overseas contingency operations funding was being used for activities that would continue even if there were no overseas conflicts.
Overseas contingency operations funds have morphed from having a clear and legitimate purpose to increasingly becoming a gimmick to evade reasonable fiscal restraints.
A health defense operations fund would likely suffer the same fate. Ultimately, the health defense operations account is a solution in search of a problem.
With its power of the purse, Congress already has great flexibility in what it can classify as emergency spending. As with military overseas contingency operations funding (and presumably health defense operations), emergency funding is not subject to budget caps or other fiscal restraints.
In other words, Congress can already appropriate additional pandemic funding if lawmakers agree that there is a need. Congress doesn’t need a special pandemic funding mechanism to provide additional money.
Creating a fund for that purpose would almost certainly guarantee additional unrestrained spending each year, regardless of whether there is a legitimate need.
Adding more spending to the nation’s credit card is not the answer to the COVID-19 crisis. Instead, lawmakers should have a serious discussion about how to reduce the risks and costs associated with a future pandemic.
When that discussion happens, Congress might find that a lack of money is not the problem; rather, it’s how that money is being spent.


dailysignal--2020-05-18--There Have Been Fewer COVID-19 Cases Than Expected in India. Why?

India long has been seen as a land of mystery , and with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic , the South Asian nation is keeping with that tradition .
The number of coronavirus cases in India has been surprisingly low , given the country ’ s huge and highly dense population and its poverty levels .
Experts are puzzled , but they think there are a number of factors that could be contributing to the low infection rates .
“ Unfortunately , we don ’ t have a solid answer , ” Jeff Smith , South Asia research fellow at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Signal in an email .
He said it ’ s possible the low numbers can be attributed to some of India ’ s “ protective characteristics , including climate , that has insulated it from some of the worst effects.
” > > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
India ’ s population is more than 1.3 billion people , second only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hopkins and Worldometer both place the number of COVID-19 cases in India at 85,784 , compared with China , which has reported 82,933 cases , as of May 15 .
The United States has seen nearly 1.48 million cases within its comparatively smaller population estimated at 328 million .
Anup Malani , a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and at the Pritzker School of Medicine , in a recent Quartz India article offered explanations as to why India might not have experienced a higher number of coronavirus-related cases and deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in both your probability of getting infected and in the degree to which you are going to have symptoms , ” Malani said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal , adding that there ’ s a very strong “ correlation between age and how severe our symptoms are , and particularly probability of death , given the symptoms.
” Overall , India ’ s population is quite young .
“ In India , only 0.8 % of the population is above 80 , and nearly 75 % are below the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The relative youthfulness of the Indian people may be a factor , but the theory is not without some gray areas .
Malani and a group of other researchers looked into the role age might be playing in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in India .
They found that “ the age profiles in India may explain why it is that we see the caseload that we do , but we are not sure it can explain the low case fatality rate , ” he said .
Among the nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been about 2,750 recorded deaths .
When it came to predicting the number of cases in each state in India based on age , they were rather successful .
But the study was less successful at using the same age metric to predict the actual number of deaths , Malani explained .
So , age may account for the relatively low number of cases , but offers far less explanation as it relates to the number of deaths .
India ’ s climate is another factor that scientists are considering .
Viruses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather , and India ’ s relative proximity to the equator means the nation ’ s temperatures are quite hot year-round .
But Malani says he and other scientists are hesitant to credit higher temperatures as the primary reason for the low infection rates , because other variables come into play with warm climates .
“ We know that a lot of countries with higher temperature also tend to have , for example , lower [ gross domestic product ] , lower health care capacity , things like that .
… So when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and temperature , one possibility might be what you are really seeing is that higher temperatures [ are ] associated with lower GDP per capita , and that means lower capacity to , for example , test , and that is why you are seeing lower cases.
” It ’ s true that India has not tested its population as broadly as other nations , Malani explained .
Even now , India is still lagging in testing while other nations , such as the United States , continue to increase testing .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a lack of testing could be a significant factor in the low number of cases relative to the country ’ s population .
But again , a problem arises when looking at the number of deaths .
“ It is quite possible there ’ s a large amount of COVID cases in India that have gone unreported , but I ’ m somewhat skeptical that there ’ s been a massive amount of COVID-related deaths that we are unaware of , ” Smith said .
“ There are other ways of tracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indication yet that there ’ s been a major surge.
” Another theory is that the immune system of the average individual in India is better equipped to fight COVID-19 .
The tuberculosis vaccine referred to as BCG is universally administered in India .
“ One possibility is that when you get vaccinated for BCG , the nature of that vaccination is such that it triggers your body to be reactive or responsive to many different diseases , ” Smith said .
“ … And if that is true , and if one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsive to is COVID , it could be that your immune system is already on alert … to COVID.
