talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--What Antibody Studies Can Tell You — and More Importantly, What They Can’t

This story first appeared at ProPublica .
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
In the past two weeks , researchers across America have begun announcing results from studies showing that there have been many more coronavirus infections in their communities than were previously recorded .
Findings have come in from Santa Clara County , California , as well as Los Angeles , New York , Chelsea , Massachusetts , and Miami-Dade County , Florida .
The debates began immediately .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If more people were infected than previously known , did that mean the death rate is actually lower than previously thought ?
Is the coronavirus actually more like the flu , after all ?
And are we close to “ herd immunity , ” meaning enough people are infected that the virus won ’ t spread easily anymore ?
These studies all were based on antibody tests , which are diagnostics that can look in a person ’ s blood and see if there is evidence of prior infection .
In the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the market , researchers have launched large-scale studies , known as sero-surveys ( sero is short for serology , the study of blood serum ) .
By running these surveys , scientists are finally able to start estimating how many people have been infected , which can give us information about how deadly the disease is and where the disease was most concentrated geographically .
It ’ s a pity that some of the first of these studies conducted in the U.S. have been dogged by controversy .
Within hours of results being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the studies ’ methodologies , arguing over whether the surveys were well designed , which added to confusion over whether the results could be trusted .
While the scrutiny is well warranted , my fear is that the public might lose trust in future survey results , when in fact , antibody studies are going to be critically important in helping us better understand the coronavirus and how to fight this pandemic .
But I ’ m hopeful , because there are many such surveys in the works that can learn from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re all going to be hearing far more about antibody tests and surveys — and maybe even participating in them — in the coming months .
So here ’ s a primer on what they do , how they should be properly wielded and how you , a critical reader ( or journalist ) , can interpret a study that ’ s hot off the presses .
Antibody studies can be used to answer more questions than you might think .
When the coronavirus emerged , the first type of diagnostic that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could detect an active infection .
Those tests will continue to be necessary , but they can only catch the virus red-handed .
Once a patient has recovered , that kind of test won ’ t come back positive anymore .
In the U.S. , especially at the start of the outbreak , there was a paucity of such tests — and even now , there aren ’ t enough to test every person who has only mild symptoms , let alone identify people who are asymptomatic carriers .
So that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day are certainly an undercount .
The question is : how much of an undercount ?
The only way to know is to test a random sample of a given population and see who has antibodies — proteins in the blood that indicate past infections .
Once you know the percentage of people who have been infected ( the fancy word for that is “ sero-prevalence ” ) , then you can calculate what ’ s known as the “ infection fatality rate.
” Bear with me here as we wade through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worth your time .
So far , the death rates you ’ ve seen in headlines have largely been case fatality rates , which are the number of deaths reported divided by the number of cases confirmed with a diagnostic test .
That ’ s all we ’ ve been able to report so far .
You should expect the case fatality rate to be higher than the infection fatality rate , because there are way more people infected than people who have been able to be tested .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re learning about the infection fatality rate in available studies later on , but for now , just know that this is one reason why sero-surveys are so useful to us .
But there ’ s more you can learn from a sero-survey .
Dan Larremore , an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder , whose recent work has focused on designing antibody surveys , said you can use sero-surveys to find out if there are certain neighborhoods that have been harder hit than others .
Or , by surveying specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ How much transmission is there within a household ?
” or “ What ’ s the role of kids in all of this ?
” Setting up a sero-survey correctly means you need to test a random population — easier said than done .
For now , most of the studies being set up around the country , as well as nationwide ones being conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , are focused on asking the most basic question , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been infected ?
To do that properly , researchers need to test a random sample of the population .
One of the main criticisms of some recent studies is that their results could have been biased because of how participants were recruited .
Take , for example , the study conducted in Santa Clara , California .
Researchers at Stanford put out ads on Facebook , asking people to volunteer to participate .
“ The problem is there are people who will think , ‘ Oh , yeah , I had this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever , and I think I had it.
’ And if you said to them , ‘ Would you like to get tested ?
’ They would say , ‘ Abso-frickin-lutely !
’ ” said Marm Kilpatrick , a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz who studies infectious diseases .
Conversely , people who felt totally healthy could be less inclined to participate .
“ So there ’ s a differential excitement to go get tested , and if that leads to the first group being at a higher chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then you ’ ve just totally blown your estimates.
” Contrary to Kilpatrick ’ s concern , Dr. Jay Bhattacharya , senior author of the Santa Clara study , said in an email that while “ volunteer bias is certainly a potential problem in any survey that recruits participants the way we did … in our study , the evidence points in the direction of healthy volunteer bias ” because people in “ wealthier and healthier ” ZIP codes signed up faster .
Bhattacharya said his team made adjustments in its calculations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , race and sex , and thinks it is “ still likely underestimating prevalence because of healthy volunteer bias.
” In New York City , researchers tested shoppers at grocery stores and big box stores .
That method is still not perfectly random : You ’ re only testing the subset of people who are out shopping in person .
“ You ’ re not sampling people who are too old , or high risk , who don ’ t want to shop for themselves , ” Larremore said .
“ You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are old enough to go shopping , or who feel that they may have been infected and think they ’ re safe enough.
” The ideal way to conduct a sero-survey , according to Natalie Dean , assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida , would be to randomly select addresses from a database of the population you want to survey and then send a team of researchers door to door to collect samples .
The World Health Organization ’ s guidance for such studies recommends inviting all people who live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study , including children .
But sending teams door to door is labor intensive and potentially also a contagion risk , not to mention that people staying home may not want to let someone in at this time .
So around the country , different cities and states are trying different methods .
Miami-Dade researchers partnered with Florida Power & Light to randomly generate phone numbers and invite people to come to 10 drive-thru testing locations .
Preliminary results released on April 24 , based on two weeks of testing and about 1,400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Miami-Dade population had antibodies .
The county plans to keep running the survey on an ongoing basis .
“ Repeated cross-sectional studies — where they ’ re repeating it every week — are valuable , even if there ’ s some sort of bias , because you can look at trends , ” Dean said .
Larremore is looking into a finger-prick test that captures a drop of blood on a special type of paper , which could potentially be mailed to participants in a sero-survey being planned in Colorado .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyzed for antibodies back in the lab .
If this works , Larremore said , that could further help to reduce bias , because people could participate from the safety of their homes .
Test accuracy can skew results in some pretty surprising ways .
Another key question for any sero-survey is how accurate the test was .
Tons of antibody tests have hit the market over the past few weeks , and their accuracy is still being scrutinized .
Not all tests have the same degree of accuracy .
Even a test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more false positives than true positives when the prevalence of a disease is very low in a population .
Let ’ s say you ’ re running a sero-survey among 1,000 people and only 4 % of the population is actually infected .
Presume the test correctly identifies positives 100 % of the time , meaning it is 100 % “ sensitive ” in scientific parlance .
There are 1,000 people in your sero-survey .
With a 4 % infection rate , the test would accurately identify those 40 people who are positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % “ specific , ” meaning that it returns false positives 5 % of the time .
Then among the 960 people who are truly negative , 48 people would get a false positive .
In this scenario , more people would get a false positive result than a true positive .
So when you are running a sero-survey in a community where a small percentage of the population has been infected , you have to worry about many of your positive results being false positives , explained Andrew Gelman , a professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can have more confidence in the signal you ’ re getting when there ’ s a higher percentage of the population that ’ s been infected , as in a situation like New York City , because the number of true positives would drown out a smaller number of false positives , Gelman said .
Unfortunately , New York didn ’ t actually share much information on how accurate its tests were when Gov .
Andrew Cuomo first announced the findings of its study on April 23 , so the experts I called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to scrutinize .
“ My confidence is in the Wadsworth lab test , ” health commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said at the press briefing the following day , referring to New York state ’ s public health lab , “ which has unbelievable sensitivity and specificity.
” Forget the headlines , your city is nowhere near herd immunity .
As more of these studies read out in the future , there are probably going to be a lot of headlines that say : “ study finds [ X ] times more people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counts , ” or more vaguely , “ Coronavirus infections more common than previously thought.
” These headlines may be accurate , but that does not mean that your city or state is close to “ herd immunity , ” which is when the vast majority of a given population have been infected .
In such situations , the virus has a hard time infecting the remaining people , because there aren ’ t enough carriers to reach them .
In order to achieve herd immunity , scientists say that a community would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its population infected .
That ’ s the lowest estimate I ’ ve been told .
Other scientists have told me 80 % to 90 % .
The reason this percentage isn ’ t precisely known is because it depends on things like exactly how contagious the virus is and also whether people who have been infected are immune forever , or if they lose immunity after a while , which researchers also are furiously working to figure out .
None of the studies I ’ ve seen so far have reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The highest rate I ’ ve seen is in Chelsea , Massachusetts , the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in that state .
Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital tested 200 pedestrians and found about a third had antibodies .
The other way to achieve herd immunity is via a vaccine , which is far safer and doesn ’ t involve millions of people getting sick .
But developing vaccines is a slow process , so achieving herd immunity that way won ’ t happen any time soon .
There are two types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them up .
Another thing I ’ ve seen some people say , when some of the study results came out , is that the coronavirus is far less deadly than we thought it was .
A columnist wrote that antibody testing “ proves we ’ ve been had !
” adding : “ We ’ ve been told that the true death rate is 7.4 % in New York .
… We were told that this was worse than the flu .
… But none of these ‘ truths ’ turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York State isn ’ t 7.4 % , it is actually 0.75 % .
” This columnist is mixing up the case fatality rate and the infection fatality rate .
There has never been an abundance of diagnostic tests in New York , which means mostly very sick patients are the ones who ’ ve been tested .
As of April 24 , according to the State Department of Health , 282,143 people had tested positive , and 16,599 of those people had died .
That translates to a case fatality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 , Cuomo announced preliminary data from the state ’ s sero-survey , saying that 13.9 % of state residents had tested positive for antibodies .
In New York City , it was about 21 % .
The state is continuing to test residents in order to generate an ongoing series of “ snapshots ” of the levels of infection .
Cuomo had updated numbers by April 27 showing huge regional variation .
Kilpatrick , from UC Santa Cruz , said that if the estimates from New York stand up to scrutiny , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City would be approximately 0.8 % .
He told me that is not very surprising , because scientists have been able to get some estimates of infection fatality rates using data from enclosed populations where nearly everyone got tested — on cruise ships .
Epidemiologists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , for example , analyzed data from the Diamond Princess , the ill-fated ship on which more than 700 passengers got infected .
Researchers adjusted for the fact that cruise passengers are older than average and estimated the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Remember , the IFR is not inherent to the virus — how old and healthy your population is and how many ICU beds were available for patients also will affect this number for your region .
Stop comparing this to the flu .
Without a coronavirus vaccine , we are far more vulnerable .
Now let ’ s talk about the flu .
Comparisons to the flu keep coming back like a many-headed hydra , and they roared back last week with a vengeance .
The estimates I ’ ve seen for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the upper end to 0.04 % on the lower end .
So if the IFR for this coronavirus ends up being around 0.5 % , that ’ s still many times worse than the flu .
But that ’ s not the main problem .
At the end of the day , wherever the coronavirus fatality rate ends up , it doesn ’ t change the fact that we don ’ t have any immunity to the virus , which is a critical factor in why we ’ ve had to behave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marc Lipsitch , head of the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health ’ s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics , has estimated that ultimately 20 % to 60 % of the population could be infected with COVID-19 .
By comparison , because of immunity provided by flu shots , only about 10 % to 20 % of the population gets sick with influenza every year , according to Kilpatrick .
Kilpatrick sketched out what this meant : “ If it ’ s five times deadlier than the seasonal flu , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get it , that means we ’ re going to get 15 times as many deaths .
And 15 times 30,000 , which is the middle-of-the-road kind of a seasonal flu year , that ’ s 450,000 deaths — about half a million deaths — that ’ s a pretty big , scary number , I think.
” There are additional reasons why comparing the flu to the coronavirus isn ’ t apples to apples .
We ’ re two to three months into the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. By comparison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months .
So comparing current deaths from the coronavirus to a complete flu season doesn ’ t make sense .
Dean , from the University of Florida , also notes that the discussion about exactly how deadly COVID-19 is doesn ’ t change the reality of how many people have died .
While it ’ s important that New York City ’ s sero-survey has helped to quantify the number of people who have had mild infections , that doesn ’ t change the fact that , as of April 27 , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City has died from this virus .
( This includes deaths that New York City deems likely to be due to COVID-19 , despite not having a lab-confirmed test . )
“ We know that this disease can completely decimate health care systems , and that ’ s important to keep in mind in terms of how we respond , ” Dean said .
Antibody tests aren ’ t ready to be used to issue “ immunity passports.
” As antibody tests become more widely available , there ’ ll naturally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests for ourselves on an individual basis , to determine if we ’ re immune and can go about our lives , free of the paranoia and fear that have been plaguing us for the past two months .
But it ’ s too early for that .
Besides the issue of potential false positives , scientists haven ’ t yet figured out exactly what level of protection an individual has after being infected and whether the protection lasts forever ( like with chickenpox ) or wanes after a while .
The World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week warning that detection of antibodies alone shouldn ’ t serve as a basis for an “ immunity passport ” allowing an individual to assume they are totally protected from reinfection .
So for now , the antibody tests are best used in these population-wide surveys , to better understand the spread of the disease , how it ’ s being transmitted and regional infection fatality rates .
There are far more surveys to come .
You could be part of one .
Sero-surveys have only just begun .
Many of those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thoughtfully designed , such as in Indiana , where the State Department of Health has said it will test at least 20,000 Hoosiers in four phases over the next year .
Participants would be randomly selected , by invitation only , “ to ensure that the sampling is representative of the population , ” the department said .
While everyone is eager to know the results of these studies , many researchers I spoke to also said they hoped that there could be a better balance reached between sharing results quickly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while key findings from the studies done in Los Angeles and New York State have been announced , their authors haven ’ t yet published many details about their methods .
“ I think there should be more pushback when people are not providing their methodology , ” said Dean , from the University of Florida .
“ They shouldn ’ t be running to the press .
You should explain what you did .
How do we know what you did , if it ’ s credible or not ?
” For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study has received , Larremore says he ’ s “ thankful that the researchers put the preprint out there , so the community could help them correct it.
” ( A preprint is a draft research paper , shared publicly before it has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal . )
Bhattacharya , the author , said his team “ received hundreds of constructive comments on our preprint from scholars around the world ” and is now updating its paper .
The new version will be “ substantially better as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said , “ the open science model has really worked well.
” It ’ s always easier to criticize studies than to run them .
Just a few weeks ago , in the U.S. , we had no antibody survey results to look at , and now we have some data .
I ’ m hopeful that as more and more studies are done , researchers will be able to discard bad data , confirm good information , start to track trends and gather intel on this virus , so we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence-based decisions on how to fight the disease at local and state levels , as a country and as a global community .

