dailysignal--2020-05-15--‘Operation Warp Speed’ Seeks COVID-19 Vaccine by January

President Donald Trump on Friday announced “ Operation Warp Speed , ” an initiative to accelerate development of a vaccine for the coronavirus by January .
The program is a joint venture by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department , Trump said .
To lead the effort to find a vaccine against COVID-19 , Trump tapped Dr. Moncef Slaoui , an immunologist and former pharmaceutical executive at GlaxoSmithKline who helped create 14 new vaccines , and Gen. Gustave Perna , the four-star commander of Army Materiel Command .
“ I have very recently seen early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus vaccine , and this data made me feel even more confident that we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020 , and we will do the best we can to do that , ” Slaoui said .
“ We will of course also focus on progressing and accelerating the development of medicines for those who unfortunately already caught the virus , as well as optimize the diagnostic tests , ” he said .
Trump administration officials previously suggested it would take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , while critics of the administration insist it would take longer .
Several officials at the press conference wore face masks , including Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , and Dr. Deborah Birx , response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force .
Trump said he left it up to individuals whether they wished to wear a mask at such events .
Operation Warp Speed , the president said , “ means big and it means fast.
” “ A massive scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any our country has seen since the Manhattan Project , ” Trump called it , referring to the U.S. project that developed the atomic bomb during World War II .
“ Its objective is to finish developing and then to manufacture and distribute approved coronavirus vaccine as fast as possible , ” Trump said .
“ Again , we ’ d love to see if we can do it prior to the end of the year.
” Trump added that the project “ will bring together the best of American industry and innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States government , and the excellence and precision of the United States military.
” Perna also expressed optimism that teaming Pentagon and Health and Human Services experts could get results .
“ One of the great advantages that we have as the military is the ability to do logistical and sustainment operations afar , ” Perna said .
“ We are just going to apply those capabilities to this mission .
This mission is about defeating the enemy .
We will defeat the enemy .
Why ?
Because winning matters.
” Health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting a goal of achieving a vaccine by January “ will be one of the great scientific and humanitarian accomplishments in human history.
” Trump said researchers have looked at more than 100 vaccine candidates , identified 14 they believe are the most promising , and are working to narrow the candidates further .
The Food and Drug Administration will expedit approval by being engaged in the development and manufacturing stages , he said .
Trump said he hopes the vaccine is manufactured in the United States , but that the U.S. is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine .
“ We have no ego when it comes to this , no ego whatsoever , ” the president said .
Trump , however , seemed to concede there is a chance that Operation Warp Speed won ’ t be successful as quickly as officials hope :

President Donald Trump on Friday announced “Operation Warp Speed,” an initiative to accelerate development of a vaccine for the coronavirus by January.
The program is a joint venture by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department, Trump said.
To lead the effort to find a vaccine against COVID-19, Trump tapped Dr. Moncef Slaoui, an immunologist and former pharmaceutical executive at GlaxoSmithKline who helped create 14 new vaccines, and Gen. Gustave Perna, the four-star commander of Army Materiel Command.
“I have very recently seen early data from a clinical trial with a coronavirus vaccine, and this data made me feel even more confident that we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020, and we will do the best we can to do that,” Slaoui said.
“We will of course also focus on progressing and accelerating the development of medicines for those who unfortunately already caught the virus, as well as optimize the diagnostic tests,” he said.
Trump administration officials previously suggested it would take a year to 18 months to develop a vaccine, while critics of the administration insist it would take longer.
Several officials at the press conference wore face masks, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Deborah Birx, response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force.
Trump said he left it up to individuals whether they wished to wear a mask at such events.
Operation Warp Speed, the president said, “means big and it means fast.”
“A massive scientific, industrial, and logistical endeavor unlike any our country has seen since the Manhattan Project,” Trump called it, referring to the U.S. project that developed the atomic bomb during World War II.
“Its objective is to finish developing and then to manufacture and distribute approved coronavirus vaccine as fast as possible,” Trump said. “Again, we’d love to see if we can do it prior to the end of the year.”
Trump added that the project “will bring together the best of American industry and innovation, the full resources of the United States government, and the excellence and precision of the United States military.”
Perna also expressed optimism that teaming Pentagon and Health and Human Services experts could get results.
“One of the great advantages that we have as the military is the ability to do logistical and sustainment operations afar,” Perna said. “We are just going to apply those capabilities to this mission. This mission is about defeating the enemy. We will defeat the enemy. Why? Because winning matters.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said that setting a goal of achieving a vaccine by January “will be one of the great scientific and humanitarian accomplishments in human history.”
Trump said researchers have looked at more than 100 vaccine candidates, identified 14 they believe are the most promising, and are working to narrow the candidates further.
The Food and Drug Administration will expedit approval by being engaged in the development and manufacturing stages, he said.
Trump said he hopes the vaccine is manufactured in the United States, but that the U.S. is partnering with other countries and will share the vaccine.
“We have no ego when it comes to this, no ego whatsoever,” the president said.
Trump, however, seemed to concede there is a chance that Operation Warp Speed won’t be successful as quickly as officials hope:


dailysignal--2020-05-15--The Intolerant, Ingrate Left Wants Christians to Stop Helping COVID-19 Victims

Just as soon as the Christian organization Samaritan ’ s Purse came to the aid of overwhelmed New York City officials and sick residents struggling to combat the effects of COVID-19 , New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson decided the diverse , “ tolerant , ” progressive city had enough of its assistance , due to its Christian foundation , and effectively kicked the charity out .
While it ’ s usually Christians who are scolded for their so-called intolerant beliefs that are rooted in centuries-old religious traditions , here it seems like it ’ s progressives who aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embracing views that are different than theirs—even if those very views inform their acts of charity and medical care .
Samaritan ’ s Purse is , of course , a renowned Christian relief organization that focuses mostly on offering medical aid in times of crises , setting up emergency field hospitals in disease-ridden , war-torn , or terrorist-ravaged hot spots around the world .
> > > When can America reopen ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , is gathering America ’ s top thinkers together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
It has gone everywhere from the Bahamas to Mozambique to Iraq and has treated everything from injuries caused by ISIS to Ebola .
Now , it ’ s helping COVID-19 patients and public officials in New York and Italy .
When COVID-19 began to overwhelm New York City just a few weeks ago—at the peak of what we now think was the frightening “ curve ” of the outbreak—Samaritan ’ s Purse arrived , built a giant tent hospital in Central Park with the full knowledge and cooperation of the nearby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and went to work .
Here ’ s what Samaritan ’ s Purse accomplished , according to its website : We operated our respiratory care unit in Central Park from April 1 to May 5 .
Through our partnership with the Mount Sinai Health System , we treated more than 300 coronavirus patients in New York , including 190 at the park site .
More than 240 relief specialists served at various times on the Disaster Assistance Response Team there .
We ran a similar medical facility outside of Milan , Italy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 7 .
The 14-tent unit was set up adjacent to the Cremona Hospital in order to treat an overflow of coronavirus patients .
Our DC-8 aircraft made two airlifts to Italy in order to deliver the hospital , 20 tons of supplies , and a large Disaster Assistance Response Team .
Those efforts sound not only peaceful and benign , but also quite remarkable .
Not so , according to a number of New York City officials , who started a culture war where there wasn ’ t even a battle—except for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
According to a May 4 New York Post column , “ Four local Democratic members of Congress—Reps .
Jerry Nadler , Carolyn Maloney , Adriano Espaillat , and [ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ] —sent a letter to Mount Sinai expressing their ‘ concern ’ about the group ’ s efforts and demanding to know how it had received permission to operate in Central Park.
” Combine that with Johnson ’ s tweets and you have yourself a culture war coup d ’ etat .
Johnson specifically called out the organization ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusive and hateful : Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion , and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community .
… The @ NYCCouncil is committed to supporting [ health care workers ] and protecting our city ’ s public health .
But as a city that values diversity and compassion for all , we can ’ t continue allowing a group with their track record to remain here when we ’ re past the point they ’ re needed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Samaritan ’ s Purse .
Its leader calls the LGBTQ community ‘ detestable ’ and ‘ immoral.
’ He says being gay is ‘ an affront to God , ’ and refers to gay Christians as ‘ the enemy.
’ … Johnson concluded his tweetstorm : “ Hate has no place in our beautiful city.
” Samaritan ’ s Purse did indeed leave a few days later , although it ’ s unclear whether those tweets motivated it or whether it had already planned to leave New York City on May 5 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Purse is a bigoted , hateful organization because it espouses traditional Christian beliefs—specifically , that marriage is between a man and a woman—is not a new lens through which the left views Christians , though that doesn ’ t make it accurate .
Even before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015 , that was the premise of virtually every LGBTQ group , the plaintiff in that 2015 court case , the ACLU , and many others .
Since when is it “ bigotry ” to hold sincere religious beliefs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ community claims to advocate tolerance and inclusion , but it is inviting and welcoming only when everyone believes what it does , even when , as we saw here , the issue at stake—medical care in a crisis—has nothing to do with political ideology .
There ’ s no evidence that Samaritan ’ s Purse came to New York City to condemn gay marriage or even to spread the Gospel .
From the sound of it , Samaritan ’ s Purse pitched its tent , gave medical care to patients suffering with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or perhaps when its presence became controversial , it left .
There is still a cultural divide between Christians and LGBTQ groups and their supporters .
That ’ s unfortunate .
I know many Christians who grieve over that and desire harmony with everyone without compromising their beliefs .
I ’ m sure many in the LGBTQ community do as well .
It ’ s possible that divide may always exist , but I wish that Christians could maintain their beliefs and still extend courtesy and grace , and that people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be as inclusive and tolerant as they claim to be toward Christians trying to help them .