” Malani calls the theory “ intriguing , ” but says it ’ s not proven .
The BCG vaccine is thought to wear off after about 10 years , which would mean that many children would be protected , but that young adults might no longer be .
In short , Malani says , more research needs to be undertaken regarding the effectiveness of the BCG vaccine against COVID-19 .
Across countries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinds and amounts of viruses people are exposed to at a young age , which correspondingly lead to varied immune systems .
It ’ s possible that much of the population of India already has antibodies in their immune systems to fight COVID-19 due to exposure to other viruses and bacteria that those in China or the Western world might not have been exposed to .
Malani says that ’ s a plausible explanation , but again , more research would need to be done before any conclusions could be drawn .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown measure kept the virus from spreading rampantly across the nation .
As India begins to lift stay-at-home orders in the coming weeks , Malani said , “ it is not obvious to me that , in fact , India will just be fine or that it ’ s going to be a disaster.
” Smith also said we can ’ t dismiss the possibility “ there could still be a dramatic increase in COVID cases and deaths in the weeks ahead , and things could get out of control very quickly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s note : This article ’ s description of the BCG vaccine has been corrected .

India long has been seen as a land of mystery, and with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, the South Asian nation is keeping with that tradition.
The number of coronavirus cases in India has been surprisingly low, given the country’s huge and highly dense population and its poverty levels. Experts are puzzled, but they think there are a number of factors that could be contributing to the low infection rates.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have a solid answer,” Jeff Smith, South Asia research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email. He said it’s possible the low numbers can be attributed to some of India’s “protective characteristics, including climate, that has insulated it from some of the worst effects.”
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
India’s population is more than 1.3 billion people, second only to China’s 1.4 billion. Johns Hopkins and Worldometer both place the number of COVID-19 cases in India at 85,784, compared with China, which has reported 82,933 cases, as of May 15. The United States has seen nearly 1.48 million cases within its comparatively smaller population estimated at 328 million.
Anup Malani, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and at the Pritzker School of Medicine, in a recent Quartz India article offered explanations as to why India might not have experienced a higher number of coronavirus-related cases and deaths.
“Your age may play a role in both your probability of getting infected and in the degree to which you are going to have symptoms,” Malani said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal, adding that there’s a very strong “correlation between age and how severe our symptoms are, and particularly probability of death, given the symptoms.”
Overall, India’s population is quite young. “In India, only 0.8% of the population is above 80, and nearly 75% are below the age of 40,” Malani explained.
The relative youthfulness of the Indian people may be a factor, but the theory is not without some gray areas.
Malani and a group of other researchers looked into the role age might be playing in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in India. They found that “the age profiles in India may explain why it is that we see the caseload that we do, but we are not sure it can explain the low case fatality rate,” he said.
Among the nearly 88,000 COVID-19 cases in India, there have been about 2,750 recorded deaths.
When it came to predicting the number of cases in each state in India based on age, they were rather successful. But the study was less successful at using the same age metric to predict the actual number of deaths, Malani explained. So, age may account for the relatively low number of cases, but offers far less explanation as it relates to the number of deaths.
India’s climate is another factor that scientists are considering. Viruses are less likely to spread in warmer weather, and India’s relative proximity to the equator means the nation’s temperatures are quite hot year-round.
But Malani says he and other scientists are hesitant to credit higher temperatures as the primary reason for the low infection rates, because other variables come into play with warm climates.
“We know that a lot of countries with higher temperature also tend to have, for example, lower [gross domestic product], lower health care capacity, things like that. … So when you see a negative correlation between cases and temperature, one possibility might be what you are really seeing is that higher temperatures [are] associated with lower GDP per capita, and that means lower capacity to, for example, test, and that is why you are seeing lower cases.”
It’s true that India has not tested its population as broadly as other nations, Malani explained. Even now, India is still lagging in testing while other nations, such as the United States, continue to increase testing.
Both Malani and Heritage’s Smith acknowledge that a lack of testing could be a significant factor in the low number of cases relative to the country’s population. But again, a problem arises when looking at the number of deaths.
“It is quite possible there’s a large amount of COVID cases in India that have gone unreported, but I’m somewhat skeptical that there’s been a massive amount of COVID-related deaths that we are unaware of,” Smith said. “There are other ways of tracking fatalities, and there’s no indication yet that there’s been a major surge.”
Another theory is that the immune system of the average individual in India is better equipped to fight COVID-19. The tuberculosis vaccine referred to as BCG is universally administered in India.
“One possibility is that when you get vaccinated for BCG, the nature of that vaccination is such that it triggers your body to be reactive or responsive to many different diseases,” Smith said. “… And if that is true, and if one of those antigens that it’s responsive to is COVID, it could be that your immune system is already on alert … to COVID.”