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
In the past two weeks, researchers across America have begun announcing results from studies showing that there have been many more coronavirus infections in their communities than were previously recorded.
Findings have come in from Santa Clara County, California, as well as Los Angeles, New York, Chelsea, Massachusetts, and Miami-Dade County, Florida. The debates began immediately. What did the study results actually mean? If more people were infected than previously known, did that mean the death rate is actually lower than previously thought? Is the coronavirus actually more like the flu, after all? And are we close to “herd immunity,” meaning enough people are infected that the virus won’t spread easily anymore?
These studies all were based on antibody tests, which are diagnostics that can look in a person’s blood and see if there is evidence of prior infection. In the past month, as these tests have reached the market, researchers have launched large-scale studies, known as sero-surveys (sero is short for serology, the study of blood serum). By running these surveys, scientists are finally able to start estimating how many people have been infected, which can give us information about how deadly the disease is and where the disease was most concentrated geographically.
It’s a pity that some of the first of these studies conducted in the U.S. have been dogged by controversy. Within hours of results being announced, researchers started to pick apart the studies’ methodologies, arguing over whether the surveys were well designed, which added to confusion over whether the results could be trusted. While the scrutiny is well warranted, my fear is that the public might lose trust in future survey results, when in fact, antibody studies are going to be critically important in helping us better understand the coronavirus and how to fight this pandemic.
But I’m hopeful, because there are many such surveys in the works that can learn from the shortcomings of the initial attempts. We’re all going to be hearing far more about antibody tests and surveys — and maybe even participating in them — in the coming months. So here’s a primer on what they do, how they should be properly wielded and how you, a critical reader (or journalist), can interpret a study that’s hot off the presses.
Antibody studies can be used to answer more questions than you might think.
When the coronavirus emerged, the first type of diagnostic that scientists raced to produce was a test that could detect an active infection. Those tests will continue to be necessary, but they can only catch the virus red-handed. Once a patient has recovered, that kind of test won’t come back positive anymore.
In the U.S., especially at the start of the outbreak, there was a paucity of such tests — and even now, there aren’t enough to test every person who has only mild symptoms, let alone identify people who are asymptomatic carriers.
So that means the case counts that we see reported every day are certainly an undercount. The question is: how much of an undercount? The only way to know is to test a random sample of a given population and see who has antibodies — proteins in the blood that indicate past infections.
Once you know the percentage of people who have been infected (the fancy word for that is “sero-prevalence”), then you can calculate what’s known as the “infection fatality rate.”
Bear with me here as we wade through some jargon, because I think it’s worth your time. So far, the death rates you’ve seen in headlines have largely been case fatality rates, which are the number of deaths reported divided by the number of cases confirmed with a diagnostic test. That’s all we’ve been able to report so far. You should expect the case fatality rate to be higher than the infection fatality rate, because there are way more people infected than people who have been able to be tested. We’ll get back to what we’re learning about the infection fatality rate in available studies later on, but for now, just know that this is one reason why sero-surveys are so useful to us.
But there’s more you can learn from a sero-survey. Dan Larremore, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, whose recent work has focused on designing antibody surveys, said you can use sero-surveys to find out if there are certain neighborhoods that have been harder hit than others. Or, by surveying specific populations, you can study questions like: “How much transmission is there within a household?” or “What’s the role of kids in all of this?”
Setting up a sero-survey correctly means you need to test a random population — easier said than done.
For now, most of the studies being set up around the country, as well as nationwide ones being conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are focused on asking the most basic question, which is, what percentage of a given population has been infected?
To do that properly, researchers need to test a random sample of the population. One of the main criticisms of some recent studies is that their results could have been biased because of how participants were recruited. Take, for example, the study conducted in Santa Clara, California. Researchers at Stanford put out ads on Facebook, asking people to volunteer to participate.
“The problem is there are people who will think, ‘Oh, yeah, I had this nasty flu, or cough, or whatever, and I think I had it.’ And if you said to them, ‘Would you like to get tested?’ They would say, ‘Abso-frickin-lutely!’” said Marm Kilpatrick, a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz who studies infectious diseases. Conversely, people who felt totally healthy could be less inclined to participate. “So there’s a differential excitement to go get tested, and if that leads to the first group being at a higher chance of being participants in the study, then you’ve just totally blown your estimates.”
Contrary to Kilpatrick’s concern, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, senior author of the Santa Clara study, said in an email that while “volunteer bias is certainly a potential problem in any survey that recruits participants the way we did … in our study, the evidence points in the direction of healthy volunteer bias” because people in “wealthier and healthier” ZIP codes signed up faster. Bhattacharya said his team made adjustments in its calculations to represent the county properly by ZIP code, race and sex, and thinks it is “still likely underestimating prevalence because of healthy volunteer bias.”
In New York City, researchers tested shoppers at grocery stores and big box stores. That method is still not perfectly random: You’re only testing the subset of people who are out shopping in person. “You’re not sampling people who are too old, or high risk, who don’t want to shop for themselves,” Larremore said. “You’re also sampling predominantly from people who are old enough to go shopping, or who feel that they may have been infected and think they’re safe enough.”
The ideal way to conduct a sero-survey, according to Natalie Dean, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, would be to randomly select addresses from a database of the population you want to survey and then send a team of researchers door to door to collect samples. The World Health Organization’s guidance for such studies recommends inviting all people who live in the household to participate in the study, including children.
But sending teams door to door is labor intensive and potentially also a contagion risk, not to mention that people staying home may not want to let someone in at this time. So around the country, different cities and states are trying different methods. Miami-Dade researchers partnered with Florida Power & Light to randomly generate phone numbers and invite people to come to 10 drive-thru testing locations. Preliminary results released on April 24, based on two weeks of testing and about 1,400 participants, estimated that about 6% of the Miami-Dade population had antibodies.
The county plans to keep running the survey on an ongoing basis. “Repeated cross-sectional studies — where they’re repeating it every week — are valuable, even if there’s some sort of bias, because you can look at trends,” Dean said.
Larremore is looking into a finger-prick test that captures a drop of blood on a special type of paper, which could potentially be mailed to participants in a sero-survey being planned in Colorado. The dried blood could then later be analyzed for antibodies back in the lab. If this works, Larremore said, that could further help to reduce bias, because people could participate from the safety of their homes.
Test accuracy can skew results in some pretty surprising ways.
Another key question for any sero-survey is how accurate the test was. Tons of antibody tests have hit the market over the past few weeks, and their accuracy is still being scrutinized. Not all tests have the same degree of accuracy.
Even a test that is very good can give out more false positives than true positives when the prevalence of a disease is very low in a population.
Let’s say you’re running a sero-survey among 1,000 people and only 4% of the population is actually infected. Presume the test correctly identifies positives 100% of the time, meaning it is 100% “sensitive” in scientific parlance.
There are 1,000 people in your sero-survey.
With a 4% infection rate, the test would accurately identify those 40 people who are positive.
But say the test is 95% “specific,” meaning that it returns false positives 5% of the time. Then among the 960 people who are truly negative, 48 people would get a false positive.
In this scenario, more people would get a false positive result than a true positive.
So when you are running a sero-survey in a community where a small percentage of the population has been infected, you have to worry about many of your positive results being false positives, explained Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics at Columbia University.
You can have more confidence in the signal you’re getting when there’s a higher percentage of the population that’s been infected, as in a situation like New York City, because the number of true positives would drown out a smaller number of false positives, Gelman said.
Unfortunately, New York didn’t actually share much information on how accurate its tests were when Gov. Andrew Cuomo first announced the findings of its study on April 23, so the experts I called said they didn’t have much to scrutinize. “My confidence is in the Wadsworth lab test,” health commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said at the press briefing the following day, referring to New York state’s public health lab, “which has unbelievable sensitivity and specificity.”
Forget the headlines, your city is nowhere near herd immunity.
As more of these studies read out in the future, there are probably going to be a lot of headlines that say: “study finds [X] times more people in [CITY/STATE] infected than confirmed case counts,” or more vaguely, “Coronavirus infections more common than previously thought.”
These headlines may be accurate, but that does not mean that your city or state is close to “herd immunity,” which is when the vast majority of a given population have been infected. In such situations, the virus has a hard time infecting the remaining people, because there aren’t enough carriers to reach them.
In order to achieve herd immunity, scientists say that a community would need to have at least 60% of its population infected. That’s the lowest estimate I’ve been told. Other scientists have told me 80% to 90%. The reason this percentage isn’t precisely known is because it depends on things like exactly how contagious the virus is and also whether people who have been infected are immune forever, or if they lose immunity after a while, which researchers also are furiously working to figure out.
None of the studies I’ve seen so far have reported a number anywhere near that high. The highest rate I’ve seen is in Chelsea, Massachusetts, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in that state. Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital tested 200 pedestrians and found about a third had antibodies.
The other way to achieve herd immunity is via a vaccine, which is far safer and doesn’t involve millions of people getting sick. But developing vaccines is a slow process, so achieving herd immunity that way won’t happen any time soon.
There are two types of death rates. Most people are mixing them up.
Another thing I’ve seen some people say, when some of the study results came out, is that the coronavirus is far less deadly than we thought it was.
A columnist wrote that antibody testing “proves we’ve been had!” adding: “We’ve been told that the true death rate is 7.4% in New York. … We were told that this was worse than the flu. … But none of these ‘truths’ turns out to be so. The death rate in New York State isn’t 7.4%, it is actually 0.75%.”
This columnist is mixing up the case fatality rate and the infection fatality rate. There has never been an abundance of diagnostic tests in New York, which means mostly very sick patients are the ones who’ve been tested. As of April 24, according to the State Department of Health, 282,143 people had tested positive, and 16,599 of those people had died. That translates to a case fatality rate of 5.9%.
(As a side note, there are many reasons why the case fatality rate is a very squishy estimate. The denominator depends both on how many tests are available and how many people are seeking testing. The numerator is also shaky — for one, many people are dying at home without getting tested, and the extent to which deaths are undercounted is still unknown. Moreover, we don’t yet know the outcome, whether recovery or death, for many patients that are identified as positive.)
On April 23, Cuomo announced preliminary data from the state’s sero-survey, saying that 13.9% of state residents had tested positive for antibodies. In New York City, it was about 21%. The state is continuing to test residents in order to generate an ongoing series of “snapshots” of the levels of infection. Cuomo had updated numbers by April 27 showing huge regional variation.
Kilpatrick, from UC Santa Cruz, said that if the estimates from New York stand up to scrutiny, the infection fatality rate in New York City would be approximately 0.8%.
He told me that is not very surprising, because scientists have been able to get some estimates of infection fatality rates using data from enclosed populations where nearly everyone got tested — on cruise ships. Epidemiologists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, for example, analyzed data from the Diamond Princess, the ill-fated ship on which more than 700 passengers got infected. Researchers adjusted for the fact that cruise passengers are older than average and estimated the coronavirus’ infection fatality ratio as 0.6%.
Remember, the IFR is not inherent to the virus — how old and healthy your population is and how many ICU beds were available for patients also will affect this number for your region.
Stop comparing this to the flu. Without a coronavirus vaccine, we are far more vulnerable.
Now let’s talk about the flu. Comparisons to the flu keep coming back like a many-headed hydra, and they roared back last week with a vengeance.
The estimates I’ve seen for influenza IFR range from about 0.14% on the upper end to 0.04% on the lower end. So if the IFR for this coronavirus ends up being around 0.5%, that’s still many times worse than the flu.
But that’s not the main problem. At the end of the day, wherever the coronavirus fatality rate ends up, it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have any immunity to the virus, which is a critical factor in why we’ve had to behave differently in our response to it.
Marc Lipsitch, head of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, has estimated that ultimately 20% to 60% of the population could be infected with COVID-19. By comparison, because of immunity provided by flu shots, only about 10% to 20% of the population gets sick with influenza every year, according to Kilpatrick.
Kilpatrick sketched out what this meant: “If it’s five times deadlier than the seasonal flu, and three times as many people are going to get it, that means we’re going to get 15 times as many deaths. And 15 times 30,000, which is the middle-of-the-road kind of a seasonal flu year, that’s 450,000 deaths — about half a million deaths — that’s a pretty big, scary number, I think.”
There are additional reasons why comparing the flu to the coronavirus isn’t apples to apples. We’re two to three months into the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. By comparison, the typical flu season lasts many months. So comparing current deaths from the coronavirus to a complete flu season doesn’t make sense.
Dean, from the University of Florida, also notes that the discussion about exactly how deadly COVID-19 is doesn’t change the reality of how many people have died. While it’s important that New York City’s sero-survey has helped to quantify the number of people who have had mild infections, that doesn’t change the fact that, as of April 27, about one out of every 500 residents of New York City has died from this virus. (This includes deaths that New York City deems likely to be due to COVID-19, despite not having a lab-confirmed test.)
“We know that this disease can completely decimate health care systems, and that’s important to keep in mind in terms of how we respond,” Dean said.
Antibody tests aren’t ready to be used to issue “immunity passports.”
As antibody tests become more widely available, there’ll naturally be a temptation to start using the tests for ourselves on an individual basis, to determine if we’re immune and can go about our lives, free of the paranoia and fear that have been plaguing us for the past two months.
But it’s too early for that. Besides the issue of potential false positives, scientists haven’t yet figured out exactly what level of protection an individual has after being infected and whether the protection lasts forever (like with chickenpox) or wanes after a while. The World Health Organization issued a scientific brief last week warning that detection of antibodies alone shouldn’t serve as a basis for an “immunity passport” allowing an individual to assume they are totally protected from reinfection.
So for now, the antibody tests are best used in these population-wide surveys, to better understand the spread of the disease, how it’s being transmitted and regional infection fatality rates.
There are far more surveys to come. You could be part of one.
Sero-surveys have only just begun. Many of those that are soon launching appear to be robust and thoughtfully designed, such as in Indiana, where the State Department of Health has said it will test at least 20,000 Hoosiers in four phases over the next year. Participants would be randomly selected, by invitation only, “to ensure that the sampling is representative of the population,” the department said.
While everyone is eager to know the results of these studies, many researchers I spoke to also said they hoped that there could be a better balance reached between sharing results quickly and publishing full information. So far, while key findings from the studies done in Los Angeles and New York State have been announced, their authors haven’t yet published many details about their methods.
“I think there should be more pushback when people are not providing their methodology,” said Dean, from the University of Florida. “They shouldn’t be running to the press. You should explain what you did. How do we know what you did, if it’s credible or not?”
For all the criticism that the Santa Clara study has received, Larremore says he’s “thankful that the researchers put the preprint out there, so the community could help them correct it.” (A preprint is a draft research paper, shared publicly before it has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.)
Bhattacharya, the author, said his team “received hundreds of constructive comments on our preprint from scholars around the world” and is now updating its paper. The new version will be “substantially better as a result of this worldwide peer-review.”
Overall, he said, “the open science model has really worked well.”
It’s always easier to criticize studies than to run them. Just a few weeks ago, in the U.S., we had no antibody survey results to look at, and now we have some data. I’m hopeful that as more and more studies are done, researchers will be able to discard bad data, confirm good information, start to track trends and gather intel on this virus, so we are better equipped to make wise, evidence-based decisions on how to fight the disease at local and state levels, as a country and as a global community.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Doctor Who Allegedly Promoted Vitamin C As COVID Treatment Charged With Fraud