Just as soon as the Christian organization Samaritan’s Purse came to the aid of overwhelmed New York City officials and sick residents struggling to combat the effects of COVID-19, New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson decided the diverse, “tolerant,” progressive city had enough of its assistance, due to its Christian foundation, and effectively kicked the charity out.
My statement on Samaritan's Purse:
It is time for Samaritan's Purse to leave NYC. This group, led by the notoriously bigoted, hate-spewing Franklin Graham, came at a time when our city couldn't in good conscience turn away any offer of help. That time has passed. 1/ — NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson (@NYCSpeakerCoJo) May 1, 2020
While it’s usually Christians who are scolded for their so-called intolerant beliefs that are rooted in centuries-old religious traditions, here it seems like it’s progressives who aren’t so tolerant of other people embracing views that are different than theirs—even if those very views inform their acts of charity and medical care.
Samaritan’s Purse is, of course, a renowned Christian relief organization that focuses mostly on offering medical aid in times of crises, setting up emergency field hospitals in disease-ridden, war-torn, or terrorist-ravaged hot spots around the world.
>>> 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.
It has gone everywhere from the Bahamas to Mozambique to Iraq and has treated everything from injuries caused by ISIS to Ebola. Now, it’s helping COVID-19 patients and public officials in New York and Italy.
When COVID-19 began to overwhelm New York City just a few weeks ago—at the peak of what we now think was the frightening “curve” of the outbreak—Samaritan’s Purse arrived, built a giant tent hospital in Central Park with the full knowledge and cooperation of the nearby highly acclaimed Mount Sinai Health System, and went to work.
Here’s what Samaritan’s Purse accomplished, according to its website:
We operated our respiratory care unit in Central Park from April 1 to May 5. Through our partnership with the Mount Sinai Health System, we treated more than 300 coronavirus patients in New York, including 190 at the park site. More than 240 relief specialists served at various times on the Disaster Assistance Response Team there. We ran a similar medical facility outside of Milan, Italy, that opened on March 20 and closed May 7. The 14-tent unit was set up adjacent to the Cremona Hospital in order to treat an overflow of coronavirus patients. Our DC-8 aircraft made two airlifts to Italy in order to deliver the hospital, 20 tons of supplies, and a large Disaster Assistance Response Team.
Those efforts sound not only peaceful and benign, but also quite remarkable. Not so, according to a number of New York City officials, who started a culture war where there wasn’t even a battle—except for those fighting for their lives due to COVID-19.
According to a May 4 New York Post column, “Four local Democratic members of Congress—Reps. Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Adriano Espaillat, and [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]—sent a letter to Mount Sinai expressing their ‘concern’ about the group’s efforts and demanding to know how it had received permission to operate in Central Park.”
Combine that with Johnson’s tweets and you have yourself a culture war coup d’etat.
Johnson specifically called out the organization’s religious views, tweeting they were too exclusive and hateful:
Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community. … The @NYCCouncil is committed to supporting [health care workers] and protecting our city’s public health. But as a city that values diversity and compassion for all, we can’t continue allowing a group with their track record to remain here when we’re past the point they’re needed. Mount Sinai must sever its relationship with Samaritan’s Purse. Its leader calls the LGBTQ community ‘detestable’ and ‘immoral.’ He says being gay is ‘an affront to God,’ and refers to gay Christians as ‘the enemy.’ …
Johnson concluded his tweetstorm: “Hate has no place in our beautiful city.”
Samaritan’s Purse did indeed leave a few days later, although it’s unclear whether those tweets motivated it or whether it had already planned to leave New York City on May 5.
Johnson’s interpretation that Samaritan’s Purse is a bigoted, hateful organization because it espouses traditional Christian beliefs—specifically, that marriage is between a man and a woman—is not a new lens through which the left views Christians, though that doesn’t make it accurate.
Even before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015, that was the premise of virtually every LGBTQ group, the plaintiff in that 2015 court case, the ACLU, and many others.
Since when is it “bigotry” to hold sincere religious beliefs that people have practiced for centuries?
The LGBTQ community claims to advocate tolerance and inclusion, but it is inviting and welcoming only when everyone believes what it does, even when, as we saw here, the issue at stake—medical care in a crisis—has nothing to do with political ideology.
There’s no evidence that Samaritan’s Purse came to New York City to condemn gay marriage or even to spread the Gospel. From the sound of it, Samaritan’s Purse pitched its tent, gave medical care to patients suffering with COVID-19, and after a few weeks, or perhaps when its presence became controversial, it left.
There is still a cultural divide between Christians and LGBTQ groups and their supporters. That’s unfortunate.
I know many Christians who grieve over that and desire harmony with everyone without compromising their beliefs. I’m sure many in the LGBTQ community do as well.
It’s possible that divide may always exist, but I wish that Christians could maintain their beliefs and still extend courtesy and grace, and that people like the New York City Council speaker would be as inclusive and tolerant as they claim to be toward Christians trying to help them.