Malani calls the theory “intriguing,” but says it’s not proven. The BCG vaccine is thought to wear off after about 10 years, which would mean that many children would be protected, but that young adults might no longer be.
In short, Malani says, more research needs to be undertaken regarding the effectiveness of the BCG vaccine against COVID-19.
Across countries and cultures, there are variances in the kinds and amounts of viruses people are exposed to at a young age, which correspondingly lead to varied immune systems.
It’s possible that much of the population of India already has antibodies in their immune systems to fight COVID-19 due to exposure to other viruses and bacteria that those in China or the Western world might not have been exposed to. Malani says that’s a plausible explanation, but again, more research would need to be done before any conclusions could be drawn.
Some also think that India’s stringent lockdown measure kept the virus from spreading rampantly across the nation. As India begins to lift stay-at-home orders in the coming weeks, Malani said, “it is not obvious to me that, in fact, India will just be fine or that it’s going to be a disaster.”
Smith also said we can’t dismiss the possibility “there could still be a dramatic increase in COVID cases and deaths in the weeks ahead, and things could get out of control very quickly in a country like India.”
Editor’s note: This article’s description of the BCG vaccine has been corrected.


dailysignal--2020-05-16--Failures of an Influential COVID-19 Model Used to Justify Lockdowns

Professor Neil Ferguson , who led the COVID-19 modeling team at Imperial College in London , resigned May 5 from his government advisory role after breaking the very same British lockdown rules that he had a role in influencing .
Ferguson led the Imperial College team that designed the computer model that , among others , had been used to justify the recent stay-at-home orders in England as well as in the United States .
We now know the model was so highly flawed it never should have been relied upon for policy decisions to begin with .
Epidemiology—the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of disease—frequently calls upon models to forecast potential outcomes of diseases .
Not surprisingly , once COVID-19 became a pandemic , policy experts from all across the world began relying on such models .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together to figure that out .
Learn more here .
The Imperial College researchers ran one such model they had used in prior research and forecast a number of potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more than 500,000 people in Great Britain and 2 million people in the U.S. would die as a result of COVID-19 .
The model also predicted the United States could incur up to 1 million deaths even with “ enhanced social distancing ” guidelines , including “ shielding the elderly.
” Imperial ’ s modeling results influenced British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to impose a nationwide lockdown and influenced the White House as well .
I asked Ferguson and his colleagues for their model on multiple occasions to see how they got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my emails .
According to Nature , they had been “ working with Microsoft to tidy up the code and make it available.
” I also asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the codes it used to develop its COVID-19 forecasts , but got no response .
> > > Listen to Kevin Dayaratna explain the failures of COVID-19 models in this episode of “ The Heartland Daily Podcast ” : So , my colleague Norbert Michel and I decided to take a publicly available COVID-19 epidemiological model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease under a variety of plausible scenarios .
The results varied , depending on the assumptions we made about mortality rates within hospital intensive care units , asymptomatic rates , and the specification of the R0 ( pronounced R-naught ) value , which measures how easily the virus spreads .
We found mortality rate predictions can be quite variable depending on the age and comorbidities of those contracting the virus .
Under varying assumptions regarding a mortality rate in intensive care units between 5 % and 30 % , we found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range from near 78,000 deaths to as many as 810,000 deaths in the U.S. by Aug. 1 .
Recent testing data indicates that the asymptomatic rate for COVID-19 is likely not trivial , and data from Iceland indicates this rate can be as high as 50 % .
Assuming an asymptomatic rate ranging from 15 % to 55 % , one can project deaths in the U.S. of between 118,000 and 394,000 by Aug. 1 .
Lastly , we looked at the model ’ s assumption about the virus ’ basic reproductive number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2011 movie “ Contagion , ” the R0 value quantifies the average number of people who will get the virus from someone who is an infected .
Under assumptions of the R0 value ranging from 1.5 to 3.5—plausible estimates based on medical research as discussed in our paper—the model predicted from 44,000 dead to 1.1 million dead by Aug. 1 in the U.S .
According to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker , we are currently over 83,000 deaths , which exceeds our lower-end estimates .
But the point our research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce many plausible scenarios , depending on reasonable assumptions .
As we learn more about the new coronavirus , it is imperative to continue to update the assumptions used in these models .
After we had published our work , news surfaced that Microsoft had actually made some headway in making the Imperial College team ’ s model available .
But the codes it released are a highly modified version of what the Imperial team actually used .
And , it turns out , the model has serious flaws , which a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his blog .
The Imperial College code provides different answers using the same inputs .
In particular , the same assumptions can provide results that differ by 80,000 deaths over a span of 80 days .
The software engineer has noted there are apparently myriad other problems as well—including undocumented codes and numerous bugs .