Federal prosecutors have charged a Michigan doctor with health care fraud after he allegedly promoted a bogus COVID-19 treatment and submitted false claims to Medicare .
Dr. Charles Mok , who runs Allure Medical Spa , promoted high-dose injections of vitamin C as a coronavirus treatment , according to the complaint .
As the complaint points out , the FDA has approved no treatment or cure for coronavirus , and there is scant evidence to suggest that excessive amounts of vitamin C is the elusive solution .
The Spa is an umbrella for 26 different outpatient clinics specializing in varicose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in Shelby township in Michigan , a northern suburb of Detroit .
The complaint , unsealed on Tuesday , was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan .
Per the complaint , in a now-removed video posted on YouTube Mok claimed that “ IV vitamin C is being used in hospitals across the country to treat the most advanced disease associated with COVID-19 , ” and advertised it for those at high risk for contracting the disease .
He allegedly promised that the injections would “ reduce the severity of symptoms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contagiousness.
” Meanwhile , in another video he sent to staff members to pitch the new treatment , he admitted that the vitamin C injections were not FDA approved , according to the complaint .
When staff members pushed back on administering the phony treatment , fretting that patients already infected with the virus would commingle with healthy ones , Mok allegedly threatened them with the closure of their clinics and loss of their jobs .
“ If you won ’ t treat COVID patients in the fear that they would expose vein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said , per the complaint .
Allure allegedly submitted 98 claims to insurance companies , including Medicare , stemming from the so-called COVID infusion treatments .
“ Dr .
Mok is charged with exploiting the current pandemic to defraud the Medicare program , and putting the safety and health of his patients at risk in doing so , ” the complaint said .
At the same time he was allegedly promoting and administering the snake oil coronavirus cure , he was also keeping his operations open even while Gov .
Gretchen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-essential medical procedures in the state .
In a video call on March 20 , the complaint said , staff members discussed the governor ’ s order and pointed out that Allure ’ s focus on varicose vein treatments would qualify it as non-essential .
The employees allegedly mentioned Allure ’ s competitors , all of which were closing .
Mok was unmoved .
Per the complaint , Mok called the other practices “ cowards ” and said that the coronavirus pandemic was an “ opportunity to capture the market.
” A cooperating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five Allure employees tested positive for the virus and continued to treat patients .
In one case , Mok allegedly told managers not to tell staff that an employee had tested positive , adding that he didn ’ t think self-quarantine measures were necessary .
Per the complaint , six other employees exhibited symptoms of the virus but were never tested .
All of them continued to work for part of or the entire time they were possibly sick .
Mok also allegedly filed false insurance claims in line with the Spa ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press release , U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider said he was joined by agents at the FBI and inspector general ’ s office at Health and Human Services in working the case .
Late last week , per local reports , agents clad in protective equipment raided the Shelby township office and removed boxes of documents .
“ Dr .
Mok is charged with exploiting the current pandemic to defraud the Medicare program , and putting the safety and health of his patients at risk in doing so , ” Schneider said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations , and my office is committed to prosecuting any medical professional who attempts to use the Covid-19 crisis to defraud patients or insurers .
”