dailysignal--2020-06-23--Media Itching for Second Wave of COVID-19

The news media is churning out countless alarmist stories each day about the threat of COVID-19 and the dangers of societal reopening .
“ Risk of new lockdown rises with fear of second COVID-19 wave , ” writes Reuters , as one example of the genre .
These stories generally incite , rather than inform .
They cherry-pick facts and lack context .
Only when the coronavirus picture is viewed in perspective are people able to make wise decisions about their actions .
It should be safe for society to continue broadly reopening while directing resources to specific at-risk populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are more vulnerable .
The media has focused on increasing numbers of positive tests and hospitalizations in parts of the country to imply reopening is reckless .
“ Confirmed coronavirus cases have risen by double-digit percentages in 16 U.S. states that have gradually loosened restrictions since Memorial Day , ” says MarketWatch .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Yet this perspective omits several essential facts .
First , testing capacity has dramatically increased .
The U.S. has tested 3.4 million people over the last week—about 40 % more than the weekly numbers one month ago .
It ’ s no surprise that positive cases have increased in some areas along with testing , especially since numerous antibody studies suggest that the disease is far more widespread than initially thought .
We are witnessing a new infectious disease , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be expected .
In a country as vast and varied as the U.S. , there will likely be COVID-19 hot spots somewhere .
Yet focusing on these in national news gives the impression that the country , or even individual states , are in far more danger than in reality .
Even with a significant increase in testing , the number of new positive tests nationally has remained flattened as society has reopened .
Topline case counts overlook where outbreaks are occurring .
Nearly half of COVID-19 deaths have occurred in nursing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portion of Arizona cases has occurred on Indian reservations .
We ’ d prefer that at-risk populations didn ’ t bear the brunt of this disease , but these vulnerable groups tell us nothing about the relative safety of reopening Main Street .
By lacking this context in their stories , the media is distorting with statistics .
Numerous news outlets are featuring rising COVID-19 hospitalizations in some states to indicate a second wave .
Admittedly , hospital admissions are a more objective measure of disease severity than positive tests .
Often left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are falling in most states .
Wouldn ’ t it be more helpful to cite these statistics in context ?
Even in the states with rising hospitalizations , media stories about percentage increases often exaggerate the threat when increases occur from low baseline figures .
For instance , numerous stories highlight how Arkansas ’ COVID-19 hospital admissions have increased by 121 % since Memorial Day .
Sounds bad , until you look at the raw numbers , which reveal that this increase only amounts to 111 patients .
Likely for political reasons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading edge of a second wave .
“ Floridians flattened the COVID curve .
Then , amid upbeat talk , the numbers began to rise , ” reads a Miami Herald headline .
Yet the data shows that new positive cases in Florida have tracked the increase in testing .
Over the last month , hospitalizations have increased by about 50 % , or just over 4,300 patients ( in a state of 22 million people ) .
The number of daily COVID-19 deaths in the state has fallen considerably , by about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven-day rolling average .
This rise and fall in cases , hospitalizations , and deaths is precisely what one expects with a new infectious disease as we learn more and adjust .
It ’ s part of “ the dance ” that we all knew was coming after the curve was flattened .
It shouldn ’ t be used to justify pausing societal reopening , so long as appropriate precautions are encouraged and taken .
Reopening remains a success , with the positive case rate flattened , hospitalizations falling in most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the positive story that the media should tell .
Even if it won ’ t get as many clicks .

The news media is churning out countless alarmist stories each day about the threat of COVID-19 and the dangers of societal reopening. “Risk of new lockdown rises with fear of second COVID-19 wave,” writes Reuters, as one example of the genre.
These stories generally incite, rather than inform. They cherry-pick facts and lack context. Only when the coronavirus picture is viewed in perspective are people able to make wise decisions about their actions. It should be safe for society to continue broadly reopening while directing resources to specific at-risk populations, such as nursing homes and prisons, which are more vulnerable.
The media has focused on increasing numbers of positive tests and hospitalizations in parts of the country to imply reopening is reckless. “Confirmed coronavirus cases have risen by double-digit percentages in 16 U.S. states that have gradually loosened restrictions since Memorial Day,” says MarketWatch.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Yet this perspective omits several essential facts.
First, testing capacity has dramatically increased. The U.S. has tested 3.4 million people over the last week—about 40% more than the weekly numbers one month ago. It’s no surprise that positive cases have increased in some areas along with testing, especially since numerous antibody studies suggest that the disease is far more widespread than initially thought.
We are witnessing a new infectious disease, and these case count ebbs and flows are to be expected.
In a country as vast and varied as the U.S., there will likely be COVID-19 hot spots somewhere. Yet focusing on these in national news gives the impression that the country, or even individual states, are in far more danger than in reality.
Even with a significant increase in testing, the number of new positive tests nationally has remained flattened as society has reopened.
Topline case counts overlook where outbreaks are occurring. Nearly half of COVID-19 deaths have occurred in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. A sizable portion of Arizona cases has occurred on Indian reservations.
We’d prefer that at-risk populations didn’t bear the brunt of this disease, but these vulnerable groups tell us nothing about the relative safety of reopening Main Street. By lacking this context in their stories, the media is distorting with statistics.
Numerous news outlets are featuring rising COVID-19 hospitalizations in some states to indicate a second wave. Admittedly, hospital admissions are a more objective measure of disease severity than positive tests.
Often left unsaid, however, is that hospitalizations are falling in most states. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to cite these statistics in context?
Even in the states with rising hospitalizations, media stories about percentage increases often exaggerate the threat when increases occur from low baseline figures.
For instance, numerous stories highlight how Arkansas’ COVID-19 hospital admissions have increased by 121% since Memorial Day. Sounds bad, until you look at the raw numbers, which reveal that this increase only amounts to 111 patients.
Likely for political reasons, the media has identified Florida as the leading edge of a second wave. “Floridians flattened the COVID curve. Then, amid upbeat talk, the numbers began to rise,” reads a Miami Herald headline.
Yet the data shows that new positive cases in Florida have tracked the increase in testing. Over the last month, hospitalizations have increased by about 50%, or just over 4,300 patients (in a state of 22 million people). The number of daily COVID-19 deaths in the state has fallen considerably, by about one-third from May 10, using a seven-day rolling average.
This rise and fall in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is precisely what one expects with a new infectious disease as we learn more and adjust. It’s part of “the dance” that we all knew was coming after the curve was flattened. It shouldn’t be used to justify pausing societal reopening, so long as appropriate precautions are encouraged and taken.
Reopening remains a success, with the positive case rate flattened, hospitalizations falling in most of the country, and deaths significantly reduced.
That’s the positive story that the media should tell. Even if it won’t get as many clicks.
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-06-23--Using Face Masks Is Still a Good Idea. Mandating Them Isn’t.

As the country attempts to reopen amid the continuing COVID-19 pandemic , one easy way we can help reduce the spread of the disease is using face masks .
But policymakers—such as those in California and in some cities—are exactly wrong to mandate them .
Policymakers and public health officials should encourage the use of masks , but should absolutely avoid mandating them .
Mandating mask use could turn this lightweight solution into yet another onerous burden on the American people during the pandemic response .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
A broad , untargeted mandate , and its requisite enforcement , will end up punishing Americans for violations of a public health measure in many situations that have zero public health implications .
It ’ s important here to distinguish government from private businesses , which are well within their rights to implement mask requirements to patronize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s prudent to do so in businesses that require prolonged close contact , such as salons or retail stores .
One of the major missteps in the early pandemic response was public health messaging that stated that face masks were not effective in preventing disease , and the general public was encouraged not to purchase surgical masks for themselves .
No less than Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that this early messaging was meant not to protect the public , but rather to preserve the supply of masks for health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provider access to protective equipment is laudable , but Americans from the start should have been trusted with clear , concise , and transparent information and messaging , and trusted to act accordingly .
That ’ s the only way to build trust and cooperation with the public , especially on such a simple measure as wearing a face mask .
That said , as a doctor , I encourage Americans not to dismiss using face masks .
Increased testing throughout the country has shown that , even after a month or more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of new cases still occur daily .
Because of how fast the disease spreads , preventing its transmission requires a multitude of measures .
But they need to be appropriate and balanced .
The time is over for harsh measures—such as stay-at-home orders , which forbade most Americans from going to work , from attending church services , from going to bars and restaurants , and from otherwise participating in normal activities that make us feel like normal human beings .
Those measures were enacted to stanch the exponential spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy-handed nature were never realistic long-term solutions .
A much less burdensome solution , then , is necessary to continue fighting the virus while resuming some parts of normal daily life .
The use of face masks is a solution that has very low cost and a light imposition on the lives of individual Americans .
Even if they aren ’ t showing symptoms , masks will let more Americans go out and resume more normal lives .
We know that masks are an easy way of reducing transmission of COVID-19 in confined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little effect in outdoor open spaces .
For instance , their use is not necessary in areas with little close contact , such as driving alone in your car or walking on an uncrowded biking trail .
Americans should want to choose to wear them—at the right time and in the right places—because they will help us interact in safer ways with vulnerable people at high risk of dying from the disease ( e.g.
, the elderly and those with certain underlying medical conditions ) .
So , for example , wearing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help our grandparents be—and feel—safe going out in public .
COVID-19 spreads by breathing out , and—based on the best information we have now—putting a physical barrier of any sort in the path of a person ’ s respiratory expulsion limits the travel and spread of that expulsion .
That ’ s the reason surgeons wear masks during procedures .
It ’ s not to protect the mask-wearing surgeon , but to protect the patient from the surgeon ’ s respiratory particles .
Of course , if you ’ re sick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regular cloth masks , and even surgical masks , do not stop transmission of the disease .
We also need to be clear-eyed about the reliability and limitations of this information .
Current evidence with regard to face masks and COVID-19 is largely sparse , and guidance to wear masks is based on clinical experience and data from prior experiments with similar viruses .
That doesn ’ t mean we should to wait to wear masks until we have hard evidence in a randomized , controlled trial .
That would throw out commonsense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impede the public health effort to prevent the spread of disease .
At the same time , it also means policymakers must have great humility with regard to mask-wearing policies .
The restrictive lockdown measures were a heavy burden on the American people , and policymakers must not turn mask-wearing into a similarly heavy burden with mandates and enforcement .
The mask-wearing mandates are already resulting in reflexive defiance and can further undermine the already tenuous and increasingly shaky trust that public health officials hold with the public .
Masks right now appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure in the fight against COVID-19 .
Everyone should consider that , but lawmakers must not ruin it .