This isn ’ t the first time bad models have made their way into policy .
As we discussed in our work , statistical models can be useful tools for guiding policy , but they are only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are based .
It is fundamentally important for models used in policy to be made publicly available , have assumptions clearly stated , and have their robustness to changes to these assumptions tested .
Models also need to be updated as time goes on in line with the best available evidence .
Bottom line : The Imperial College model didn ’ t meet any of these criteria .
And sadly , its model was one of the inputs relied on as the basis for locking down two countries .
The codes we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
Our assumptions are clearly stated in our paper here .

Professor Neil Ferguson, who led the COVID-19 modeling team at Imperial College in London, resigned May 5 from his government advisory role after breaking the very same British lockdown rules that he had a role in influencing.
Ferguson led the Imperial College team that designed the computer model that, among others, had been used to justify the recent stay-at-home orders in England as well as in the United States. We now know the model was so highly flawed it never should have been relied upon for policy decisions to begin with.
Epidemiology—the study of the incidence, prevalence, and impact of disease—frequently calls upon models to forecast potential outcomes of diseases. Not surprisingly, once COVID-19 became a pandemic, policy experts from all across the world began relying on such models.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
The Imperial College researchers ran one such model they had used in prior research and forecast a number of potential outcomes, including that, by October, more than 500,000 people in Great Britain and 2 million people in the U.S. would die as a result of COVID-19.
The model also predicted the United States could incur up to 1 million deaths even with “enhanced social distancing” guidelines, including “shielding the elderly.” Imperial’s modeling results influenced British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to impose a nationwide lockdown and influenced the White House as well.
I asked Ferguson and his colleagues for their model on multiple occasions to see how they got their numbers, but they never replied to my emails.
According to Nature, they had been “working with Microsoft to tidy up the code and make it available.” I also asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the codes it used to develop its COVID-19 forecasts, but got no response.
>>> Listen to Kevin Dayaratna explain the failures of COVID-19 models in this episode of “The Heartland Daily Podcast”:
So, my colleague Norbert Michel and I decided to take a publicly available COVID-19 epidemiological model and forecast the prevalence and mortality of the disease under a variety of plausible scenarios.
The results varied, depending on the assumptions we made about mortality rates within hospital intensive care units, asymptomatic rates, and the specification of the R0 (pronounced R-naught) value, which measures how easily the virus spreads.
We found mortality rate predictions can be quite variable depending on the age and comorbidities of those contracting the virus.
Under varying assumptions regarding a mortality rate in intensive care units between 5% and 30%, we found that predicted mortality because of the disease could range from near 78,000 deaths to as many as 810,000 deaths in the U.S. by Aug. 1.
Recent testing data indicates that the asymptomatic rate for COVID-19 is likely not trivial, and data from Iceland indicates this rate can be as high as 50%. Assuming an asymptomatic rate ranging from 15% to 55%, one can project deaths in the U.S. of between 118,000 and 394,000 by Aug. 1.
Lastly, we looked at the model’s assumption about the virus’ basic reproductive number, the aforementioned R0 value. Popularized in the 2011 movie “Contagion,” the R0 value quantifies the average number of people who will get the virus from someone who is an infected.
Under assumptions of the R0 value ranging from 1.5 to 3.5—plausible estimates based on medical research as discussed in our paper—the model predicted from 44,000 dead to 1.1 million dead by Aug. 1 in the U.S.
According to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker, we are currently over 83,000 deaths, which exceeds our lower-end estimates. But the point our research made is that these types of models produce many plausible scenarios, depending on reasonable assumptions.
As we learn more about the new coronavirus, it is imperative to continue to update the assumptions used in these models.
After we had published our work, news surfaced that Microsoft had actually made some headway in making the Imperial College team’s model available. But the codes it released are a highly modified version of what the Imperial team actually used.
And, it turns out, the model has serious flaws, which a former software engineer from Google discusses at length in his blog.
The Imperial College code provides different answers using the same inputs. In particular, the same assumptions can provide results that differ by 80,000 deaths over a span of 80 days. The software engineer has noted there are apparently myriad other problems as well—including undocumented codes and numerous bugs.
This isn’t the first time bad models have made their way into policy. As we discussed in our work, statistical models can be useful tools for guiding policy, but they are only as credible as the assumptions on which they are based.
It is fundamentally important for models used in policy to be made publicly available, have assumptions clearly stated, and have their robustness to changes to these assumptions tested. Models also need to be updated as time goes on in line with the best available evidence.
Bottom line: The Imperial College model didn’t meet any of these criteria. And sadly, its model was one of the inputs relied on as the basis for locking down two countries.
The codes we used at The Heritage Foundation are available here. Our assumptions are clearly stated in our paper here.