Federal prosecutors have charged a Michigan doctor with health care fraud after he allegedly promoted a bogus COVID-19 treatment and submitted false claims to Medicare.
Dr. Charles Mok, who runs Allure Medical Spa, promoted high-dose injections of vitamin C as a coronavirus treatment, according to the complaint. As the complaint points out, the FDA has approved no treatment or cure for coronavirus, and there is scant evidence to suggest that excessive amounts of vitamin C is the elusive solution.
The Spa is an umbrella for 26 different outpatient clinics specializing in varicose vein treatment, though its main outpost is in Shelby township in Michigan, a northern suburb of Detroit. The complaint, unsealed on Tuesday, was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Per the complaint, in a now-removed video posted on YouTube Mok claimed that “IV vitamin C is being used in hospitals across the country to treat the most advanced disease associated with COVID-19,” and advertised it for those at high risk for contracting the disease.
He allegedly promised that the injections would “reduce the severity of symptoms, duration of illness, and therefore the contagiousness.”
Meanwhile, in another video he sent to staff members to pitch the new treatment, he admitted that the vitamin C injections were not FDA approved, according to the complaint.
When staff members pushed back on administering the phony treatment, fretting that patients already infected with the virus would commingle with healthy ones, Mok allegedly threatened them with the closure of their clinics and loss of their jobs.
“If you won’t treat COVID patients in the fear that they would expose vein patients you need to shut down!” he said, per the complaint.
Allure allegedly submitted 98 claims to insurance companies, including Medicare, stemming from the so-called COVID infusion treatments.
“Dr. Mok is charged with exploiting the current pandemic to defraud the Medicare program, and putting the safety and health of his patients at risk in doing so,” the complaint said.
At the same time he was allegedly promoting and administering the snake oil coronavirus cure, he was also keeping his operations open even while Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) had shut down non-essential medical procedures in the state.
In a video call on March 20, the complaint said, staff members discussed the governor’s order and pointed out that Allure’s focus on varicose vein treatments would qualify it as non-essential. The employees allegedly mentioned Allure’s competitors, all of which were closing.
Mok was unmoved. Per the complaint, Mok called the other practices “cowards” and said that the coronavirus pandemic was an “opportunity to capture the market.”
A cooperating witness told the prosecutors that consequently, five Allure employees tested positive for the virus and continued to treat patients. In one case, Mok allegedly told managers not to tell staff that an employee had tested positive, adding that he didn’t think self-quarantine measures were necessary.
Per the complaint, six other employees exhibited symptoms of the virus but were never tested. All of them continued to work for part of or the entire time they were possibly sick.
Mok also allegedly filed false insurance claims in line with the Spa’s routine varicose vein practice.
In a press release, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider said he was joined by agents at the FBI and inspector general’s office at Health and Human Services in working the case. Late last week, per local reports, agents clad in protective equipment raided the Shelby township office and removed boxes of documents.
“Dr. Mok is charged with exploiting the current pandemic to defraud the Medicare program, and putting the safety and health of his patients at risk in doing so,” Schneider said in a statement. “These are serious allegations, and my office is committed to prosecuting any medical professional who attempts to use the Covid-19 crisis to defraud patients or insurers.”
Read the complaint here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Pence Ignores Mask Requirement While Visiting Mayo Clinic In Minnesota