As the country attempts to reopen amid the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, one easy way we can help reduce the spread of the disease is using face masks. But policymakers—such as those in California and in some cities—are exactly wrong to mandate them.
Policymakers and public health officials should encourage the use of masks, but should absolutely avoid mandating them.
Mandating mask use could turn this lightweight solution into yet another onerous burden on the American people during the pandemic response.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
A broad, untargeted mandate, and its requisite enforcement, will end up punishing Americans for violations of a public health measure in many situations that have zero public health implications.
It’s important here to distinguish government from private businesses, which are well within their rights to implement mask requirements to patronize their shops and stores. In fact, it’s prudent to do so in businesses that require prolonged close contact, such as salons or retail stores.
One of the major missteps in the early pandemic response was public health messaging that stated that face masks were not effective in preventing disease, and the general public was encouraged not to purchase surgical masks for themselves.
No less than Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that this early messaging was meant not to protect the public, but rather to preserve the supply of masks for health care providers.
That goal of ensuring provider access to protective equipment is laudable, but Americans from the start should have been trusted with clear, concise, and transparent information and messaging, and trusted to act accordingly.
That’s the only way to build trust and cooperation with the public, especially on such a simple measure as wearing a face mask.
That said, as a doctor, I encourage Americans not to dismiss using face masks. Increased testing throughout the country has shown that, even after a month or more of multiple statewide lockdown orders, tens of thousands of new cases still occur daily.
Because of how fast the disease spreads, preventing its transmission requires a multitude of measures. But they need to be appropriate and balanced.
The time is over for harsh measures—such as stay-at-home orders, which forbade most Americans from going to work, from attending church services, from going to bars and restaurants, and from otherwise participating in normal activities that make us feel like normal human beings.
Those measures were enacted to stanch the exponential spread of the virus, but because of their heavy-handed nature were never realistic long-term solutions.
A much less burdensome solution, then, is necessary to continue fighting the virus while resuming some parts of normal daily life. The use of face masks is a solution that has very low cost and a light imposition on the lives of individual Americans.
Even if they aren’t showing symptoms, masks will let more Americans go out and resume more normal lives. We know that masks are an easy way of reducing transmission of COVID-19 in confined or indoor spaces, but otherwise have little effect in outdoor open spaces.
For instance, their use is not necessary in areas with little close contact, such as driving alone in your car or walking on an uncrowded biking trail.
Americans should want to choose to wear them—at the right time and in the right places—because they will help us interact in safer ways with vulnerable people at high risk of dying from the disease (e.g., the elderly and those with certain underlying medical conditions).
So, for example, wearing a mask means that we are taking steps to help our grandparents be—and feel—safe going out in public.
COVID-19 spreads by breathing out, and—based on the best information we have now—putting a physical barrier of any sort in the path of a person’s respiratory expulsion limits the travel and spread of that expulsion.
That’s the reason surgeons wear masks during procedures. It’s not to protect the mask-wearing surgeon, but to protect the patient from the surgeon’s respiratory particles.
Of course, if you’re sick, you still need to stay home. Regular cloth masks, and even surgical masks, do not stop transmission of the disease.
We also need to be clear-eyed about the reliability and limitations of this information. Current evidence with regard to face masks and COVID-19 is largely sparse, and guidance to wear masks is based on clinical experience and data from prior experiments with similar viruses.
That doesn’t mean we should to wait to wear masks until we have hard evidence in a randomized, controlled trial. That would throw out commonsense in pursuit of evidence-based policy and needlessly impede the public health effort to prevent the spread of disease.
At the same time, it also means policymakers must have great humility with regard to mask-wearing policies.
The restrictive lockdown measures were a heavy burden on the American people, and policymakers must not turn mask-wearing into a similarly heavy burden with mandates and enforcement. The mask-wearing mandates are already resulting in reflexive defiance and can further undermine the already tenuous and increasingly shaky trust that public health officials hold with the public.
Masks right now appear to be a highly effective, low-cost measure in the fight against COVID-19. Everyone should consider that, but lawmakers must not ruin it.


dailysignal--2020-06-24--Focusing Public Policy on Nursing Homes Could Cut COVID-19 Deaths by Half

Here ’ s a question for public policy : If you could cut the COVID-19 death rate in half , would you do it ?
Policymakers could do that , if they act accordingly by greatly increasing testing of both residents and staff at nursing homes and other extended care facilities , the hottest of hot spots for coronavirus deaths .
By now , the evidence is clear .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions : “ [ O ] lder adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
That risk is much higher than we first realized .
Even though nursing home and long-term care residents make up only 1 % of America ’ s total population , probably about 50 % of the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kerpen , an independent policy analyst , examined data collected from a number of state public health sources .
Using that nursing home data , he reported that 55.6 % of all COVID-19 deaths are nursing home residents .
( Some states have much higher percentages ; for example , Pennsylvania , 68.7 % ; Connecticut , 72.3 % ; Minnesota , 79.4 % ; and New Hampshire , 82.8 % . )
In any case , if 1 % of the population accounts for 50 % —or more—of America ’ s COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriately focused policies .
Specifically , nursing staff in nursing homes and long-term care facilities must wear masks and intensify their sanitation efforts .
Beyond that , we must do universal COVID-19 testing in long-term care facilities .
Testing should include not only residents , but also staff , at those facilities .
In my state of Georgia , as of mid-June , 74 % of residents and only 54 % of staff in long-term care facilities had been tested for COVID-19 .
( Georgia is typical , with 46.6 % of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with nearly 4 of every 5 COVID-19 deaths from nursing homes , deployed the Minnesota National Guard to perform testing across the state beginning May 14 .
In the May 20 edition of Skilled Nursing News , the American Health Care Association estimated that at $ 150 a test , the cost to universally test one time would be $ 440 million .
That would include 1.3 million residents and 1.6 million staffers .
If the CDC guidelines were followed , and staffers were tested weekly , the cost would be $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price .
Two steps are needed to make universal testing at nursing homes possible .
First , the cost per test needs to come down .
Numerous companies provide tests , so it ’ s a competitive market to encourage innovation and economies of scale .
By way of an example , a universal testing program for hepatitis C in Egypt , a country with one of the highest rates of it in the world , resulted in virtually eliminating the disease in the population , and the cost of each test was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of scale and competitive companies , William Haseltine , reporting in Forbes , suggested the United States could achieve similar cost reductions for COVID-19 tests .
Second , there is a legitimate federal role in helping state health authorities to cover the costs of the nursing home tests .
We need to fund appropriate nursing home testing to dramatically reduce the incidence and transmission of the virus among those most likely to die from it .
Although the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amount was based on the prior year ’ s Medicare reimbursement , rather than the number of residents and staff .
Federal assistance for nursing home programs should be allotted on COVID-19 testing needed for all payer groups—private insurance , Medicare , and state-funded Medicaid .
Federal officials also need to monitor state-level transactions supported with federal funds to ensure that the testing companies are transparent and that test pricing is competitive to ensure a reduction in testing costs .
My belief is that we could decrease COVID-19 deaths by 50 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat the most severe cases is encouraging .
We now must aggressively prevent those most likely to die from the coronavirus from ever getting it .
We could , if we only would .

Here’s a question for public policy: If you could cut the COVID-19 death rate in half, would you do it?
Policymakers could do that, if they act accordingly by greatly increasing testing of both residents and staff at nursing homes and other extended care facilities, the hottest of hot spots for coronavirus deaths.
By now, the evidence is clear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions: “[O]lder adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.”
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
That risk is much higher than we first realized. Even though nursing home and long-term care residents make up only 1% of America’s total population, probably about 50% of the COVID-19 deaths have occurred among them.
Phil Kerpen, an independent policy analyst, examined data collected from a number of state public health sources. Using that nursing home data, he reported that 55.6% of all COVID-19 deaths are nursing home residents. (Some states have much higher percentages; for example, Pennsylvania, 68.7%; Connecticut, 72.3%; Minnesota, 79.4%; and New Hampshire, 82.8%.)
In any case, if 1% of the population accounts for 50%—or more—of America’s COVID-19 deaths, the country needs to pursue appropriately focused policies.
Specifically, nursing staff in nursing homes and long-term care facilities must wear masks and intensify their sanitation efforts. Beyond that, we must do universal COVID-19 testing in long-term care facilities.
Testing should include not only residents, but also staff, at those facilities. In my state of Georgia, as of mid-June, 74% of residents and only 54% of staff in long-term care facilities had been tested for COVID-19. (Georgia is typical, with 46.6% of coronavirus deaths from nursing homes.)
Minnesota, with nearly 4 of every 5 COVID-19 deaths from nursing homes, deployed the Minnesota National Guard to perform testing across the state beginning May 14.
In the May 20 edition of Skilled Nursing News, the American Health Care Association estimated that at $150 a test, the cost to universally test one time would be $440 million. That would include 1.3 million residents and 1.6 million staffers.
If the CDC guidelines were followed, and staffers were tested weekly, the cost would be $243 million per week at the current price.
Two steps are needed to make universal testing at nursing homes possible.
First, the cost per test needs to come down. Numerous companies provide tests, so it’s a competitive market to encourage innovation and economies of scale.
By way of an example, a universal testing program for hepatitis C in Egypt, a country with one of the highest rates of it in the world, resulted in virtually eliminating the disease in the population, and the cost of each test was reduced to 50 cents.
With economies of scale and competitive companies, William Haseltine, reporting in Forbes, suggested the United States could achieve similar cost reductions for COVID-19 tests.
Second, there is a legitimate federal role in helping state health authorities to cover the costs of the nursing home tests. We need to fund appropriate nursing home testing to dramatically reduce the incidence and transmission of the virus among those most likely to die from it.
Although the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent relief funds to nursing homes, the amount was based on the prior year’s Medicare reimbursement, rather than the number of residents and staff.
Federal assistance for nursing home programs should be allotted on COVID-19 testing needed for all payer groups—private insurance, Medicare, and state-funded Medicaid. Federal officials also need to monitor state-level transactions supported with federal funds to ensure that the testing companies are transparent and that test pricing is competitive to ensure a reduction in testing costs.
My belief is that we could decrease COVID-19 deaths by 50%. New knowledge of how to effectively treat the most severe cases is encouraging. We now must aggressively prevent those most likely to die from the coronavirus from ever getting it. We could, if we only would.


dailysignal--2020-06-24--I’m an OB-GYN. Here’s Why I Support Requiring Hospital Admitting Privileges for Abortion Providers.

A decision is expected any day now from the U.S. Supreme Court in June Medical Services v. Russo .
The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a Louisiana law , Act 620 , that was passed in 2014 .
I testified in favor of it before the Louisiana legislature , and later , as an expert witness , took the stand to defend it when it was challenged in federal court .
The bill sailed through the state legislature ’ s health committee unopposed and was easily voted into law with virtually no opposition .
Since it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to merely hold doctors performing abortions to the same standards as other doctors , I was shocked that it eventually became such a contested law .
This women ’ s health bill was led by a woman .
It was written by a woman .
It even had overwhelming bipartisan support .
It made perfect sense to me as a doctor .
After all , every other doctor serving at outpatient surgical centers is required to have hospital-admitting privileges .
Why should doctors at abortion centers be held to a lesser standard ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied the same standard of care all other patients receive ?
Yet , a lot has been said about the law from both sides of the abortion debate .
Abortion advocacy groups claim it is just a move to close abortion clinics .
Pro-life groups claim it is about patient health and safety .
As a woman ’ s health physician ( obstetrician and gynecologist , or OB/GYN ) with more than 20 years of experience in the medical field , I have an opinion that is based both on extensive study of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firsthand experiences with female patients .
Over the years , I ’ ve worked at several different hospital emergency rooms in various U.S. states .
I ’ ve taken care of patients who presented with complications from induced surgical abortions .
In my assessment of patients , precious time was lost while attempting to contact the abortion provider or at least to obtain medical records that would have helped me to better care for this patient who presented to the emergency room .
Such patients would come in “ off the street , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not being transferred from another facility or from another doctor .
They were first evaluated by the triage nurses , then an ER doctor , and then I would be called , since the doctor who performed the abortion did not have admitting privileges .
With these patients , I was often disappointed to learn that there was no way to contact the doctor or to obtain pertinent medical records that would have provided critical information about what procedures had occurred or what medications were given .
Further compounding the problem , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details even as they understood them .
Knowledge of preceding medical or surgical interventions is essential for establishing a diagnosis as to the nature of the complication and how to treat it .
I have no doubt that more lives could be saved and many lifelong health complications avoided if such patients could have continuity of care from the doctor who originally performed the surgery .
Needless to say , this kind of routine patient abandonment is not tolerated in any other medical specialty .
Why only within the specialty purportedly dedicated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complications with outpatient surgical centers are relatively rare .
However , they do occur , and when they do , the physicians who performed the initial surgery are best prepared to handle their complications in a timely fashion .
Such required follow-up care often requires an emergency procedure and hospitalization .
They alone have the intimate knowledge of the patient ’ s unique medical history , and what particular complications may have occurred .
When time is of the essence , those factors can be lifesaving .
For that reason , transfer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the needs of the patient exceed the capabilities of the original doctor , or in those rare instances when the original doctor is entirely unavailable .
Even in those situations , a coordinated “ handoff ” of care—preferably via direct verbal communication between the two physicians about the patient ’ s situation—should always occur .
Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life , this case—June Medical Services v. Russo—should be of interest to you .
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice , Act 620 just makes sense .
My professional duty and allegiance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek what ’ s best for them .
Patients ’ safety is best served if their doctors provide continuity of care throughout the entirety of the procedure and during all needed follow-up care .
I hope the Supreme Court upholds this commonsense law on admitting privileges and thereby closes this loophole that exposes women to substandard care and patient abandonment .