Vice President Mike Pence , who leads the White House coronavirus task force , showed up at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester , Minnesota on Tuesday without wearing a protective mask , violating the clinic ’ s policy amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
Shortly afterward , the clinic tweeted that it had told Pence about its mask requirement in advance .
“ Mayo Clinic had informed @ VP of the masking policy prior to his arrival today , ” the account wrote , then deleted the post .
Pence press office did not immediately respond to request for comment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for flouting the policy .
President Donald Trump said in early April that he would defy recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to wear a mask while out in public .
“ I just don ’ t want to wear one myself , ” Trump said .
“ It ’ s a recommendation.
” “ Somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk , the great Resolute Desk , wearing a face mask as I greet presidents , dictators , kings , queens…I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see it for myself , ” he continued .

Vice President Mike Pence, who leads the White House coronavirus task force, showed up at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota on Tuesday without wearing a protective mask, violating the clinic’s policy amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Politico reporter Dan Diamond posted a video of a mask-free Pence visiting a patient:
PENCE flouts Mayo Clinic policy that everyone on campus wear a mask, even as he meets with staff and a patient. pic.twitter.com/kfo64KQDhU — Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) April 28, 2020
Shortly afterward, the clinic tweeted that it had told Pence about its mask requirement in advance.
“Mayo Clinic had informed @VP of the masking policy prior to his arrival today,” the account wrote, then deleted the post.
And Mayo Clinic deleted it's Pence mask tweet … pic.twitter.com/3LHP7fcmbe — Tom LoBianco (@tomlobianco) April 28, 2020
Pence press office did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The vice president immediately came under fire for flouting the policy.
The Trump administration has treated the pandemic like a PR or political problem, not a public health problem. Pence is modelling behavior against health guidelines in a hospital with a patient. What message does that send? Every signal counts when the stakes are this high. https://t.co/XCJXL17Vdw — Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) April 28, 2020
In Pence’s visit to the Mayo Clinic, he was trying to show us how “tough” he is—but just showed his arrogance, lack of concern for others, and vanity. pic.twitter.com/ZsCi70p6Pb — Tulsi Gabbard ? (@TulsiGabbard) April 28, 2020
The CDC's mask guidance is designed to protect everyone else from the wearer. Everyone is protecting Mike Pence in this video, without him returning the favor. The Trump administration is now wearing their disregard for everyone else on their faces, instead of wearing masks. https://t.co/qpF2C4ILow — Kendall Brown (@kendallybrown) April 28, 2020
When you don't wear a mask, especially inside the Mayo Clinic, you are not being brave. You are showing that you think the rules don't apply to you. And you are setting a dangerous example by ignoring experts. — Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) April 28, 2020
Probably the first time Mike Pence has ever said no to Mayo https://t.co/D22sDAD8k2 — The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) April 28, 2020
President Donald Trump said in early April that he would defy recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to wear a mask while out in public.
“I just don’t want to wear one myself,” Trump said. “It’s a recommendation.”
“Somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk, wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, dictators, kings, queens…I don’t know, I don’t see it for myself,” he continued.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Trump Claims His ‘Talent’ Or ‘Luck’ Saved Lives As COVID-19 Death Toll Approaches 60K

President Donald Trump patted himself on the back on Tuesday afternoon for his response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the @ @ @ @ @ death toll continues to climb .
When a reporter asked Trump during an appearance in @ @ @ @ @ intelligence community had warned him about COVID-19 in January , the President said he “ @ @ @ @ @ ” then pivoted to his travel ban on China .
“ When I did the @ @ @ @ @ everybody was against me , including Republicans , ” Trump said , pointing out that @ @ @ @ @ early.
” “ Whether it was luck , talent , or something else , we @ @ @ @ @ , ” he added .
COVID-19 has caused approximately 56,700 deaths as of Tuesday afternoon @ @ @ @ @ John Hopkins University .

President Donald Trump patted himself on the back on Tuesday afternoon for his response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., even as the death toll continues to climb.
When a reporter asked Trump during an appearance in the Oval Office if the intelligence community had warned him about COVID-19 in January, the President said he “would have to check,” then pivoted to his travel ban on China.
“When I did the ban on China, almost everybody was against me, including Republicans,” Trump said, pointing out that the ban was “very early.”
“Whether it was luck, talent, or something else, we saved many thousands of lives,” he added.
COVID-19 has caused approximately 56,700 deaths as of Tuesday afternoon, according to data from John Hopkins University.
Watch Trump below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Illinois GOP Lawmaker Wins Temporary Exemption From Stay At Home Order — For Himself

A Republican Illinois lawmaker won a temporary exemption from Gov .
J .
B. Pritzker ’ s ( D ) stay-at-home order Tuesday — but only for himself .
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a speedy appeal asking an appellate court to reverse and vacate the decision Tuesday , after Pritzker promised a legal battle during his Monday press conference .
“ In collaboration with the Attorney General ’ s office , my team and I will fight this legal battle to the furthest extent possible to ensure that public health and common sense prevail , ” the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Darren Bailey ( R ) , a freshman representing a rural district in southern Illinois , sued the governor in state circuit court for alleged misuse of his emergency powers .
In his complaint , Bailey ’ s lawyers said that Pritzker declared a public health emergency due to the coronavirus pandemic on March 9 .
At that point , the governor was imbued with certain powers under the state ’ s Emergency Management Agency Act , including his authority to issue a stay-at-home order .
The Act grants him such powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On March 20 , Pritzker announced the statewide stay-at-home order .
Since then , he has declared Illinois in a state of continued disaster , and extended the order — a move that Bailey argued was illegal and outside the bounds of the governor ’ s emergency powers .
“ Pritzker is issuing redundant proclamations acknowledging the same COVID-19 virus as a ‘ continuing disaster , ’ wherein he is reenergizing the emergency provisions of the act for the sole purpose of rendering the statutory 30-day limitation placed on his emergency powers meaningless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought a temporary restraining order and injunction to relieve him from having to stay home and limit his own travel within the state .
He was granted both by Clay County Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney on Monday .
“ Plaintiff has shown he has a clearly ascertainable right in need of immediate protection , namely his liberty interest to be free from Pritzker ’ s executive order of quarantine in his own home , ” wrote the judge in his order .
Pritzker had strong words for the decision on Monday when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ History will remember those who put politics aside to come together to keep people safe , ” he said .
“ It will also remember those so blindly devoted to ideology and the pursuit of personal celebrity that they made an enemy of science and of reason.
” The legal action mirrors sentiment shared nationwide by conservatives chafing under restrictions governors put in place to slow the spread of coronavirus .
In a similar legal action , Wisconsin legislators sued the state ’ s top health officials in state Supreme Court last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , individuals have sued their governors or organized demonstrations to express their anger .
President Donald Trump has already promised that he was “ going to come down strong ” on states enforcing “ too tough ” of restrictions .
And on Monday , Attorney General William Barr issued a memo telling federal prosecutors to be on the lookout for any state restrictions that might infringe on constitutional rights .

A Republican Illinois lawmaker won a temporary exemption from Gov. J. B. Pritzker’s (D) stay-at-home order Tuesday — but only for himself.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed a speedy appeal asking an appellate court to reverse and vacate the decision Tuesday, after Pritzker promised a legal battle during his Monday press conference.
“In collaboration with the Attorney General’s office, my team and I will fight this legal battle to the furthest extent possible to ensure that public health and common sense prevail,” the governor said.
Echoing conservative complaints nationwide, Rep. Darren Bailey (R), a freshman representing a rural district in southern Illinois, sued the governor in state circuit court for alleged misuse of his emergency powers.
In his complaint, Bailey’s lawyers said that Pritzker declared a public health emergency due to the coronavirus pandemic on March 9. At that point, the governor was imbued with certain powers under the state’s Emergency Management Agency Act, including his authority to issue a stay-at-home order. The Act grants him such powers for not more than 30 days.
On March 20, Pritzker announced the statewide stay-at-home order. Since then, he has declared Illinois in a state of continued disaster, and extended the order — a move that Bailey argued was illegal and outside the bounds of the governor’s emergency powers.
“Pritzker is issuing redundant proclamations acknowledging the same COVID-19 virus as a ‘continuing disaster,’ wherein he is reenergizing the emergency provisions of the act for the sole purpose of rendering the statutory 30-day limitation placed on his emergency powers meaningless,” the lawsuit said.
Bailey sought a temporary restraining order and injunction to relieve him from having to stay home and limit his own travel within the state.
He was granted both by Clay County Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney on Monday.
“Plaintiff has shown he has a clearly ascertainable right in need of immediate protection, namely his liberty interest to be free from Pritzker’s executive order of quarantine in his own home,” wrote the judge in his order.
Pritzker had strong words for the decision on Monday when he promised the coming appeal.
“History will remember those who put politics aside to come together to keep people safe,” he said. “It will also remember those so blindly devoted to ideology and the pursuit of personal celebrity that they made an enemy of science and of reason.”
The legal action mirrors sentiment shared nationwide by conservatives chafing under restrictions governors put in place to slow the spread of coronavirus. In a similar legal action, Wisconsin legislators sued the state’s top health officials in state Supreme Court last week for extending the stay-at-home order. Elsewhere, individuals have sued their governors or organized demonstrations to express their anger. President Donald Trump has already promised that he was “going to come down strong” on states enforcing “too tough” of restrictions.
And on Monday, Attorney General William Barr issued a memo telling federal prosecutors to be on the lookout for any state restrictions that might infringe on constitutional rights.
Read the judge’s order here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Trump Applauds Texas Guv For Lifting Stay At Home Order. A TX Judge Isn’t So Happy.

President Donald Trump cheered on Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott ( R ) on Tuesday for ordering a lift on the state ’ s stay at home order and allowing some businesses to reopen during the COVID-19 outbreak .
“ Texas to open businesses in phases beginning Friday , ” the President tweeted .
“ Great job being done by @ GregAbbott_TX.
” On Monday , Abbott issued an executive order to phase out his stay at home mandate , beginning this Friday until at least May 18 .
The first stage will allow “ all retail stores , restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” along with state museums and libraries , to reopen on Friday .
Under the order , those establishments are not permitted to exceed their 25 percent occupancy level .
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins spoke out against his governor ’ s order during a CNN interview on Monday evening .
“ Just because something can be open doesn ’ t mean it should be open , ” Jenkins told CNN anchor Erin Burnett .
“ And just because something is open doesn ’ t mean you should go there.
” Georgia Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began rolling back his stay at home order last week , but unlike with Abbott , Trump publicly scolded Kemp and said he “ totally ” disagreed with the Georgia governor ’ s decision .
“ Would I do that ?
No…I want to protect people ’ s lives , ” Trump said during a press conference last week .
The President ’ s unexpected snub didn ’ t just come about because health officials on his COVID-19 task force reportedly had to push him to reject Kemp ’ s plan ; Axios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Georgia governor for appointing Kelly Loeffler to fill former Sen. Johnny Isakson ’ s ( R-GA ) seat instead of Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) , Trump ’ s recommended appointee .

President Donald Trump cheered on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Tuesday for ordering a lift on the state’s stay at home order and allowing some businesses to reopen during the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Texas to open businesses in phases beginning Friday,” the President tweeted. “Great job being done by @GregAbbott_TX.”
On Monday, Abbott issued an executive order to phase out his stay at home mandate, beginning this Friday until at least May 18.
The first stage will allow “all retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters, and malls,” along with state museums and libraries, to reopen on Friday. Under the order, those establishments are not permitted to exceed their 25 percent occupancy level.
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins spoke out against his governor’s order during a CNN interview on Monday evening.
“Just because something can be open doesn’t mean it should be open,” Jenkins told CNN anchor Erin Burnett. “And just because something is open doesn’t mean you should go there.”
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) also began rolling back his stay at home order last week, but unlike with Abbott, Trump publicly scolded Kemp and said he “totally” disagreed with the Georgia governor’s decision.
“Would I do that? No…I want to protect people’s lives,” Trump said during a press conference last week.
The President’s unexpected snub didn’t just come about because health officials on his COVID-19 task force reportedly had to push him to reject Kemp’s plan; Axios reported that Trump was also privately angry at the Georgia governor for appointing Kelly Loeffler to fill former Sen. Johnny Isakson’s (R-GA) seat instead of Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), Trump’s recommended appointee.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Alleged PPE Fraudsters Used Empty Boxes To Pitch Undercover Agent

The two alleged fraudsters thought they had a fish on the hook , ready to pay nearly $ 5 million for protective masks that , according to federal prosecutors , didn ’ t actually exist .
It would have been the business partners ’ fourth sale ever , they later told FBI agents — and that ’ s including a small shipment to one of their sisters .
This payday , by comparison , would be massive .
Except the deal was never going to happen .
Their would-be customer was a criminal himself , working with law enforcement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own federal offense .
By the time the invoices were drafted , an undercover law enforcement agent , posing as the customer ’ s representative , had already sized up the men and their supposed stock of PPE .
Within a few days , they ’ d be arrested .
The mask dealers told their mark they wanted $ 4,838,000 for their purportedly massive supply of 3-ply and KN95 protective masks , according to the criminal complaint against them unsealed Monday .
The coveted personal protective equipment was said to be sitting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They showed off stacks of shrink-wrapped boxes at their office , the complaint said .
A website of theirs allegedly claimed they ’ d been in the PPE business since 2014 .
The feds say it was all a sham .
According to the complaint against California men Donald Allen and Manuel Revolorio , the boxes were empty , they didn ’ t have millions of masks , and the phone number on Allen and Revolorio ’ s website went to an “ adult telephone service.
” The pair were arrested Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York with conspiracy to commit wire fraud .
Allen and Revolorio ’ s mask scheme started to go awry when a couple of their co-conspirators , who remained unnamed in the complaint , reached out to a man referred to as “ Individual-2 , ” who claimed to represent wealthy investors in search of PPE .
In reality , Individual-2 had previously pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and was working with law enforcement the entire time , the complaint said .
The co-conspirators introduced Investor-2 to Allen on a phone call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly claimed he ’ d been “ flipping ” masks for a profit and told Investor-2 of an incoming shipment from China .
But it didn ’ t take much for the FBI to pick apart the allegedly phony claims the men made about their brokerage business .
A website for Allen and Revolvorio ’ s business , ICIG , said they ’ d been working in the global medical supply industry since 2014 , but the company was really incorporated in 2017 , the complaint said , as a real estate investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ thousands of the products and brands used in various professional industries , ” the company had neither a large inventory nor any distribution centers , the complaint alleged .
When Allen reached out again , Investor-2 said he would put Allen in touch with his associate — an undercover law enforcement agent .
In a phone call on April 13 , Allen allegedly told the undercover agent to meet him at “ our mancave slash , uh , auxiliary office ” at a single-family home in Rancho Cucamonga , California to check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ office ” the next day , the agent allegedly saw “ a large number of cardboard boxes in plain view ” inside and on the back porch .
Some of the boxes were open and contained face masks , others were sealed and shrink-wrapped .
Allen talked a big game during the meeting , claiming to have been in contact with an NFL franchise about a mask order and saying that he and Revolorio had $ 24 million “ on the way ” for other orders , according to the complaint .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ warehouses , showing him what Revolorio claimed were boxes filled with millions of masks .
Within a few hours , Allen emailed with an offer : 3,800,000 million 3-ply masks , plus 500,000 KN95 masks , in exchange for nearly $ 5 million .
But , according to the complaint , Investor-2 pressed for a commitment : “ So you have an agreement with the seller that you can or you have an agreement with the owner that you can sell these , correct ?
” he pressed in a phone call on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feds allege , neither Allen , Revolorio nor ICIG actually owned the masks they were trying to sell .
Two days later , the FBI executed a search warrant on the Rancho Cucamonga “ office ” that the undercover agent had seen , as well as the two warehouses they ’ d shown him .
“ The search of the Office revealed , among other things , that most of the approximately 120 boxes in the living room and back porch were empty , ” the complaint alleged .
“ Most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and labelled , which created the impression that they were filled with protective masks.
” There were masks in the warehouses , according to the complaint , but they too came with a catch — they didn ’ t belong to the men trying to sell them .