A decision is expected any day now from the U.S. Supreme Court in June Medical Services v. Russo.
The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a Louisiana law, Act 620, that was passed in 2014. I testified in favor of it before the Louisiana legislature, and later, as an expert witness, took the stand to defend it when it was challenged in federal court.
The bill sailed through the state legislature’s health committee unopposed and was easily voted into law with virtually no opposition.
Since it was such a truly modest proposal, one to merely hold doctors performing abortions to the same standards as other doctors, I was shocked that it eventually became such a contested law.
This women’s health bill was led by a woman. It was written by a woman. It even had overwhelming bipartisan support.
It made perfect sense to me as a doctor. After all, every other doctor serving at outpatient surgical centers is required to have hospital-admitting privileges. Why should doctors at abortion centers be held to a lesser standard?
Why should women seeking these procedures be denied the same standard of care all other patients receive?
Yet, a lot has been said about the law from both sides of the abortion debate. Abortion advocacy groups claim it is just a move to close abortion clinics. Pro-life groups claim it is about patient health and safety.
As a woman’s health physician (obstetrician and gynecologist, or OB/GYN) with more than 20 years of experience in the medical field, I have an opinion that is based both on extensive study of the issues involved and on my own firsthand experiences with female patients.
Over the years, I’ve worked at several different hospital emergency rooms in various U.S. states. I’ve taken care of patients who presented with complications from induced surgical abortions.
In my assessment of patients, precious time was lost while attempting to contact the abortion provider or at least to obtain medical records that would have helped me to better care for this patient who presented to the emergency room.
Such patients would come in “off the street,” which is to say they were not being transferred from another facility or from another doctor.
They were first evaluated by the triage nurses, then an ER doctor, and then I would be called, since the doctor who performed the abortion did not have admitting privileges.
With these patients, I was often disappointed to learn that there was no way to contact the doctor or to obtain pertinent medical records that would have provided critical information about what procedures had occurred or what medications were given.
Further compounding the problem, these women often seemed hesitant to share many details even as they understood them.
Knowledge of preceding medical or surgical interventions is essential for establishing a diagnosis as to the nature of the complication and how to treat it.
I have no doubt that more lives could be saved and many lifelong health complications avoided if such patients could have continuity of care from the doctor who originally performed the surgery.
Needless to say, this kind of routine patient abandonment is not tolerated in any other medical specialty. Why only within the specialty purportedly dedicated to women’s health?
Fortunately, complications with outpatient surgical centers are relatively rare. However, they do occur, and when they do, the physicians who performed the initial surgery are best prepared to handle their complications in a timely fashion.
Such required follow-up care often requires an emergency procedure and hospitalization. They alone have the intimate knowledge of the patient’s unique medical history, and what particular complications may have occurred.
When time is of the essence, those factors can be lifesaving. For that reason, transfer of care to another physician should only occur when the needs of the patient exceed the capabilities of the original doctor, or in those rare instances when the original doctor is entirely unavailable.
Even in those situations, a coordinated “handoff” of care—preferably via direct verbal communication between the two physicians about the patient’s situation—should always occur.
Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, this case—June Medical Services v. Russo—should be of interest to you. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, Act 620 just makes sense.
My professional duty and allegiance are to my patients. I always seek what’s best for them. Patients’ safety is best served if their doctors provide continuity of care throughout the entirety of the procedure and during all needed follow-up care.
I hope the Supreme Court upholds this commonsense law on admitting privileges and thereby closes this loophole that exposes women to substandard care and patient abandonment.


dailysignal--2020-06-24--Obamacare 2.0 Bill Would Be   a Windfall, but Pyrrhic Victory, for Insurance Lobby

In December 2013 , 11.8 million Americans had individual health insurance coverage .
The federal government provided no subsidies for that coverage .
Six years later , in December 2019 , enrollment in individual health insurance coverage stood at 12.4 million .
According to Congressional Budget Office data , the federal government sent $ 248 billion in premium and related subsidies to health insurance companies over those six years .
That investment produced a net increase in individual coverage of 600,000 .
That works out to nearly $ 69,000 annually per net newly insured person .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this spending inefficiency ?
Increase federal subsidy payments to insurance companies .
On June 29 , the House is expected to take up the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act ( H.R .
1425 ) , a bill that would shower billions more on the health insurance industry , create new federal government programs to paper over Obamacare ’ s underlying failures , penalize states that have not extended Medicaid coverage to able-bodied adults , and place government price controls on drugs .
The measure is a dream bill for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premium subsidies more generous to existing recipients and available to everyone , regardless of income .
Under current law , for example , a 40-year-old individual with an income at 150 % of the federal poverty level ( $ 19,140 ) pays an average of $ 64 a month for individual coverage this year .
H.R .
1425 would make that coverage free .
The insurance company would get a check for the entire monthly premium ( $ 461 ) from the federal government .
Under the bill , insurance companies would collect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets them .
It ’ s not clear whether increasing subsidies will meaningfully reduce the number of uninsured .
An estimated 99 % of uninsured Americans have access to affordable health coverage , regardless of income or medical condition .
Millions of uninsured people are eligible for subsidized free coverage already , but haven ’ t enrolled .
H.R .
1425 would clearly be good news for insurers , who wouldn ’ t have to hassle with collecting premiums from many of their existing customers .
They would still have to pay medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill would lift much of that burden from their shoulders as well .
It creates a new federal program that requires taxpayers to pick up much of the costs of large medical claims for people with individual coverage .
Estimated annual cost : $ 10 billion .
The Trump administration has granted waivers to 12 states to establish similar programs .
The states that have these waivers finance them with a combination of state funds and federal dollars that would otherwise have been paid to insurance companies in the form of premium subsidies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premiums , but they ’ ve done so without increasing federal spending .
H.R .
1425 would instead replace these successful waiver programs with a new federal subsidy of insurance companies .
The H.R .
1425 windfall comes at a propitious moment for the insurance industry .
The most successful players in the individual market weathered the shock of Obamacare ’ s early years and , fortified by federal handouts , are pocketing handsome profits .
Five big players now collectively control half the individual market , growing their market share by 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centene , for example , increased enrollment by more than 1,100 % over that time , gaining 1.6 million customers , even as overall individual market enrollment shrank by 4.3 million .
Centene and four other big insurers will benefit most from H.R .
1425 ’ s subsidies .
The insurance industry also is benefiting from the COVID-19 pandemic , even as the health care sector has plunged into recession .
The sector contracted by 2.25 % during the first quarter and shed 1.9 million jobs during April , a 9 % decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national health emergency .
While some of those jobs returned in May , hospitals and nursing homes continued to furlough workers during that month .
Those losses came largely as the result of government bans on non-emergent care , which prevented people from being treated for acute and chronic illnesses , and from public fear of COVID-19 , which produced a 42 % drop in the number of emergency room visits between January and April , as people avoided seeking care even in medical emergencies .
That means insurers are paying much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they set premiums for 2020 , fattening their profit margins .
The House seems poised to pass a bill that would fatten them even more .
It ’ s a dangerous thing for an industry to grow dependent on government subsidies .
It is especially dangerous when many in the political party enlarging those subsidies are fundamentally hostile to that industry .
Most House Democrats favor “ Medicare for All , ” which proposes the extinction of private health insurance .
Former Vice President Joe Biden wants to create a public option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would “ compete ” with private insurers .
Insurers loathe those proposals , even as they lust after more government handouts .
Those handouts make the Democrats ’ case that insurers are unnecessary middlemen between the government and the people .
If insurance companies need government subsidies to prosper , why do we need them at all ?
The insurance lobby will celebrate House passage of H.R .
1425 , but that celebration could end quickly .
Next year , insurers could find themselves fighting an administration and Congress eager to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In December 2013, 11.8 million Americans had individual health insurance coverage. The federal government provided no subsidies for that coverage.
Six years later, in December 2019, enrollment in individual health insurance coverage stood at 12.4 million.
According to Congressional Budget Office data, the federal government sent $248 billion in premium and related subsidies to health insurance companies over those six years.
That investment produced a net increase in individual coverage of 600,000. That works out to nearly $69,000 annually per net newly insured person.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democrats’ response to this spending inefficiency? Increase federal subsidy payments to insurance companies.
On June 29, the House is expected to take up the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act (H.R. 1425), a bill that would shower billions more on the health insurance industry, create new federal government programs to paper over Obamacare’s underlying failures, penalize states that have not extended Medicaid coverage to able-bodied adults, and place government price controls on drugs.
The measure is a dream bill for the insurance lobby.
It would make federal premium subsidies more generous to existing recipients and available to everyone, regardless of income.
Under current law, for example, a 40-year-old individual with an income at 150% of the federal poverty level ($19,140) pays an average of $64 a month for individual coverage this year.
H.R. 1425 would make that coverage free. The insurance company would get a check for the entire monthly premium ($461) from the federal government. Under the bill, insurance companies would collect bigger premium subsidies for everyone who currently gets them.
It’s not clear whether increasing subsidies will meaningfully reduce the number of uninsured. An estimated 99% of uninsured Americans have access to affordable health coverage, regardless of income or medical condition.
Millions of uninsured people are eligible for subsidized free coverage already, but haven’t enrolled.
H.R. 1425 would clearly be good news for insurers, who wouldn’t have to hassle with collecting premiums from many of their existing customers. They would still have to pay medical claims, of course, but the bill would lift much of that burden from their shoulders as well.
It creates a new federal program that requires taxpayers to pick up much of the costs of large medical claims for people with individual coverage. Estimated annual cost: $10 billion.
This so-called federal reinsurance program is utterly unnecessary.
The Trump administration has granted waivers to 12 states to establish similar programs. The states that have these waivers finance them with a combination of state funds and federal dollars that would otherwise have been paid to insurance companies in the form of premium subsidies.
These waivers not only have reduced premiums, but they’ve done so without increasing federal spending. H.R. 1425 would instead replace these successful waiver programs with a new federal subsidy of insurance companies.
The H.R. 1425 windfall comes at a propitious moment for the insurance industry. The most successful players in the individual market weathered the shock of Obamacare’s early years and, fortified by federal handouts, are pocketing handsome profits.
Five big players now collectively control half the individual market, growing their market share by 20 percentage points between 2015 and 2019. Centene, for example, increased enrollment by more than 1,100% over that time, gaining 1.6 million customers, even as overall individual market enrollment shrank by 4.3 million.
Centene and four other big insurers will benefit most from H.R. 1425’s subsidies.
The insurance industry also is benefiting from the COVID-19 pandemic, even as the health care sector has plunged into recession. The sector contracted by 2.25% during the first quarter and shed 1.9 million jobs during April, a 9% decline in the number of medical workers during a national health emergency.
While some of those jobs returned in May, hospitals and nursing homes continued to furlough workers during that month.
Those losses came largely as the result of government bans on non-emergent care, which prevented people from being treated for acute and chronic illnesses, and from public fear of COVID-19, which produced a 42% drop in the number of emergency room visits between January and April, as people avoided seeking care even in medical emergencies.
That means insurers are paying much less in medical claims than they expected when they set premiums for 2020, fattening their profit margins. The House seems poised to pass a bill that would fatten them even more.
It’s a dangerous thing for an industry to grow dependent on government subsidies. It is especially dangerous when many in the political party enlarging those subsidies are fundamentally hostile to that industry.
Most House Democrats favor “Medicare for All,” which proposes the extinction of private health insurance. Former Vice President Joe Biden wants to create a public option, a government-run “insurance company” that would “compete” with private insurers.
Insurers loathe those proposals, even as they lust after more government handouts. Those handouts make the Democrats’ case that insurers are unnecessary middlemen between the government and the people. If insurance companies need government subsidies to prosper, why do we need them at all?
The insurance lobby will celebrate House passage of H.R. 1425, but that celebration could end quickly.
Next year, insurers could find themselves fighting an administration and Congress eager to take the next step toward Medicare for All.