The two alleged fraudsters thought they had a fish on the hook, ready to pay nearly $5 million for protective masks that, according to federal prosecutors, didn’t actually exist.
It would have been the business partners’ fourth sale ever, they later told FBI agents — and that’s including a small shipment to one of their sisters. This payday, by comparison, would be massive.
Except the deal was never going to happen. Their would-be customer was a criminal himself, working with law enforcement in hopes of a lighter sentence for his own federal offense. By the time the invoices were drafted, an undercover law enforcement agent, posing as the customer’s representative, had already sized up the men and their supposed stock of PPE. Within a few days, they’d be arrested.
The mask dealers told their mark they wanted $4,838,000 for their purportedly massive supply of 3-ply and KN95 protective masks, according to the criminal complaint against them unsealed Monday. The coveted personal protective equipment was said to be sitting in two California warehouses, ready to buy.
They showed off stacks of shrink-wrapped boxes at their office, the complaint said. A website of theirs allegedly claimed they’d been in the PPE business since 2014.
The feds say it was all a sham.
According to the complaint against California men Donald Allen and Manuel Revolorio, the boxes were empty, they didn’t have millions of masks, and the phone number on Allen and Revolorio’s website went to an “adult telephone service.”
The pair were arrested Monday and charged in the Eastern District of New York with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Allen and Revolorio’s mask scheme started to go awry when a couple of their co-conspirators, who remained unnamed in the complaint, reached out to a man referred to as “Individual-2,” who claimed to represent wealthy investors in search of PPE.
In reality, Individual-2 had previously pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and was working with law enforcement the entire time, the complaint said.
The co-conspirators introduced Investor-2 to Allen on a phone call on April 9, in which Allen allegedly claimed he’d been “flipping” masks for a profit and told Investor-2 of an incoming shipment from China.
But it didn’t take much for the FBI to pick apart the allegedly phony claims the men made about their brokerage business.
A website for Allen and Revolvorio’s business, ICIG, said they’d been working in the global medical supply industry since 2014, but the company was really incorporated in 2017, the complaint said, as a real estate investment firm. Though ICIG claimed to stock “thousands of the products and brands used in various professional industries,” the company had neither a large inventory nor any distribution centers, the complaint alleged.
When Allen reached out again, Investor-2 said he would put Allen in touch with his associate — an undercover law enforcement agent.
In a phone call on April 13, Allen allegedly told the undercover agent to meet him at “our mancave slash, uh, auxiliary office” at a single-family home in Rancho Cucamonga, California to check out the goods.
Arriving at the “office” the next day, the agent allegedly saw “a large number of cardboard boxes in plain view” inside and on the back porch. Some of the boxes were open and contained face masks, others were sealed and shrink-wrapped.
Allen talked a big game during the meeting, claiming to have been in contact with an NFL franchise about a mask order and saying that he and Revolorio had $24 million “on the way” for other orders, according to the complaint. Revolorio took the undercover agent to two warehouses, showing him what Revolorio claimed were boxes filled with millions of masks.
Within a few hours, Allen emailed with an offer: 3,800,000 million 3-ply masks, plus 500,000 KN95 masks, in exchange for nearly $5 million.
But, according to the complaint, Investor-2 pressed for a commitment: “So you have an agreement with the seller that you can or you have an agreement with the owner that you can sell these, correct?” he pressed in a phone call on April 15.
“Absolutely,” Allen allegedly replied.
In reality, the feds allege, neither Allen, Revolorio nor ICIG actually owned the masks they were trying to sell. Two days later, the FBI executed a search warrant on the Rancho Cucamonga “office” that the undercover agent had seen, as well as the two warehouses they’d shown him.
“The search of the Office revealed, among other things, that most of the approximately 120 boxes in the living room and back porch were empty,” the complaint alleged. “Most of the empty boxes had been resealed, shrink-wrapped and labelled, which created the impression that they were filled with protective masks.”
There were masks in the warehouses, according to the complaint, but they too came with a catch — they didn’t belong to the men trying to sell them.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--DOJ: Congress Can’t Sue If Prez Orders Treasury To Pay For Everyone’s Health Care

U.S. appellate judge Merrick Garland pushed the Justice Department to the logical extremes of its defense of President Trump by getting a DOJ lawyer to say that Congress couldn ’ t sue if an administration on its own decided to pay for uninsured people ’ s health care .
The hypothetical came up in the oral arguments for two blockbuster cases in the ongoing war between Trump and the Democratic House .
The cases were argued together Tuesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit .
Garland ’ s questions appeared particularly geared to the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration from using national emergency powers to pay for the border wall Congress refused to fund .
The Justice Department is arguing that Congress can not use lawsuits to resolve spending disputes it has with the executive branch , an argument that a Trump-appointed district court judge previously backed .
On Tuesday , Garland laid out a hypothetical for DOJ lawyer Hashim Mooppan : Could a President , having failed to pass a health care reform bill , order the Treasury to pay for the health insurance of people who wanted coverage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reference to the push by progressives to expand Medicare to cover everyone .
Republicans have railed against these legislative “ Medicare for All ” proposals .
( Garland did not use that specific term . )
Mooppan said that Congress would not have the standing to bring such a case .
Garland ’ s line of inquiry also included a question about whether Congress could sue if a President funded a border wall if Congress explicitly forbade the President from doing so .
Mooppan said no , while stressing that he was just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hypothetical wherein the administration unilaterally issued checks for Americans during the pandemic after a bill authorizing those checks failed in Congress .
Mooppan said Congress could not sue in this case either , and the answer prompted a grilling from Garland on who would have standing in that scenario to sue to stop the administration from making those payments .
“ That ’ s a significant power that the President has that can ’ t be checked by the Congress , ” Garland said , referring to the power to spend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
Mooppan pushed back that Congress could check the executive branch by jamming the President ’ s legislative agenda or refusing to confirm nominees .
Doug Letter , the House General Counsel , also faced questions similar to Garland ’ s hypotheticals to Mooppan , about the kinds of scenarios in which the House would have standing to bring lawsuits if it disagreed with how the executive branch was implementing its laws .
Letter argued that the appropriations clause of the Constitution distinguished congressional lawsuits challenging spending issues from other hypothetical types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about which Letter expressed skepticism .
The border wall case was heard alongside the House Judiciary committee ’ s lawsuit seeking enforcement of its Don McGahn subpoena .
Because , in both cases , the Justice Department is arguing that the courts have no role to play in resolving the House ’ s claims against the administration , the cases stand to have major implications for the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances .
Judge Judith Rogers touched on the serious consequences if the courts ultimately agreed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If , in a hypothetical situation , the President in his first year of office redoes the separation of powers … there ’ s nothing that can be done until the next presidential election , other than revolution , ” she said .
The line , and particularly the invocation of “ revolution , ” prompted a testy response from Mooppan .
He said the implications of the border wall case were no more grave than previous cases that said that a President exceeded the statutory limits on his authority .
And he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have standing under the Constitution to sue , including when it comes to challenging the border wall spending .
“ That doesn ’ t mean we resort to revolution , ” Mooppan said , while rattling off the other tools Congress would have available to push back on the President ’ s actions .
In addition to Garland ’ s hypotheticals pertaining to the border wall suit , the arguments in the McGahn case also prompted the Justice Department to take extreme positions to back its posture .
Judge Patricia Millett asked Mooppan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court to enforce a subpoena of someone who was “ indisputably ” a private individual .
The question appeared to be a reference to the DOJ argument that it was up to the executive branch to enforce subpoenas .
Mooppan said that , under the “ broadest ” formulation of the DOJ ’ s argument , Congress could not go to court to enforce a subpoena against a private individual .
“ The power to sue to enforce the law is invested in the executive , not the legislature , ” Mooppan said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed back on Mooppan ’ s emphasis on the idea that Congress has tools other than lawsuits easily at its disposal if subpoenas are ignored .
He brought up arguments that Trump ’ s lawyers made during the impeachment proceedings , where the House had alleged that the administration ’ s refusal to comply with subpoenas was obstruction of Congress .
“ White House counsel told the Senate that the subpoenas could be ignored because , ‘ The House should have gone to court to enforce the subpoenas , ’ ” Letter recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and over again , what the President and his official government lawyers told the Senate of the United States : ‘ Go to court and enforce those subpoena .
And the President can ignore those subpoenas because you didn ’ t. ’ ” For more than a year , the House Judiciary Committee has been seeking the testimony of the former White House Counsel , who featured prominently in special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report .
The committee filed a lawsuit in July seeking a court order enforcing the April 2019 subpoena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last fall , but her decision was reversed earlier this year in a 2-1 appeals court decision .
That decision , handed down by two GOP appointees , said that courts did not have the authority to resolve subpoena disputes between the executive and legislative branches , a stunning blow to Congress ’ ability to perform government oversight — not just this administration , but administrations in the future .
Democratic-appointees make up a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit , and Trump ’ s two appointees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves from Tuesday ’ s arguments , presumably because of their previous roles in the administration .
( Another GOP appointee is sitting for the border wall case only . )
It appears likely that the McGahn case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court , which has on its plate this term a House subpoena lawsuit seeking documents from Trump ’ s financial firms .

U.S. appellate judge Merrick Garland pushed the Justice Department to the logical extremes of its defense of President Trump by getting a DOJ lawyer to say that Congress couldn’t sue if an administration on its own decided to pay for uninsured people’s health care.
The hypothetical came up in the oral arguments for two blockbuster cases in the ongoing war between Trump and the Democratic House. The cases were argued together Tuesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Garland’s questions appeared particularly geared to the House’s lawsuit seeking to block the administration from using national emergency powers to pay for the border wall Congress refused to fund.
The Justice Department is arguing that Congress cannot use lawsuits to resolve spending disputes it has with the executive branch, an argument that a Trump-appointed district court judge previously backed.
On Tuesday, Garland laid out a hypothetical for DOJ lawyer Hashim Mooppan: Could a President, having failed to pass a health care reform bill, order the Treasury to pay for the health insurance of people who wanted coverage. The hypothetical appeared to be a sly reference to the push by progressives to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Republicans have railed against these legislative “Medicare for All” proposals. (Garland did not use that specific term.)
Mooppan said that Congress would not have the standing to bring such a case.
Garland’s line of inquiry also included a question about whether Congress could sue if a President funded a border wall if Congress explicitly forbade the President from doing so. Mooppan said no, while stressing that he was just answering a hypothetical.
Garland also posed a hypothetical wherein the administration unilaterally issued checks for Americans during the pandemic after a bill authorizing those checks failed in Congress. Mooppan said Congress could not sue in this case either, and the answer prompted a grilling from Garland on who would have standing in that scenario to sue to stop the administration from making those payments.
“That’s a significant power that the President has that can’t be checked by the Congress,” Garland said, referring to the power to spend on health or maintenance that his hypotheticals laid out.
Mooppan pushed back that Congress could check the executive branch by jamming the President’s legislative agenda or refusing to confirm nominees.
Doug Letter, the House General Counsel, also faced questions similar to Garland’s hypotheticals to Mooppan, about the kinds of scenarios in which the House would have standing to bring lawsuits if it disagreed with how the executive branch was implementing its laws. Letter argued that the appropriations clause of the Constitution distinguished congressional lawsuits challenging spending issues from other hypothetical types of congressional lawsuits against the executive branch, about which Letter expressed skepticism.
The border wall case was heard alongside the House Judiciary committee’s lawsuit seeking enforcement of its Don McGahn subpoena.
Because, in both cases, the Justice Department is arguing that the courts have no role to play in resolving the House’s claims against the administration, the cases stand to have major implications for the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Judge Judith Rogers touched on the serious consequences if the courts ultimately agreed with the Department’s position.
“If, in a hypothetical situation, the President in his first year of office redoes the separation of powers … there’s nothing that can be done until the next presidential election, other than revolution,” she said.
The line, and particularly the invocation of “revolution,” prompted a testy response from Mooppan.
He said the implications of the border wall case were no more grave than previous cases that said that a President exceeded the statutory limits on his authority. And he argued that plaintiffs other than Congress could have standing under the Constitution to sue, including when it comes to challenging the border wall spending.
“That doesn’t mean we resort to revolution,” Mooppan said, while rattling off the other tools Congress would have available to push back on the President’s actions.
In addition to Garland’s hypotheticals pertaining to the border wall suit, the arguments in the McGahn case also prompted the Justice Department to take extreme positions to back its posture.
Judge Patricia Millett asked Mooppan if the House could ever go to court to enforce a subpoena of someone who was “indisputably” a private individual. The question appeared to be a reference to the DOJ argument that it was up to the executive branch to enforce subpoenas.
Mooppan said that, under the “broadest” formulation of the DOJ’s argument, Congress could not go to court to enforce a subpoena against a private individual.
“The power to sue to enforce the law is invested in the executive, not the legislature,” Mooppan said.
Letter, the House attorney, pushed back on Mooppan’s emphasis on the idea that Congress has tools other than lawsuits easily at its disposal if subpoenas are ignored. He brought up arguments that Trump’s lawyers made during the impeachment proceedings, where the House had alleged that the administration’s refusal to comply with subpoenas was obstruction of Congress.
“White House counsel told the Senate that the subpoenas could be ignored because, ‘The House should have gone to court to enforce the subpoenas,’” Letter recalled. “That is exactly, over and over again, what the President and his official government lawyers told the Senate of the United States: ‘Go to court and enforce those subpoena. And the President can ignore those subpoenas because you didn’t.’”
For more than a year, the House Judiciary Committee has been seeking the testimony of the former White House Counsel, who featured prominently in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. The committee filed a lawsuit in July seeking a court order enforcing the April 2019 subpoena. A federal judge backed the House last fall, but her decision was reversed earlier this year in a 2-1 appeals court decision.
That decision, handed down by two GOP appointees, said that courts did not have the authority to resolve subpoena disputes between the executive and legislative branches, a stunning blow to Congress’ ability to perform government oversight — not just this administration, but administrations in the future.
Democratic-appointees make up a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Trump’s two appointees on the powerful court have both recused themselves from Tuesday’s arguments, presumably because of their previous roles in the administration. (Another GOP appointee is sitting for the border wall case only.)
It appears likely that the McGahn case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which has on its plate this term a House subpoena lawsuit seeking documents from Trump’s financial firms.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-28--Lockdowns Didn’t Flatten The Curve, Tucker Carlson Muses, COVID-19 Just Isn’t That Deadly

The novel coronavirus just isn ’ t so deadly !
That ’ s the conclusion Fox News host Tucker Carlson came to in a monologue Tuesday night .
It ’ s not that social distancing and enforced business closures have slowed the virus , Carlson said — COVID-19 just isn ’ t as bad as public health officials say it is .
“ You may remember what they first told us back in February and March , ” Carlson told viewers .
“ They said , we have to take radical steps in order to , quote , ‘ flatten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , we ’ re happy to say that curve has been flattened , but it ’ s likely not because of the lockdowns .
The virus just isn ’ t nearly as deadly as we thought it was.
” Carlson didn ’ t provide much in the way of evidence .
Introducing his argument , the Fox News host cited a recent news conference from a pair of California doctors and urgent care clinic owners who concluded — based on testing numbers at their clinics and the state ’ s relatively low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 had been over-hyped .
“ These are serious people who ’ ve done this for a living for decades , ” Carlson said of the two doctors , who have been Fox News guests before .
“ They have in their hands the largest currently available data set on this question.
” Left unsaid by Carlson : The doctors have been “ emphatically condemn [ ed ] ” by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine for their “ reckless and untested musings ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ As owners of local urgent care clinics , it appears these two individuals are releasing biased , non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public ’ s health , ” the organizations said in a statement .
Carlson , criticizing the assumptions of political leaders , nonetheless made a few whoppers himself .
“ Our national quarantine hasn ’ t worked in the way they told it would , ” he said at one point Monday .
“ But you ’ d never know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

The novel coronavirus just isn’t so deadly! That’s the conclusion Fox News host Tucker Carlson came to in a monologue Monday night.
It’s not that social distancing and enforced business closures have slowed the virus, Carlson said — COVID-19 just isn’t as bad as public health officials say it is.
“You may remember what they first told us back in February and March,” Carlson told viewers. “They said, we have to take radical steps in order to, quote, ‘flatten the curve.’ Well, six weeks later, we’re happy to say that curve has been flattened, but it’s likely not because of the lockdowns. The virus just isn’t nearly as deadly as we thought it was.”
Carlson didn’t provide much in the way of evidence.
Introducing his argument, the Fox News host cited a recent news conference from a pair of California doctors and urgent care clinic owners who concluded — based on testing numbers at their clinics and the state’s relatively low number of deaths — that the threat of COVID-19 had been over-hyped.
“These are serious people who’ve done this for a living for decades,” Carlson said of the two doctors, who were also on Laura Ingraham’s show Monday. “They have in their hands the largest currently available data set on this question.”
Left unsaid by Carlson: The doctors have been “emphatically condemn[ed]” by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine for their “reckless and untested musings” that are inconsistent with established epidemiology regarding COVID-19.
“As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health,” the organizations said in a statement.
Carlson, criticizing the assumptions of political leaders, nonetheless made a few whoppers himself.
“Our national quarantine hasn’t worked in the way they told it would,” he said at one point Monday. “But you’d never know that from listening to the people in charge.”
Watch below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-29--Rep. Amash Officially Exploring Third Party Presidential Bid

Former GOP Rep. Justin Amash ( I-MI ) announced on Tuesday night that he was launching an exploratory committee to @ @ @ @ @ member of the Libertarian Party .
“ Americans are ready for practical approaches based in @ @ @ @ @ people , ” he said in a statement .
“ We ’ re ready for @ @ @ @ @ respect for our Constitution and bring people together .
I ’ m excited and honored @ @ @ @ @ steps toward serving Americans of every background as president.
” Amash ’ s decision came @ @ @ @ @ year after the congressman left the Republican Party in wake of Special Counsel Robert Mueller @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign and Russian election interference .
Prior to officially switching party affiliations , Amash @ @ @ @ @ Republican to support impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump .

Former GOP Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) announced on Tuesday night that he was launching an exploratory committee to run for president as a member of the Libertarian Party.
“Americans are ready for practical approaches based in humility and trust of the people,” he said in a statement. “We’re ready for a presidency that will restore respect for our Constitution and bring people together. I’m excited and honored to be taking these first steps toward serving Americans of every background as president.”
Amash’s decision came a little less than a year after the congressman left the Republican Party in wake of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign and Russian election interference.
Prior to officially switching party affiliations, Amash had emerged as the only Republican to support impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Trump reacted to news of Amash’s potential bid on Wednesday by trolling the congressman and those who fear that a third party run would jeopardize efforts to remove Trump from office.
“No, I think Amash would make a wonderful candidate, especially since he is way behind in his district and has no chance of maintaining his Congressional seat,” the President tweeted, adding that he likes Amash “even more than Jill Stein,” the Green Party candidate who ran in 2016.