dailysignal--2020-06-26--Long Live the Designated Hitter

Long Live the Designated Hitter

Major League Baseball is moving toward a 60-game 2020 season .
For the first time in history , the designated hitter rule will be implemented in both the American and the National Leagues .
This is fantastic news for anyone who loves baseball and America , and not simply because the nation will be treated to more home runs but because we will no longer witness professional athletes clumsily swiping at balls or sticking out their bats and praying to make contact .
It ’ s not just about offense .
Yes , historically the American League scores more runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , it has every season since 1973 , when the designated hitter was first implemented .
The differential , however , has been shrinking .
The top four offensive teams in the game resided in the American League in 2019 , but overall there was less than a .20 run advantage per game on average .
This trend is partly due to National League pitchers batting less .
As roles have become more specialized , relief pitchers rarely pick up a bat anymore .
In 2019 , the number of plate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National League was the lowest since at least 1973 .
The sacrifice bunt , a rare and great triumph for any pitcher , has basically been stripped from the game because anyone hitting over .220 has a higher probability of moving a runner or reaching base if he takes a swing .
Right now , pitchers are hitting around 160 points under the average position player .
Most of the best-hitting pitchers in the game—basically , anyone not named Shohei Ohtani—are simply terrible .
And they ’ re getting worse every year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ box unnecessarily slows the momentum of games .
There is no other major sport where an athlete is asked to perform a task so completely out of his comfort zone .
There ’ s a reason that National Hockey League goalies don ’ t participate in shootouts and 350-pound National Football League linemen do not line up as wide receivers .
It ’ s fair to argue , as many purists do , that baseball isn ’ t just a contest of home runs and big swings but of pitching , fielding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offense doesn ’ t necessarily translate into more-compelling baseball .
No doubt .
There ’ s a difference , however , between a low-scoring contest that is dictated by superior pitching and one that is dictated by the inept rally-killing hitters who aspire to reach the Mendoza line .
The designated hitter generates excitement and tension and pits the world ’ s best hitters against the world ’ s best pitchers .
There are other popular arguments against the designated hitter , some stronger than others .
National League fans , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hitter will blunt the finer complex strategic aspects of the game .
Listen , you can pretend that managers are tackling quantum physics every time they pull a double switch , but it ’ s really not that complicated or interesting .
Change is not inevitable ; it is a choice .
Rushing haphazardly to implement a fundamental change to the game is not optimal .
Nor do I dismiss the importance of continuity in baseball , which , perhaps more than any other sport , is invested in its past—statistically , aesthetically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world looks like these days , it ’ s even more important to preserve traditions .
In the end , though , baseball is still a game .
We have no sacred obligation to avoid changes that can improve it .
There ’ s little evidence that the designated hitter damages its authenticity .
The designated hitter is 46 years old .
It ’ s already created a string of exciting moments for fans and extended the careers of a number of great players .
The designated hitter itself has evolved , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rotund sluggers to one that is utilized by managers to create more-balanced lineups .
Moreover , can anyone seriously argue that the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox or Cleveland Indians or Detroit Tigers have less claim to the rituals and traditions of baseball than do the Arizona Diamondbacks or the Colorado Rockies , neither of which even existed when the designated hitter was first implemented ?
The designated hitter has been around longer than the wild-card format .
It is only four years older than the lowered mound .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution of the game .
As is the designated hitter .
The designated hitter rule doesn ’ t prohibit pitcher hitting—and perhaps there will be a day baseball will be teeming with Ohtanis , and the designated hitter won ’ t matter anymore .
That day is not today .

Major League Baseball is moving toward a 60-game 2020 season. For the first time in history, the designated hitter rule will be implemented in both the American and the National Leagues.
This is fantastic news for anyone who loves baseball and America, and not simply because the nation will be treated to more home runs but because we will no longer witness professional athletes clumsily swiping at balls or sticking out their bats and praying to make contact.
It’s not just about offense. Yes, historically the American League scores more runs per game than the National League. In fact, it has every season since 1973, when the designated hitter was first implemented.
The differential, however, has been shrinking. The top four offensive teams in the game resided in the American League in 2019, but overall there was less than a .20 run advantage per game on average.
This trend is partly due to National League pitchers batting less. As roles have become more specialized, relief pitchers rarely pick up a bat anymore. In 2019, the number of plate appearances by pitchers per game in the National League was the lowest since at least 1973.
The sacrifice bunt, a rare and great triumph for any pitcher, has basically been stripped from the game because anyone hitting over .220 has a higher probability of moving a runner or reaching base if he takes a swing.
Right now, pitchers are hitting around 160 points under the average position player. Most of the best-hitting pitchers in the game—basically, anyone not named Shohei Ohtani—are simply terrible. And they’re getting worse every year. Their presence in the batter’s box unnecessarily slows the momentum of games.
There is no other major sport where an athlete is asked to perform a task so completely out of his comfort zone. There’s a reason that National Hockey League goalies don’t participate in shootouts and 350-pound National Football League linemen do not line up as wide receivers.
It’s fair to argue, as many purists do, that baseball isn’t just a contest of home runs and big swings but of pitching, fielding, running, etc., and that more offense doesn’t necessarily translate into more-compelling baseball. No doubt.
There’s a difference, however, between a low-scoring contest that is dictated by superior pitching and one that is dictated by the inept rally-killing hitters who aspire to reach the Mendoza line. The designated hitter generates excitement and tension and pits the world’s best hitters against the world’s best pitchers.
There are other popular arguments against the designated hitter, some stronger than others. National League fans, for instance, seem to believe that the designated hitter will blunt the finer complex strategic aspects of the game.
Listen, you can pretend that managers are tackling quantum physics every time they pull a double switch, but it’s really not that complicated or interesting.
Change is not inevitable; it is a choice. Rushing haphazardly to implement a fundamental change to the game is not optimal. Nor do I dismiss the importance of continuity in baseball, which, perhaps more than any other sport, is invested in its past—statistically, aesthetically, and otherwise. Given what the world looks like these days, it’s even more important to preserve traditions.
In the end, though, baseball is still a game. We have no sacred obligation to avoid changes that can improve it. There’s little evidence that the designated hitter damages its authenticity.
The designated hitter is 46 years old. It’s already created a string of exciting moments for fans and extended the careers of a number of great players. The designated hitter itself has evolved, from a spot typically reserved for aging or rotund sluggers to one that is utilized by managers to create more-balanced lineups.
Moreover, can anyone seriously argue that the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox or Cleveland Indians or Detroit Tigers have less claim to the rituals and traditions of baseball than do the Arizona Diamondbacks or the Colorado Rockies, neither of which even existed when the designated hitter was first implemented?
The designated hitter has been around longer than the wild-card format. It is only four years older than the lowered mound.
The latter change was imposed by the athletic evolution of the game. As is the designated hitter. The designated hitter rule doesn’t prohibit pitcher hitting—and perhaps there will be a day baseball will be teeming with Ohtanis, and the designated hitter won’t matter anymore.
That day is not today.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-06-26--Fauci, Birx Cite ‘Crowds’ and ‘Protests’ in Surge of COVID-19 Cases

The recent surge in COVID-19 cases primarily is occurring among younger Americans , members of the White House coronavirus task force said Friday .
The five states that have been hit the hardest with a major uptick in positive tests for the new coronavirus are California , Texas , Florida , Arizona , and New Mexico .
“ One of the things we are seeing among the new cases—we hear this in Florida , we hear this in Texas and elsewhere—is that roughly half of the new cases are Americans under the age of 35 , which is at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts tell us , ” Vice President Mike Pence said at a press conference with other members of the task force .
“ As we know so far in this pandemic , younger Americans are less susceptible to serious outcomes of the coronavirus , ” Pence , chairman of the task force , said .
“ The fact that we are finding more young Americans that contracted the coronavirus is a good thing.
” It has been more than a month since the last press briefing by the White House coronavirus task force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this one did not occur at the White House but at the Department of Health and Human Services , and President Donald Trump did not participate .
To date , the coronavirus has killed 124,891 Americans , according to Johns Hopkins University , and caused 2.4 million cases of COVID-19 across the nation .
Two other prominent members of the task force made a direct or indirect reference to the nationwide protests of recent weeks , demonstrations largely made up of younger people .
Dr. Deborah Birx , coordinator of the task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young people generally are getting tested .
“ I want to end by thanking the millennials who have come forward , ” Birx said , adding : Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , made a personalized case to young people , urging them to remember that although they are less vulnerable they can spread the disease .
Fauci said he remembers “ a stage in my life ” when he thought : “ Well , I ’ m invulnerable , so I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think what we are missing in this is something that we ’ ve never faced before , ” Fauci said .
“ A risk for you is not just isolated to you .
If you get infected , you are part , innocently or inadvertently , of propagating the dynamic process of a pandemic because the chances are if you get infected , that you are going to infect someone else.
” Fauci referred to young people gathered in large crowds depicted in the media , but didn ’ t specify whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big parties .
“ The overwhelming majority of people getting infected now are young people , likely the people you will see in the clips and in the paper out in crowds , enjoying themselves , ” Fauci said , adding : Understandably , no blame there .
But the thing you really need to realize is that when you do that , you are part of a process .
When you get infected , you will infect someone else , who clearly will infect someone else .
Ultimately , you will infect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be somebody ’ s grandfather , grandmother , uncle who is in chemotherapy and who is on radiation and chemotherapy , or a child who has leukemia .
I want to bring this out without making it seem anyone is at fault .
You have an individual responsibility to yourself , but you have a societal responsibility .
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar noted progress in experimenting to produce a vaccine for COVID-19 .
“ We have announced large investments to support three different vaccine candidates all the way through to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human clinical trials , some with the potential to start delivering safe and effective doses before the end of the year , ” Azar said .
“ We ’ ll be adding support for several more [ vaccine ] candidates .
We are expanding manufacturing capacity and already making the vials , syringes , and needles we might need.
” Pence took questions on the advisability of campaign rallies , and stressed that “ freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spike in COVID-19 cases was a result of states such as Texas and Florida that reopened more aggressively than others .
“ There will be a temptation for people to look at these Sunbelt states that have been reopening and putting people back to work and suggesting the reopening has something to do with what we ’ re seeing in the last week or so , ” the vice president said , adding :

The recent surge in COVID-19 cases primarily is occurring among younger Americans, members of the White House coronavirus task force said Friday.
The five states that have been hit the hardest with a major uptick in positive tests for the new coronavirus are California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico.
“One of the things we are seeing among the new cases—we hear this in Florida, we hear this in Texas and elsewhere—is that roughly half of the new cases are Americans under the age of 35, which is at a certain level very encouraging news, the experts tell us,” Vice President Mike Pence said at a press conference with other members of the task force.
“As we know so far in this pandemic, younger Americans are less susceptible to serious outcomes of the coronavirus,” Pence, chairman of the task force, said. “The fact that we are finding more young Americans that contracted the coronavirus is a good thing.”
It has been more than a month since the last press briefing by the White House coronavirus task force. And unlike the earlier daily briefings, this one did not occur at the White House but at the Department of Health and Human Services, and President Donald Trump did not participate.
To date, the coronavirus has killed 124,891 Americans, according to Johns Hopkins University, and caused 2.4 million cases of COVID-19 across the nation.
Two other prominent members of the task force made a direct or indirect reference to the nationwide protests of recent weeks, demonstrations largely made up of younger people.
Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the task force, said she was glad more young people generally are getting tested.
“I want to end by thanking the millennials who have come forward,” Birx said, adding:
I know during the protests, we asked a lot of them to [come] forward and get testing. And we see those testing rates really improving in the under-40 age group. That is going to be important to continue to accelerate testing in the under-40 age group … because that is the age group most likely to have asymptomatic spread, and be spreading the virus.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, made a personalized case to young people, urging them to remember that although they are less vulnerable they can spread the disease.
Fauci said he remembers “a stage in my life” when he thought: “Well, I’m invulnerable, so I’m going to take a risk.”
“I think what we are missing in this is something that we’ve never faced before,” Fauci said. “A risk for you is not just isolated to you. If you get infected, you are part, innocently or inadvertently, of propagating the dynamic process of a pandemic because the chances are if you get infected, that you are going to infect someone else.”
Fauci referred to young people gathered in large crowds depicted in the media, but didn’t specify whether he was talking about mass protests or big parties.
“The overwhelming majority of people getting infected now are young people, likely the people you will see in the clips and in the paper out in crowds, enjoying themselves,” Fauci said, adding:
Understandably, no blame there. But the thing you really need to realize is that when you do that, you are part of a process. When you get infected, you will infect someone else, who clearly will infect someone else. Ultimately, you will infect someone who is vulnerable. That may be somebody’s grandfather, grandmother, uncle who is in chemotherapy and who is on radiation and chemotherapy, or a child who has leukemia. I want to bring this out without making it seem anyone is at fault. You have an individual responsibility to yourself, but you have a societal responsibility.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar noted progress in experimenting to produce a vaccine for COVID-19.
“We have announced large investments to support three different vaccine candidates all the way through to manufacturing. These candidates are now in human clinical trials, some with the potential to start delivering safe and effective doses before the end of the year,” Azar said. “We’ll be adding support for several more [vaccine] candidates. We are expanding manufacturing capacity and already making the vials, syringes, and needles we might need.”
Pence took questions on the advisability of campaign rallies, and stressed that “freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.”
Pence said he doesn’t think the spike in COVID-19 cases was a result of states such as Texas and Florida that reopened more aggressively than others.
“There will be a temptation for people to look at these Sunbelt states that have been reopening and putting people back to work and suggesting the reopening has something to do with what we’re seeing in the last week or so,” the vice president said, adding: