hotair--2020-04-20--Not a lot of distancing going on at that anti-lockdown protest in Pennsylvania

Robby Soave has a post at Reason today scolding celebrities and reporters for sneering at the protests , which is fair enough .
We ’ re in the midst of the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression .
People are being forced into protracted unemployment by order of the state .
If you ’ re going to mock them for demonstrating against lockdowns , at least glance at your bank account first to remind yourself that not everyone has it as good as you do .
“ Check your privilege , ” as our friends on the left like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to give PR advice to the pro-lockdown contingent , let ’ s spare a few for the anti-lockdown group too .
If I were organizing one of these things , I ’ d have three messages I ’ d want to communicate to build maximum sympathy among the wider public : 1 .
“ We ’ re not in denial about the disease .
We share your concerns.
” 2 .
“ We can and will take precautions to reduce transmission if the lockdowns are lifted.
” 3 .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re just like you , average people who need to work.
” I ’ m not getting a strong “ precautions ” vibe from this scene outside the state capitol in Pennsylvania today .
It ’ s hard to tell how many are in masks , but clearly not everyone is .
And any guidelines about social distancing are out the window .
Just one big disease vector swarming on the capitol steps as a truck with “ Jesus is my vaccine ” scrawled on the cab drives by .
Not a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this protest yesterday at the Washington capitol either : Everyone who looks at photos of these things comes away with the same take : They remind me of the tea party .
The paraphernalia is similar .
Lots of American flags and star-spangled hats and shirts , some Gadsden flags , occasional dudes walking around with AR-15s , a total “ live free or die ” vibe .
They ’ re protests against government overreach , like the tea-party protests were .
But debates about the proper scope of government power are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right and left , and culture war is the last thing I ’ d want to signal at an anti-lockdown protest .
It ’ s destined to polarize people by ideology .
I ’ d want to make the demonstrations about something more universally shared , like basic economic reality .
We ’ d all love to stay safe at home forever but that ’ ll lead to death by starvation instead of death by disease .
We have to work .
Framing the objection to lockdown orders in terms of freedom from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reply that the lockdowns serve the competing value of community in a time of crisis .
We ’ re all looking out for each other by staying away from each other .
In an age of infectious disease , your freedom potentially infringes on my safety .
To put that another way , a mom with a sign reading “ MY CHILDREN NEED TO EAT ” is a powerful message about the urgency of reopening that ’ ll resonate with everyone .
Whereas a dude in a George Washington coat carrying a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing culture-war cosplay .
At least he ’ s masked up .
A new poll from YouGov finds that the protests aren ’ t winning people over , at least not yet .
Go figure : The survey , conducted April 17 to April 19 , found that a full 60 percent of the public opposes the largely pro-Trump protesters whose calls for governors to “ liberate ” their states by lifting lockdown measures have attracted intense media attention in recent days — and whose message the president amplified Friday in a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three swing states : Minnesota , Michigan and Virginia .
Only 22 percent of Americans say they support the protesters .
Despite Trump ’ s messaging , even Republicans oppose the protests 47 percent to 36 percent .
Asked whether they agree or disagree with Trump ’ s “ LIBERATE ” tweets , only a quarter of Americans say they agree… The margins aren ’ t close .
Seventy-one percent of Americans — and 56 percent of Republicans — say they are more concerned about lifting the coronavirus restrictions too quickly than lifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans say the opposite .
Nearly 90 percent said that a resurgence in coronavirus cases would be at least “ somewhat ” likely if the lockdowns ended today .
That may help explain why the protests thus far have been so small , along with people ’ s innate fear of showing up to these de facto pox parties and getting infected .
Rich Lowry thinks it ’ s a sign of things to come : “ If Democrats win back unified control in November , this kind of populist voice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to our way of life and our constitutional rights — will once again be a major element of the opposition.
” No doubt , but it ’ ll be much harder to take seriously next time given how the tea party ’ s spirit of populist conservatism decayed into populist Trumpism in the span of six years .
The national debt will be a matter of momentous importance once the COVID-19 epidemic is over and we ’ re left staring at the bill , but we ran trillion-dollar deficits under Trump even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Republicans said nothing .
Trump has never pretended to care about shrinking government and speaks only very rarely about freedom , usually scripted , and yet no Republican president in my lifetime has had as passionate a following on the right as he ’ s had .
If tea-partyism comes back into vogue under Biden it ’ ll be ideological muscle memory that ’ s to blame more than any deep commitment .
Here ’ s a scene from another protest at the Texas capitol over the weekend .
Exit quotation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning : “ If you jump the gun and go into a situation where you have a big spike , you ’ re going to set yourself back… [ U ] nless we get the virus under control , the real recovery , economically , is not going to happen .
”

Robby Soave has a post at Reason today scolding celebrities and reporters for sneering at the protests, which is fair enough. We’re in the midst of the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. People are being forced into protracted unemployment by order of the state. If you’re going to mock them for demonstrating against lockdowns, at least glance at your bank account first to remind yourself that not everyone has it as good as you do.
“Check your privilege,” as our friends on the left like to say.
But if we’re going to give PR advice to the pro-lockdown contingent, let’s spare a few for the anti-lockdown group too. If I were organizing one of these things, I’d have three messages I’d want to communicate to build maximum sympathy among the wider public:
1. “We’re not in denial about the disease. We share your concerns.”
2. “We can and will take precautions to reduce transmission if the lockdowns are lifted.”
3. “This isn’t partisan. We’re just like you, average people who need to work.”
I’m not getting a strong “precautions” vibe from this scene outside the state capitol in Pennsylvania today. It’s hard to tell how many are in masks, but clearly not everyone is. And any guidelines about social distancing are out the window.
There are easily 1,000+ people around PA’s state Capitol – with hundreds more cars circled around the immediate area, honking their horns. A bulk of protestors are not wearing masks & some tell me they believe the Gov hasn’t been transparent about when the state can re open. pic.twitter.com/ygEioeXVlU — Maura Barrett (@MauraBarrettNBC) April 20, 2020
Just one big disease vector swarming on the capitol steps as a truck with “Jesus is my vaccine” scrawled on the cab drives by. Not a lot of distancing or masks in sight at this protest yesterday at the Washington capitol either:
The Q crowd is here, too pic.twitter.com/22xil8q4Sa — Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) April 19, 2020
Everyone who looks at photos of these things comes away with the same take: They remind me of the tea party. The paraphernalia is similar. Lots of American flags and star-spangled hats and shirts, some Gadsden flags, occasional dudes walking around with AR-15s, a total “live free or die” vibe. They’re protests against government overreach, like the tea-party protests were.
But debates about the proper scope of government power are a subset of the culture war between the right and left, and culture war is the last thing I’d want to signal at an anti-lockdown protest. It’s destined to polarize people by ideology. I’d want to make the demonstrations about something more universally shared, like basic economic reality. We’d all love to stay safe at home forever but that’ll lead to death by starvation instead of death by disease. We have to work. Framing the objection to lockdown orders in terms of freedom from government oppression instead of economic necessity invites the reply that the lockdowns serve the competing value of community in a time of crisis. We’re all looking out for each other by staying away from each other. In an age of infectious disease, your freedom potentially infringes on my safety.
To put that another way, a mom with a sign reading “MY CHILDREN NEED TO EAT” is a powerful message about the urgency of reopening that’ll resonate with everyone. Whereas a dude in a George Washington coat carrying a semiautomatic rifle is doing little more than right-wing culture-war cosplay.
More scenes from in front of city county building @TribLIVE pic.twitter.com/h6fPLFFDCL — Shane Dunlap (@shanedunlap) April 20, 2020
At least he’s masked up.
A new poll from YouGov finds that the protests aren’t winning people over, at least not yet. Go figure:
The survey, conducted April 17 to April 19, found that a full 60 percent of the public opposes the largely pro-Trump protesters whose calls for governors to “liberate” their states by lifting lockdown measures have attracted intense media attention in recent days — and whose message the president amplified Friday in a series of all-caps “LIBERATE” tweets about three swing states: Minnesota, Michigan and Virginia. Only 22 percent of Americans say they support the protesters. Despite Trump’s messaging, even Republicans oppose the protests 47 percent to 36 percent. Asked whether they agree or disagree with Trump’s “LIBERATE” tweets, only a quarter of Americans say they agree… The margins aren’t close. Seventy-one percent of Americans — and 56 percent of Republicans — say they are more concerned about lifting the coronavirus restrictions too quickly than lifting them too slowly. Only 29 percent of Americans say the opposite.
Nearly 90 percent said that a resurgence in coronavirus cases would be at least “somewhat” likely if the lockdowns ended today. That may help explain why the protests thus far have been so small, along with people’s innate fear of showing up to these de facto pox parties and getting infected.
Rich Lowry thinks it’s a sign of things to come: “If Democrats win back unified control in November, this kind of populist voice and protest — warning of government’s threat to our way of life and our constitutional rights — will once again be a major element of the opposition.” No doubt, but it’ll be much harder to take seriously next time given how the tea party’s spirit of populist conservatism decayed into populist Trumpism in the span of six years. The national debt will be a matter of momentous importance once the COVID-19 epidemic is over and we’re left staring at the bill, but we ran trillion-dollar deficits under Trump even before the virus claimed its first victim and Republicans said nothing. Trump has never pretended to care about shrinking government and speaks only very rarely about freedom, usually scripted, and yet no Republican president in my lifetime has had as passionate a following on the right as he’s had. If tea-partyism comes back into vogue under Biden it’ll be ideological muscle memory that’s to blame more than any deep commitment.
Here’s a scene from another protest at the Texas capitol over the weekend. Exit quotation from Fauci himself, speaking to ABC this morning: “If you jump the gun and go into a situation where you have a big spike, you’re going to set yourself back… [U]nless we get the virus under control, the real recovery, economically, is not going to happen.”


hotair--2020-04-20--AOC: The collapse of oil prices is great news (Update)

AOC slipped a bit today when oil prices dropped below zero .
First she retweeted this claim from “ ecosocialist ” Eric Holthaus that “ oil is now worthless.
” He added , “ The is a turning point in the climate movement.
” Then AOC quote tweeted someone else talking about oil prices going negative .
She wrote : “ You absolutely love to see it .
This along with record low interest rates means it ’ s the right time for a worker-led , mass investment in green infrastructure to save our planet .
*cough* ” As you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet , AOC deleted that pretty quickly and replaced it with this similar sentiment minus the part about absolutely loving it : The problems with this are pretty obvious but since AOC doesn ’ t see them , let ’ s think about this for a moment .
For starters , this sudden drop in oil prices likely means many thousands more people will soon be out of a job .
Even if you think that ’ s good in some long-term global sense it ’ s pretty insensitive to be cheering for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the midst of a pandemic .
Maybe that ’ s why she deleted her tweet .
The other problem with this is that the reason we have a glut of oil right now is that significant parts of the world have stay-at-home orders in place .
As the Wall Street Journal explained , this has created a glut in the market and a recent agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia to cut output wasn ’ t enough to account for serious decline in demand for oil : Physical oil prices have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and surge in supply .
The price of some regional crudes in the U.S. recently fell below $ 10 a barrel and on Monday also sank below zero .
The drop in oil prices comes despite output reductions agreed on between countries of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and the Group of 20 nations .
“ The deal was nowhere near enough to prevent us running out of storage , ” said Hani Redha , a portfolio manager for PineBridge Investments .
“ That ’ s going to lead to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices have collapsed this year , with governments around the world attempting to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic by banning travel and directing billions of citizens to stay in their homes .
Those measures have prompted forecasts of a deep global recession and delivered an enormous hit to global oil demand .
So we ’ re in this mess because of the global shutdown caused by the virus .
The lax demand for oil is directly connected to the jumps in unemployment around the world .
People aren ’ t driving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but eventually we want to put people back to work .
Maybe that ’ s in a month or maybe it ’ s on and off for another year or more until we have a vaccine or treatment .
Whatever the case , the return of jobs and the economy is directly tied to the return of demand for oil .
So for most people , the goal is to get out of this rut as quickly as possible without kickstarting the virus again .
And the sooner we get out the better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But AOC looks at this disaster and sees a silver lining .
We should embrace her ten year plan for rebuilding the entire economy without fossil fuels .
But again , no one thinks the demand for oil is going to remain low for a decade .
It should start to pick up in a matter of months .
There ’ s no way our economy comes back without it .
The current plunge in oil prices is nothing to be excited about because unless the plan is for everyone to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new solar farms are complete ( several years from now ) , gas and oil are a stand in for jobs .
We should all be rooting for a quick return to higher demand not being excited by a further sign the global pandemic is doing damage around the world .
I started to say this above and decided it was a distraction .
Does AOC realize this same thing could happen even if we had 100 % renewable energy ?
In 30 years if there ’ s another new coronavirus and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t drive our electric cars , factories stop because they are non-essential and people aren ’ t supposed to be out shopping .
The result would be a very similar energy glut .
Suddenly solar and wind farms have no customers for their energy .
Prices drop .
Companies lay people off and have no way to pay off their huge investment in panels/windmills .
Maybe they go out of business or maybe they apply for a bailout .
The point is that a sudden disastrous decline in demand for energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a failure or that it ’ s time to transition this future world to a new energy grid powered by earthworm farts .
It means the world economy is being strangled by a virus .

AOC slipped a bit today when oil prices dropped below zero. First she retweeted this claim from “ecosocialist” Eric Holthaus that “oil is now worthless.” He added, “The is a turning point in the climate movement.”
A little bit earlier this evening, the price for Canadian crude oil went negative. In the Alberta tar sands, at least for the moment, oil is now worthless. This is a turning point in the climate movement. https://t.co/PgSSyS3Vyv — Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) April 20, 2020
Then AOC quote tweeted someone else talking about oil prices going negative. She wrote: “You absolutely love to see it. This along with record low interest rates means it’s the right time for a worker-led, mass investment in green infrastructure to save our planet. *cough*”
Why did you delete this? pic.twitter.com/JpO1CZ6Uq9 — Caleb Hull (I'm With the CCP Don't Ban Me) (@CalebJHull) April 20, 2020
As you can see from Caleb Hull’s tweet, AOC deleted that pretty quickly and replaced it with this similar sentiment minus the part about absolutely loving it:
Now is the time to create millions of good jobs building out the infrastructure and clean energy necessary to save our planet for future generations. For our economy, our planet, and our future, we need a #GreenNewDeal. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) April 20, 2020
The problems with this are pretty obvious but since AOC doesn’t see them, let’s think about this for a moment. For starters, this sudden drop in oil prices likely means many thousands more people will soon be out of a job. Even if you think that’s good in some long-term global sense it’s pretty insensitive to be cheering for those people to be out of work in the midst of a pandemic. Maybe that’s why she deleted her tweet.
The other problem with this is that the reason we have a glut of oil right now is that significant parts of the world have stay-at-home orders in place. As the Wall Street Journal explained, this has created a glut in the market and a recent agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia to cut output wasn’t enough to account for serious decline in demand for oil:
Physical oil prices have been hit hard by the collapse in demand and surge in supply. The price of some regional crudes in the U.S. recently fell below $10 a barrel and on Monday also sank below zero. The drop in oil prices comes despite output reductions agreed on between countries of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and the Group of 20 nations. “The deal was nowhere near enough to prevent us running out of storage,” said Hani Redha, a portfolio manager for PineBridge Investments. “That’s going to lead to a violent shutdown of production.”… Oil prices have collapsed this year, with governments around the world attempting to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic by banning travel and directing billions of citizens to stay in their homes. Those measures have prompted forecasts of a deep global recession and delivered an enormous hit to global oil demand.
So we’re in this mess because of the global shutdown caused by the virus. The lax demand for oil is directly connected to the jumps in unemployment around the world. People aren’t driving and factories aren’t producing, but eventually we want to put people back to work. Maybe that’s in a month or maybe it’s on and off for another year or more until we have a vaccine or treatment. Whatever the case, the return of jobs and the economy is directly tied to the return of demand for oil. So for most people, the goal is to get out of this rut as quickly as possible without kickstarting the virus again. And the sooner we get out the better for millions of people around the world.
But AOC looks at this disaster and sees a silver lining. We should embrace her ten year plan for rebuilding the entire economy without fossil fuels. But again, no one thinks the demand for oil is going to remain low for a decade. It should start to pick up in a matter of months. There’s no way our economy comes back without it.
The current plunge in oil prices is nothing to be excited about because unless the plan is for everyone to stay at home under lock down until the new solar farms are complete (several years from now), gas and oil are a stand in for jobs. We should all be rooting for a quick return to higher demand not being excited by a further sign the global pandemic is doing damage around the world.
Update: She’s still going.
This snapshot is being acknowledged as a turning point in the climate movement. Fossil fuels are in long-term structural decline. This along w/ low interest rates means it‘s the right time to create millions of jobs transitioning to renewable and clean energy. A key opportunity. https://t.co/UqT8DI5u2I — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) April 20, 2020
I started to say this above and decided it was a distraction. Does AOC realize this same thing could happen even if we had 100% renewable energy? In 30 years if there’s another new coronavirus and we’re all trapped at home and can’t drive our electric cars, factories stop because they are non-essential and people aren’t supposed to be out shopping. The result would be a very similar energy glut. Suddenly solar and wind farms have no customers for their energy. Prices drop. Companies lay people off and have no way to pay off their huge investment in panels/windmills. Maybe they go out of business or maybe they apply for a bailout. The point is that a sudden disastrous decline in demand for energy doesn’t mean the energy itself is a failure or that it’s time to transition this future world to a new energy grid powered by earthworm farts. It means the world economy is being strangled by a virus.


hotair--2020-04-20--WaPo: In-person church services today are an "affront to morality"

During the dark , stressful times most of us are living through , the faithful may at least find a bit of hope in the promise of the Lord and the company of their fellow parishioners .
In most places , services are being held virtually , with people receiving their ministrations from religious leaders over video conferencing technology .
But in some spots , you can still head out to the church of your choice and take a seat in the pews .
And if you choose to do that , at least according to the editorial board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an “ affront to morality.
” Hoo boy… I suppose we ’ d better see what they ’ re on about now .
THE CONSTITUTION ’ S First Amendment confers religious liberty ; it is not a license to kill or even to put the faithful at exceptional risk of harm .
The large majority of U.S. faith leaders concur and have acted accordingly , by canceling in-person worship during the pandemic .
The handful who have defied state and local edicts prohibiting large gatherings imperil not only their followers but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unacceptable affront to public health — and to morality .
At any given moment and place in this crisis , there is no clean line between the constitutional right to freely exercise faith and the moral mandate to protect lives .
In a close call , however , and in any genuine crisis , the first obligation of government is to safeguard public health when it is endangered by a deadly threat .
They go on to talk about some churches where people are allowed to attend parking lot services in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as being “ potentially a workable solution , providing the faithful follow the rules.
” How charitable of them . )
The Post then goes on to highlight the true villain in the story , at least as they see it .
That would be Florida Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne , recently arrested for unlawful assembly when he held services in his church after a ban was imposed .
Howard-Browne has now canceled the in-church services , blaming the cessation on the acts of a tyrannical government .
Here ’ s how the Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t anything new and it mostly represents a phenomenon we ’ ve been discussing here for a couple of months .
During a time of declared crisis , there will always be those who are quick to remind us that our fundamental rights , not given to us by our government , but simply assured to us , are not absolute .
And we shouldn ’ t be getting all up in arms if they are suspended for the greater good .
( Only temporarily , of course . )
The editors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches to the shuttering of concert halls , sports arenas , restaurants , and gyms .
They manage to completely ignore the obvious differences between these examples , whether you ’ re talking about constitutional rights or the specifics of government shutdown mandates .
First of all , the founders never assured us that we have the specific right to attend music festivals , work out at a gym or dine in a restaurant .
They did , however , vow to protect our freedom to worship in way we feel the call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is the question of essential versus nonessential services and businesses .
Grocery stores must remain open and most states have left it up to the individual businesses how they enforce social distancing practices by their customers .
Why ?
Because people have to eat .
But what of the other sort of food that many people still feel is just as important , if you ’ ll pardon a brief poetic turn here .
What about the food for your soul ?
Nobody is forcing people to go to the grocery store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being left available so you won ’ t starve .
Similarly , nobody is forcing people to attend church services if their place of worship is offering them .
Not everyone has access to online services .
I still have three relatives who don ’ t own a laptop , tablet or any other such device .
Two of them still have landlines and have never owned a smartphone .
Churches should easily be able to accommodate the smaller number of people venturing out for services while observing basic social distancing rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to sit together in the pews .
Each group or individual could be separated by six feet , alternating the spacing in every other row .
People could be asked to not mix together outside and enter the church one person or family group at a time .
Some extra disinfecting regimens and a request for parishioners to wear masks should make the exercise at least as safe as going to the grocery store to purchase your food for the week .
A terrible precedent is being set during this pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can successfully suspend your rights for one emergency , how long will it be until the next emergency appears on the horizon ?
There ’ s some additional food for thought for you on a Monday .

During the dark, stressful times most of us are living through, the faithful may at least find a bit of hope in the promise of the Lord and the company of their fellow parishioners. In most places, services are being held virtually, with people receiving their ministrations from religious leaders over video conferencing technology. But in some spots, you can still head out to the church of your choice and take a seat in the pews. And if you choose to do that, at least according to the editorial board of the Washington Post, you are engaging in an “affront to morality.”
Hoo boy… I suppose we’d better see what they’re on about now.
THE CONSTITUTION’S First Amendment confers religious liberty; it is not a license to kill or even to put the faithful at exceptional risk of harm. The large majority of U.S. faith leaders concur and have acted accordingly, by canceling in-person worship during the pandemic. The handful who have defied state and local edicts prohibiting large gatherings imperil not only their followers but also everyone in their communities. That is an unacceptable affront to public health — and to morality. At any given moment and place in this crisis, there is no clean line between the constitutional right to freely exercise faith and the moral mandate to protect lives. In a close call, however, and in any genuine crisis, the first obligation of government is to safeguard public health when it is endangered by a deadly threat.
They go on to talk about some churches where people are allowed to attend parking lot services in their cars. (An arrangement they describe as being “potentially a workable solution, providing the faithful follow the rules.” How charitable of them.) The Post then goes on to highlight the true villain in the story, at least as they see it. That would be Florida Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne, recently arrested for unlawful assembly when he held services in his church after a ban was imposed. Howard-Browne has now canceled the in-church services, blaming the cessation on the acts of a tyrannical government. Here’s how the Post responds to that charge.
In fact, the constitutional guarantee of civil liberties is not absolute, and its abridgement is not necessarily an act of tyranny. Dangerous speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a theater and causing panic, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s pointed example — is no more protected than dangerous assembly. And right now, in most communities, traditional religious assemblies are dangerous petri dishes that enable the transmission of a deadly virus.
This isn’t anything new and it mostly represents a phenomenon we’ve been discussing here for a couple of months. During a time of declared crisis, there will always be those who are quick to remind us that our fundamental rights, not given to us by our government, but simply assured to us, are not absolute. And we shouldn’t be getting all up in arms if they are suspended for the greater good. (Only temporarily, of course.)
The editors go on to compare the closure of churches to the shuttering of concert halls, sports arenas, restaurants, and gyms. They manage to completely ignore the obvious differences between these examples, whether you’re talking about constitutional rights or the specifics of government shutdown mandates. First of all, the founders never assured us that we have the specific right to attend music festivals, work out at a gym or dine in a restaurant. They did, however, vow to protect our freedom to worship in way we feel the call to do so.
Beyond that, there is the question of essential versus nonessential services and businesses. Grocery stores must remain open and most states have left it up to the individual businesses how they enforce social distancing practices by their customers. Why? Because people have to eat. But what of the other sort of food that many people still feel is just as important, if you’ll pardon a brief poetic turn here. What about the food for your soul?
Nobody is forcing people to go to the grocery store. It’s simply an option being left available so you won’t starve. Similarly, nobody is forcing people to attend church services if their place of worship is offering them. Not everyone has access to online services. I still have three relatives who don’t own a laptop, tablet or any other such device. Two of them still have landlines and have never owned a smartphone.
Churches should easily be able to accommodate the smaller number of people venturing out for services while observing basic social distancing rules. Family members who live together should be able to sit together in the pews. Each group or individual could be separated by six feet, alternating the spacing in every other row. People could be asked to not mix together outside and enter the church one person or family group at a time. Some extra disinfecting regimens and a request for parishioners to wear masks should make the exercise at least as safe as going to the grocery store to purchase your food for the week.
A terrible precedent is being set during this pandemic. And if the government sees that it can successfully suspend your rights for one emergency, how long will it be until the next emergency appears on the horizon? There’s some additional food for thought for you on a Monday.


hotair--2020-04-20--Canada had its worst mass shooting ever over the weekend

Canada had its worse ever mass shooting over the weekend when a 51-year-old man went door-to-door in Nova Scotia shooting people who were observing a stay-at-home order .
The death toll has changed several times in the past 24-hours .
At present authorities are saying there are more than 19 dead , including the shooter .
It all started Saturday night when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP ) announced they were responding to a “ firearms complaint.
” By Sunday morning , police said there was an active shooter and then identified him as Gabriel Wortman : After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew , Wortman went on the run dressed as a policeman and driving a car which had been made to look like an RCMP vehicle : Because the shooter was wearing what appeared to be an RCMP uniform and driving a fake RCMP vehicle , it seems there was some significant pre-meditation involved here .
But so far it appears only the early targets were known to him .
After that he just killed at random and his motive is unknown .
This profile of the shooter reports he had said in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day want to join the RCMP : The shooting spree ended with a shootout at a gas station many miles from where the attack began .
The shooter was arrested but later died from his injuries .
A witness said the restaurant near the gas station is usually filled with senior citizens on Sunday and speculated the shooter could have killed a lot more people there if not for the fact that the restaurant was closed because of the coronavirus .
Because the killer was free and on the run for so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police will only say the are “ relatively confident ” they have found all of the victims .
So far there are 16 separate crime scenes .
The Globe and Mail has put up a page with photos and descriptions of several of the victims , including an RCMP constable named Heidi Stevenson who was killed when responding to the shooting .
She was a mother of two .
Here ’ s a clip from the latest announcement by authorities .
If you want to see the full press conference , it ’ @ @ @

Canada had its worse ever mass shooting over the weekend when a 51-year-old man went door-to-door in Nova Scotia shooting people who were observing a stay-at-home order. The death toll has changed several times in the past 24-hours. At present authorities are saying there are more than 19 dead, including the shooter.
It all started Saturday night when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced they were responding to a “firearms complaint.”
#RCMPNS is responding to a firearms complaint in the #Portapique area. (Portapique Beach Rd, Bay Shore Rd and Five Houses Rd.) The public is asked to avoid the area and stay in their homes with doors locked at this time. — RCMP, Nova Scotia (@RCMPNS) April 19, 2020
By Sunday morning, police said there was an active shooter and then identified him as Gabriel Wortman:
#RCMPNS remains on scene in #Portapique. This is an active
shooter situation. Residents in the area, stay inside your homes & lock your
doors. Call 911 if there is anyone on your property. You may not see the police
but we are there with you #Portapique. — RCMP, Nova Scotia (@RCMPNS) April 19, 2020
https://twitter.com/RCMPNS/status/1251841546862952453
After the initial shooting which involved people he knew, Wortman went on the run dressed as a policeman and driving a car which had been made to look like an RCMP vehicle:
Gabriel Wortman is currently in the #CentralOnslow #Debert area in a vehicle that may resemble what appears to be an RCMP vehicle & may be wearing what appears to be an RCMP uniform. Please stay inside and avoid the area. #RCMPNS — RCMP, Nova Scotia (@RCMPNS) April 19, 2020
Because the shooter was wearing what appeared to be an RCMP uniform and driving a fake RCMP vehicle, it seems there was some significant pre-meditation involved here. But so far it appears only the early targets were known to him. After that he just killed at random and his motive is unknown. This profile of the shooter reports he had said in his high school yearbook that he might one day want to join the RCMP:
The shooting spree ended with a shootout at a gas station many miles from where the attack began. The shooter was arrested but later died from his injuries. A witness said the restaurant near the gas station is usually filled with senior citizens on Sunday and speculated the shooter could have killed a lot more people there if not for the fact that the restaurant was closed because of the coronavirus.
Because the killer was free and on the run for so many hours over such a large area, police will only say the are “relatively confident” they have found all of the victims. So far there are 16 separate crime scenes.
The Globe and Mail has put up a page with photos and descriptions of several of the victims, including an RCMP constable named Heidi Stevenson who was killed when responding to the shooting. She was a mother of two. Here’s a clip from the latest announcement by authorities. If you want to see the full press conference, it’s here.


hotair--2020-04-20--EPA looks at suspending ethanol blending requirement

I ’ m not sure how much this will matter now that we ’ re basically out of places to store all of the oil that we ’ re pumping , but it ’ s still worth looking this proposal over .
Last week we discussed the possible opportunity available to us if the EPA would agree to at least suspend the mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard until the worst of the pandemic is behind us .
Getting rid of it entirely would be preferable , but that would require congressional action that the Democrats would never agree to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President could be convinced to support the idea even if they did .
The good news ( possibly ) is that I wasn ’ t the only person suggesting the idea and the EPA seems to at least be willing to consider it .
This could go a long way toward saving a lot of oil and gas industry jobs that are otherwise threatened if the refineries start shutting down to avoid bankruptcy .
( The Hill ) The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is weighing whether to let oil refineries skip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move being requested by governors in oil-rich states who say the industry can ’ t afford the expense of blending in biofuels as oil prices plummet .
Oil prices hit a new low Friday amid a number of administration efforts to ease financial pressure on the industry .
Ethanol producers , however , say they have likewise been affected as the economy tanks due to the coronavirus .
In a letter to the EPA sent earlier this week , five governors from oil-producing states said their refineries should be off the hook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their products , arguing the oil industry is in too dire of financial straits to do so .
All the EPA has said thus far is that they are “ monitoring the situation closely and reviewing the governors ’ letter.
” But at least they acknowledged receiving it and , presumably , are presenting the idea to President Trump .
As Ed Morrissey noted in the article I linked above , the oil and gas industry is on shaky ground at the moment .
Fewer people are driving so the demand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , the United States remains one of the leading oil producers in the world .
On top of that , the battle between Russia and Saudi Arabia over cutting production was already depressing global oil prices .
So now we don ’ t have anywhere to store all the oil we ’ ve been producing so some of the rigs and drilling sites will have to be idled , putting even more people out of work .
The severely reduced demand for gasoline will depress prices further and the refineries won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished product even if they have the capacity to keep producing it .
With that in mind , forcing them to continue purchasing vast amounts of ethanol ( that they never wanted to begin with ) or buy expensive RIN credits to comply with RFS requirements will only push more of the smaller refineries close to bankruptcy .
At this rate , the number of additional jobs lost in this sector could be in the hundreds of thousands on top of all the other people that are already out of work .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plight of the ethanol industry .
There are legitimate markets for ethanol , many of them in other countries , aside from blending it into our gasoline supply .
They need to make a living too , but demand for ethanol has plummeted just as it has for oil and gas .
Until this pandemic ends ( assuming it does ) , everyone is going to be struggling to get by .
But the federal government should be doing what it can to alleviate problems , not add to them .
And currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad situation even worse .

I’m not sure how much this will matter now that we’re basically out of places to store all of the oil that we’re pumping, but it’s still worth looking this proposal over.
Last week we discussed the possible opportunity available to us if the EPA would agree to at least suspend the mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard until the worst of the pandemic is behind us. Getting rid of it entirely would be preferable, but that would require congressional action that the Democrats would never agree to and it’s unclear if the President could be convinced to support the idea even if they did.
The good news (possibly) is that I wasn’t the only person suggesting the idea and the EPA seems to at least be willing to consider it. This could go a long way toward saving a lot of oil and gas industry jobs that are otherwise threatened if the refineries start shutting down to avoid bankruptcy. (The Hill)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is weighing whether to let oil refineries skip on adding ethanol to their fuels, a move being requested by governors in oil-rich states who say the industry can’t afford the expense of blending in biofuels as oil prices plummet. Oil prices hit a new low Friday amid a number of administration efforts to ease financial pressure on the industry. Ethanol producers, however, say they have likewise been affected as the economy tanks due to the coronavirus. In a letter to the EPA sent earlier this week, five governors from oil-producing states said their refineries should be off the hook from meeting legal requirements to add ethanol to their products, arguing the oil industry is in too dire of financial straits to do so.
All the EPA has said thus far is that they are “monitoring the situation closely and reviewing the governors’ letter.” But at least they acknowledged receiving it and, presumably, are presenting the idea to President Trump.
As Ed Morrissey noted in the article I linked above, the oil and gas industry is on shaky ground at the moment. Fewer people are driving so the demand for gas has plummeted. At the same time, the United States remains one of the leading oil producers in the world. On top of that, the battle between Russia and Saudi Arabia over cutting production was already depressing global oil prices.
So now we don’t have anywhere to store all the oil we’ve been producing so some of the rigs and drilling sites will have to be idled, putting even more people out of work. The severely reduced demand for gasoline will depress prices further and the refineries won’t be able to sell as much finished product even if they have the capacity to keep producing it. With that in mind, forcing them to continue purchasing vast amounts of ethanol (that they never wanted to begin with) or buy expensive RIN credits to comply with RFS requirements will only push more of the smaller refineries close to bankruptcy. At this rate, the number of additional jobs lost in this sector could be in the hundreds of thousands on top of all the other people that are already out of work.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the plight of the ethanol industry. There are legitimate markets for ethanol, many of them in other countries, aside from blending it into our gasoline supply. They need to make a living too, but demand for ethanol has plummeted just as it has for oil and gas. Until this pandemic ends (assuming it does), everyone is going to be struggling to get by. But the federal government should be doing what it can to alleviate problems, not add to them. And currently, the RFS is making an already bad situation even worse.


hotair--2020-04-20--Shake Shack shuffle: Hey, we'll return $10M we snagged from small-business relief fund; <span class=

Shake Shack shuffle: Hey, we'll return $10M we snagged from small-business relief fund; Update: No deal yet, says McConnell

It ’ s easy — and fair , to a point — to pin this on Shack Shack , but as I often write … legislate in haste , repent at leisure .
As the Trump administration struggles to get Congress back to work to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program , Treasury will shortly get $ 10 million of the COVID-19 relief funds back .
Fast-food chain Shake Shack issued apologies today for exploiting the PPP in order to get a massive grant while small businesses are getting locked out of relief .
This station calls it “ giving back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less virtuous than that : The burger chain was just one of several large restaurant operators and publicly traded companies that secured tens of millions of dollars in “ Paycheck Protection Program ” loans before the Trump administration announced Thursday that the funding was exhausted because of huge demand .
Other chains that reported receiving the loans include Potbelly , Ruth ’ s Hospitality Group , Taco Cabana and J. Alexander ’ s .
The disclosures infuriated small business owners who were unable to get loans in time .
The program , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic , is focused on businesses with fewer than 500 employees but allowed large restaurant operators to also apply .
In a post on LinkedIn , Shake Shack CEO Randy Garutti and Chairman Danny Meyer said the company was fortunate on Friday to raise more capital in the markets — $ 150 million — and that it planned to return its entire Paycheck Protection Program loan “ so that those restaurants who need it most can get it now.
” They called on Congress to adequately fund the program , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 300 billion .
“ Our people would benefit from a $ 10 million PPP loan but we ’ re fortunate to now have access to capital that others do not , ” they said .
“ Until every restaurant that needs it has had the same opportunity to receive assistance , we ’ re returning ours.
” This explanation doesn ’ t make a lot of sense , at least not if you take their explanation at face value .
Shake Shack has a market cap of $ 1.7 billion as of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on which to rely from the start .
Like the other companies mentioned , they made a smart if morally reprehensible decision to get their hands on small-business cash because the interest-free loan-cum-grant was too juicy to pass up .
Not only did they rush to take advantage of this relief program for small businesses , they had far more resources with which to take advantage of the program than most of their smaller competitors for the helicopter money .
Shake Shack got shamed into giving back the cash , but not because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the PPP got structured by Congress , Shake Shack and all of these other recipients of emergency funds qualified for the loans .
Had Congress wanted to keep Shake Shack out of the PPP , they could have written the bill to put better restrictions on the qualifications for applicants .
Even if those hadn ’ t been in the original bill , Congress could have quickly added more restrictions to the PPP once it became clear that larger businesses were bigfooting the money at the expense of the smaller businesses Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That , of course , assumes that Congress would have stayed on the job in the crisis rather than take a powder .
They didn ’ t stick around , and they still haven ’ t returned despite the fact that the fund has been empty for days now .
Nancy Pelosi is still issuing ultimatums from Ice-Cream Stash Central , using the “ unanimous consent ” tactic to bypass the other 434 elected representatives in the House .
By keeping the House out of session , Pelosi can sideline them — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done quickly that cleanly replenishes and refines the PPP .
Shake Shack and others may have acted without many scruples in sucking up that money rather than applying for the more restrictive corporate relief program in the CARES Act .
They didn ’ t violate the law Congress created in doing so , and at least they didn ’ t abdicate their responsibilities to their stakeholders .
Put the blame for this where it actually belongs — on the Brave Sir Robin Congress .
Update : Still nothing doing from Democrats on replenishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero dollars .

It’s easy — and fair, to a point — to pin this on Shack Shack, but as I often write … legislate in haste, repent at leisure. As the Trump administration struggles to get Congress back to work to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program, Treasury will shortly get $10 million of the COVID-19 relief funds back. Fast-food chain Shake Shack issued apologies today for exploiting the PPP in order to get a massive grant while small businesses are getting locked out of relief.
This station calls it “giving back,” but it’s somewhat less virtuous than that:
The burger chain was just one of several large restaurant operators and publicly traded companies that secured tens of millions of dollars in “Paycheck Protection Program” loans before the Trump administration announced Thursday that the funding was exhausted because of huge demand. Other chains that reported receiving the loans include Potbelly, Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Taco Cabana and J. Alexander’s. The disclosures infuriated small business owners who were unable to get loans in time. The program, which is intended to avert massive layoffs during the coronavirus pandemic, is focused on businesses with fewer than 500 employees but allowed large restaurant operators to also apply. In a post on LinkedIn, Shake Shack CEO Randy Garutti and Chairman Danny Meyer said the company was fortunate on Friday to raise more capital in the markets — $150 million — and that it planned to return its entire Paycheck Protection Program loan “so that those restaurants who need it most can get it now.” They called on Congress to adequately fund the program, as lawmakers near an agreement on another $300 billion. “Our people would benefit from a $10 million PPP loan but we’re fortunate to now have access to capital that others do not,” they said. “Until every restaurant that needs it has had the same opportunity to receive assistance, we’re returning ours.”
This explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense, at least not if you take their explanation at face value. Shake Shack has a market cap of $1.7 billion as of this morning, which means they had capital on which to rely from the start. Like the other companies mentioned, they made a smart if morally reprehensible decision to get their hands on small-business cash because the interest-free loan-cum-grant was too juicy to pass up. Not only did they rush to take advantage of this relief program for small businesses, they had far more resources with which to take advantage of the program than most of their smaller competitors for the helicopter money.
Shake Shack got shamed into giving back the cash, but not because it was illegal. Thanks to the way the PPP got structured by Congress, Shake Shack and all of these other recipients of emergency funds qualified for the loans. Had Congress wanted to keep Shake Shack out of the PPP, they could have written the bill to put better restrictions on the qualifications for applicants. Even if those hadn’t been in the original bill, Congress could have quickly added more restrictions to the PPP once it became clear that larger businesses were bigfooting the money at the expense of the smaller businesses Congress intended to rescue with the fund.
That, of course, assumes that Congress would have stayed on the job in the crisis rather than take a powder. They didn’t stick around, and they still haven’t returned despite the fact that the fund has been empty for days now. Nancy Pelosi is still issuing ultimatums from Ice-Cream Stash Central, using the “unanimous consent” tactic to bypass the other 434 elected representatives in the House. By keeping the House out of session, Pelosi can sideline them — and their potential desire to get a deal done quickly that cleanly replenishes and refines the PPP.
Shake Shack and others may have acted without many scruples in sucking up that money rather than applying for the more restrictive corporate relief program in the CARES Act. They didn’t violate the law Congress created in doing so, and at least they didn’t abdicate their responsibilities to their stakeholders. Put the blame for this where it actually belongs — on the Brave Sir Robin Congress.
Update: Still nothing doing from Democrats on replenishing the PPP:
McConnell announces the Senate will try to pass small business package tomorrow. “At this hour, our Democratic colleagues are still prolonging their discussions with the Administration, so the Senate regretfully won’t be able to pass more funding for Americans’ paychecks today.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 20, 2020
Another day, another zero dollars.


hotair--2020-04-20--German journalist replies to letter from Chinese embassy: "Corona will be your political end sooner

German journalist replies to letter from Chinese embassy: "Corona will be your political end sooner or later"

An enjoyable ( if low-energy ) clip from the editor of Bild that ’ s drawn nearly two million views on Twitter alone , thanks in part to promotion by the likes of Ted Cruz .
It ’ s slightly disorienting watching a reporter lay into China ’ s manifold failures on preventing the pandemic without any partisan or ideological lens through which to view his commentary , which is probably why American viewers are responding to it .
In the U.S. it often feels like all political criticism is an angle on Trump somehow , whether for or against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right that Chinese citizens are “ whispering ” about Xi Jinping ’ s performance ?
If so , those whispers are hushed in most cases .
But not always .
Hu ’ s son is now suing the Wuhan municipal government for allegedly concealing the seriousness of the virus , among other complaints , according to court documents prepared by Funeng , a public welfare NGO based in Changsha .
Hu ’ s son is among a small but significant group of residents seeking answers , compensation or simply an apology from officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the threat from a virus that went on to claim the lives of at least 4,000 people in China , according to government figures , most of them in Wuhan… “ None of this would have happened if they had told us .
So many people would not have had to die , ” said a relative involved in one of the lawsuits .
Another said : “ I want an answer .
I want those responsible to be punished under the law.
” … Dissent has spread in other ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mall in Wuhan demonstrated this month , demanding rent reductions after months of not being able to open their stores .
In Yingcheng , a city west of Wuhan , residents put under lockdown protested against the high prices for food imposed by community management .
One of the protesters , Zeng Chunzhi , has reportedly been detained .
“ I know a lot of families who are incredibly angry , ” said one Wuhan resident whose father died from the virus in February .
It ’ s not just Chinese citizens who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea ’ s being kicked around in the U.S. too to let victims of the disease sue Beijing for its recklessness in not shutting down wet markets and covering up the spread early in the pandemic .
There ’ s a statutory obstacle , notes Jonathan Turley : The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 , which bars lawsuits in the U.S. against foreign powers except in limited circumstances .
But that statute can be amended , of course .
Congressional Republicans should relish an opportunity to shift public attention to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an election campaign in which Trump ’ s handling of the outbreak will be savaged by Democrats .
And Dems may be afraid to oppose them , not wanting to be seen as soft on China .
Would Trump sign a bill like that ?
He ’ s been exceedingly gentle with China so far but his tone ’ s gotten sterner in the last few days .
And he ’ s the ultimate beneficiary of a “ blame China , not Trump ” electoral strategy .
Whether or not any lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in damages , the pandemic is destined to cost China enormously in terms of lost prestige and economic opportunity .
Read this piece at the Financial Times about the toll that ’ s already been taken , even with the west just two months or so into this nightmare .
The shift has been striking in the UK too , where influential Conservatives have called on the prime minister to be tougher on China , the British press has become more critical , and intelligence agencies have promised to focus on the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , governments have rushed to block Chinese companies from buying assets cheaply amid economic carnage .
And Tokyo has set aside $ 2.2bn explicitly to help Japanese companies move their supply chains out of China .
But it is not just the US and its allies that have soured on Beijing .
North Korea , China ’ s only treaty ally , was the first country to close its northern border at the start of the outbreak , despite Beijing ’ s objections to international travel bans .
Russia quickly followed .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent of the outbreak… All this will accelerate calls in Washington and elsewhere for rapid decoupling from Chinese supply chains .
The UK is already moving to scrap Huawei ’ s involvement in its new 5G network and chattering about reassessing its relationship with China once the crisis is over .
It ’ s inevitable in the U.S. that both parties will begin incentivizing American companies to move production out of China , especially production of essential goods like medical supplies , after the disease runs its course .
Democrats may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them no choice .
Ironically , this period in which the world economy is buckling because of a Chinese plague may be the last period of relative prosperity that China experiences for years to come .
The reckoning is coming .

An enjoyable (if low-energy) clip from the editor of Bild that’s drawn nearly two million views on Twitter alone, thanks in part to promotion by the likes of Ted Cruz. It’s slightly disorienting watching a reporter lay into China’s manifold failures on preventing the pandemic without any partisan or ideological lens through which to view his commentary, which is probably why American viewers are responding to it. In the U.S. it often feels like all political criticism is an angle on Trump somehow, whether for or against. Not this time.
Is he right that Chinese citizens are “whispering” about Xi Jinping’s performance? If so, those whispers are hushed in most cases. But not always.
Hu’s son is now suing the Wuhan municipal government for allegedly concealing the seriousness of the virus, among other complaints, according to court documents prepared by Funeng, a public welfare NGO based in Changsha. Hu’s son is among a small but significant group of residents seeking answers, compensation or simply an apology from officials who took weeks to notify the public of the threat from a virus that went on to claim the lives of at least 4,000 people in China, according to government figures, most of them in Wuhan… “None of this would have happened if they had told us. So many people would not have had to die,” said a relative involved in one of the lawsuits. Another said: “I want an answer. I want those responsible to be punished under the law.”… Dissent has spread in other ways. Dozens of shop owners at a shopping mall in Wuhan demonstrated this month, demanding rent reductions after months of not being able to open their stores. In Yingcheng, a city west of Wuhan, residents put under lockdown protested against the high prices for food imposed by community management. One of the protesters, Zeng Chunzhi, has reportedly been detained.
“I know a lot of families who are incredibly angry,” said one Wuhan resident whose father died from the virus in February. It’s not just Chinese citizens who are looking to sue the government either. The idea’s being kicked around in the U.S. too to let victims of the disease sue Beijing for its recklessness in not shutting down wet markets and covering up the spread early in the pandemic. There’s a statutory obstacle, notes Jonathan Turley: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which bars lawsuits in the U.S. against foreign powers except in limited circumstances. But that statute can be amended, of course. Congressional Republicans should relish an opportunity to shift public attention to China’s misdeeds in the middle of an election campaign in which Trump’s handling of the outbreak will be savaged by Democrats. And Dems may be afraid to oppose them, not wanting to be seen as soft on China. Would Trump sign a bill like that? He’s been exceedingly gentle with China so far but his tone’s gotten sterner in the last few days. And he’s the ultimate beneficiary of a “blame China, not Trump” electoral strategy.
Whether or not any lawsuits here are filed, let alone result in damages, the pandemic is destined to cost China enormously in terms of lost prestige and economic opportunity. Read this piece at the Financial Times about the toll that’s already been taken, even with the west just two months or so into this nightmare.
The shift has been striking in the UK too, where influential Conservatives have called on the prime minister to be tougher on China, the British press has become more critical, and intelligence agencies have promised to focus on the threat from Beijing. In Europe and Australia, governments have rushed to block Chinese companies from buying assets cheaply amid economic carnage. And Tokyo has set aside $2.2bn explicitly to help Japanese companies move their supply chains out of China. But it is not just the US and its allies that have soured on Beijing. North Korea, China’s only treaty ally, was the first country to close its northern border at the start of the outbreak, despite Beijing’s objections to international travel bans. Russia quickly followed. Even Iranian officials have criticised China for hiding the extent of the outbreak… All this will accelerate calls in Washington and elsewhere for rapid decoupling from Chinese supply chains.
The UK is already moving to scrap Huawei’s involvement in its new 5G network and chattering about reassessing its relationship with China once the crisis is over. It’s inevitable in the U.S. that both parties will begin incentivizing American companies to move production out of China, especially production of essential goods like medical supplies, after the disease runs its course. Democrats may not want to but public opinion will leave them no choice. Ironically, this period in which the world economy is buckling because of a Chinese plague may be the last period of relative prosperity that China experiences for years to come. The reckoning is coming.


hotair--2020-04-20--Here's why we didn't have coronavirus testing in February

If you ’ ve been on Twitter lately you ’ ve probably noticed an increasing number of people on the left are claiming that President Trump has blood on his hands .
Even those who aren ’ t going quite that far are eager to blame Trump for a “ lost month ” in February during which the government failed to ramp up testing .
For instance : Like a lot of partisan claims , there is some truth to this one .
It ’ s true that February could have been a moment to ramp up testing in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus was spreading and it ’ s true that didn ’ t happen .
Why it didn ’ t happen is another matter .
Over the weekend the Washington Post published a deep dive on the problems at the Centers for Disease Control which cost the U.S. about a month of progress .
Effort by the CDC to create a coronavirus test began in mid-January after China published the genetic sequence of the virus : Those familiar with the events said the design efforts were led by Stephen Lindstrom , an accomplished respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven earlier CDC tests for strains of the flu… The test kits featured two components that focused on separate regions of the virus ’ s genome , a standard approach .
However , the CDC also outfitted the kits with a third component , a pan-coronavirus segment .
That addition sought to identify a wider family of coronaviruses , of which covid-19 is the most recent strain to be observed in humans .
Tests that were being developed abroad under sponsorship from the World Health Organization did not include this extra feature .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ included and extra segment that would have allowed users to include people who had SARS or similar coronaviruses .
It ’ s not clear what the point of this third segment of the test was but the important point is that only the first two segments of the test kit were needed to identify COVID-19 .
The addition of the third test segment might not have mattered except that it wound up creating a significant problem .
The CDC decided to manufacture the test kids “ in house ” rather than rely on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the reagents used in the third segment of the test became contaminated .
We know this because when the CDC sent out the initial batch of test kits , nearly all of them gave false positives on the third segment .
Here ’ s what happened : The third segment of the test was supposed to detect a whole range of coronaviruses .
But in order to make sure the test was working properly , the labs were running the test with pure water .
The test should have reliably given a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the water .
Instead , all of the labs got false positives , which indicated one of the reagents provided by the CDC had been contaminated during production .
Exactly how this contamination happened still isn ’ t clear but as a result the public labs were in limbo .
They had a test showing a false positive .
However , the false positives were only appearing on the third , unnecessary segment of the test .
In theory , the labs could have continued to use the test without that problematic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission from the FDA .
Until that was granted , the labs had to use the test as designed .
In mid February it seems the CDC plan was to re-manufacture the one contaminated reagent [ emphasis added ] : The first public hint of trouble with the test came during a Feb. 12 press briefing in which the CDC ’ s Messonnier mentioned unspecified “ issues ” bedeviling the public health labs .
At the time , most American clinics and hospitals remained unable to test for the coronavirus… “ We think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be explained by one reagent that isn ’ t performing as it should consistently , and that ’ s why we are remanufacturing that reagent , ” she said .
At the public health labs , officials struggled to figure out what was wrong .
Some labs determined that the test would work without the third component .
But under the CDC ’ s emergency instructions , health officials had to use the test as it had been designed .
On February 23 , a top FDA official named Timothy Stenzel finally went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort out what was going on .
To sum all of this up , we had a test designed and manufactured by late January , but initial validation showed one segment of the test had been contaminated .
That third segment wasn ’ t necessary to test patients for COVID-19 but only the FDA could allow the labs to perform tests without using the third segment .
For some reason , it took the FDA nearly a month to get to the bottom of the problem .
Why was that exactly ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which states , “ Stenzel for nearly a month could not determine , based on information provided by the CDC , whether the kits were failing because of a ‘ design or manufacturing issue.
’ ’ ’ That ’ s pretty thin but it ’ s not hard to imagine there were frequent calls between the FDA and the CDC in February .
The CDC was saying , hey , we think we ’ ve got this figured out just give us a few more days .
And the FDA was on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hey , we ’ re in a hurry , can ’ t we run the tests without the third segment ?
Finally in the last week of February the FDA got tired of the BS , showed up at the lab , said no more in-house manufacturing of tests and allowed labs to run the tests without the 3rd segment .
But this wasn ’ t the only problem .
While all of this was happening , competent outside labs were stalled in creating their own alternative tests because once the U.S. declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did in late January , the FDA had to approve any outside tests .
Anyone who wanted to create their own test would face reams of FDA paperwork to secure an “ emergency use authorization , ” something many hospital labs didn ’ t begin to know how to get : Academic hospitals , which have laboratories that routinely develop tests to use on their patients , began to get increasingly anxious about the nation being dependent on the CDC lab .
They considered pursuing FDA approval for their tests but complained they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expertise — or access to crucial materials such as the virus itself — for the complicated application process required during a public health emergency .
“ When the CDC test was delayed , then the cases started appearing outside of China , there should have been a quicker response to get diagnostic testing going ” by easing regulations on hospital labs , said Melissa Miller , director of the clinical molecular microbiology laboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine .
During the Zika outbreak , some laboratories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the FDA notifying them that their tests had not been approved .
Even as coronavirus testing remained limited nationwide , the CDC reminded hospitals on Feb. 18 that they shouldn ’ t do their own testing without an “ emergency use authorization ” from the FDA .
So the FDA not only didn ’ t sort out the mess at the CDC quickly , it also warned everyone else to stay on the sidelines unless they ’ d gone through a laborious approval process .
The outcome of all of this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in February .
A combination of mistakes and red tape cost us at least several weeks when we should have been moving forward with testing .
That may be President Trump ’ s fault in the “ buck stops here ” ultimate sense but blaming him directly for a series of missteps by highly trained professionals seems to overlook the real problem : Bureaucracies don ’ t respond well , or quickly , to new challenges .

If you’ve been on Twitter lately you’ve probably noticed an increasing number of people on the left are claiming that President Trump has blood on his hands. Even those who aren’t going quite that far are eager to blame Trump for a “lost month” in February during which the government failed to ramp up testing. For instance:
The most economically, scientifically, and technologically advanced country on the planet is ranked 38th in tests per person. Donald Trump had to work hard to screw up such a massive advantage. His trust in China lost months, as did his belief COVID-19 would magically go away. https://t.co/2jkbagnu3N — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) April 19, 2020
Like a lot of partisan claims, there is some truth to this one. It’s true that February could have been a moment to ramp up testing in order to see more clearly how quickly the virus was spreading and it’s true that didn’t happen. Why it didn’t happen is another matter.
Over the weekend the Washington Post published a deep dive on the problems at the Centers for Disease Control which cost the U.S. about a month of progress. Effort by the CDC to create a coronavirus test began in mid-January after China published the genetic sequence of the virus:
Those familiar with the events said the design efforts were led by Stephen Lindstrom, an accomplished respiratory virus specialist who was a co-inventor of seven earlier CDC tests for strains of the flu… The test kits featured two components that focused on separate regions of the virus’s genome, a standard approach. However, the CDC also outfitted the kits with a third component, a pan-coronavirus segment. That addition sought to identify a wider family of coronaviruses, of which covid-19 is the most recent strain to be observed in humans. Tests that were being developed abroad under sponsorship from the World Health Organization did not include this extra feature.
In essence, the CDC-designed test kit included and extra segment that would have allowed users to include people who had SARS or similar coronaviruses. It’s not clear what the point of this third segment of the test was but the important point is that only the first two segments of the test kit were needed to identify COVID-19.
The addition of the third test segment might not have mattered except that it wound up creating a significant problem. The CDC decided to manufacture the test kids “in house” rather than rely on outside labs. And during that process, the reagents used in the third segment of the test became contaminated. We know this because when the CDC sent out the initial batch of test kits, nearly all of them gave false positives on the third segment. Here’s what happened:
In the fourth week of January, the CDC shipped out the kits to more than two dozen public health labs scattered across the country, from Albany, N.Y., to Richmond, Calif… The labs were instructed by the CDC to demonstrate that the test would work before analyzing samples from patients. But when those facilities began using the kits to analyze a negative control sample — highly purified water supplied by each lab and free of any genetic material — the tests wrongly signaled the presence of the coronavirus.
The third segment of the test was supposed to detect a whole range of coronaviruses. But in order to make sure the test was working properly, the labs were running the test with pure water. The test should have reliably given a negative result since there was no virus in the water. Instead, all of the labs got false positives, which indicated one of the reagents provided by the CDC had been contaminated during production.
Exactly how this contamination happened still isn’t clear but as a result the public labs were in limbo. They had a test showing a false positive. However, the false positives were only appearing on the third, unnecessary segment of the test. In theory, the labs could have continued to use the test without that problematic third segment but that would require special permission from the FDA. Until that was granted, the labs had to use the test as designed. In mid February it seems the CDC plan was to re-manufacture the one contaminated reagent [emphasis added]:
The first public hint of trouble with the test came during a Feb. 12 press briefing in which the CDC’s Messonnier mentioned unspecified “issues” bedeviling the public health labs. At the time, most American clinics and hospitals remained unable to test for the coronavirus… “We think that the issue at the states can be explained by one reagent that isn’t performing as it should consistently, and that’s why we are remanufacturing that reagent,” she said. At the public health labs, officials struggled to figure out what was wrong. Some labs determined that the test would work without the third component. But under the CDC’s emergency instructions, health officials had to use the test as it had been designed.
On February 23, a top FDA official named Timothy Stenzel finally went to the CDC lab in Atlanta to sort out what was going on.
During his visit in Atlanta, Stenzel determined that the problems with the coronavirus test were caused by the CDC’s manufacturing, not the design, according to the FDA. The shortcomings with the test kits were attributable to what the FDA described as a “manufacturing issue.’’ Stenzel advised CDC officials to stop making the kits in-house… The FDA on Feb. 26 informed the CDC by email that the labs could begin testing samples while skipping the third component.
To sum all of this up, we had a test designed and manufactured by late January, but initial validation showed one segment of the test had been contaminated. That third segment wasn’t necessary to test patients for COVID-19 but only the FDA could allow the labs to perform tests without using the third segment. For some reason, it took the FDA nearly a month to get to the bottom of the problem. Why was that exactly?
There’s one paragraph in the story which states, “Stenzel for nearly a month could not determine, based on information provided by the CDC, whether the kits were failing because of a ‘design or manufacturing issue.’’’ That’s pretty thin but it’s not hard to imagine there were frequent calls between the FDA and the CDC in February. The CDC was saying, hey, we think we’ve got this figured out just give us a few more days. And the FDA was on the other end of those calls saying, hey, we’re in a hurry, can’t we run the tests without the third segment? Finally in the last week of February the FDA got tired of the BS, showed up at the lab, said no more in-house manufacturing of tests and allowed labs to run the tests without the 3rd segment.
But this wasn’t the only problem. While all of this was happening, competent outside labs were stalled in creating their own alternative tests because once the U.S. declared a public health emergency, which it did in late January, the FDA had to approve any outside tests. Anyone who wanted to create their own test would face reams of FDA paperwork to secure an “emergency use authorization,” something many hospital labs didn’t begin to know how to get:
Academic hospitals, which have laboratories that routinely develop tests to use on their patients, began to get increasingly anxious about the nation being dependent on the CDC lab. They considered pursuing FDA approval for their tests but complained they didn’t have the resources or expertise — or access to crucial materials such as the virus itself — for the complicated application process required during a public health emergency. “When the CDC test was delayed, then the cases started appearing outside of China, there should have been a quicker response to get diagnostic testing going” by easing regulations on hospital labs, said Melissa Miller, director of the clinical molecular microbiology laboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. During the Zika outbreak, some laboratories developed their own tests and got letters from the FDA notifying them that their tests had not been approved. Even as coronavirus testing remained limited nationwide, the CDC reminded hospitals on Feb. 18 that they shouldn’t do their own testing without an “emergency use authorization” from the FDA.
So the FDA not only didn’t sort out the mess at the CDC quickly, it also warned everyone else to stay on the sidelines unless they’d gone through a laborious approval process. The outcome of all of this is that we had very little testing happening in February.
A combination of mistakes and red tape cost us at least several weeks when we should have been moving forward with testing. That may be President Trump’s fault in the “buck stops here” ultimate sense but blaming him directly for a series of missteps by highly trained professionals seems to overlook the real problem: Bureaucracies don’t respond well, or quickly, to new challenges.


hotair--2020-04-20--Fauci warns: Many antibody tests aren't fully validated yet

Will expanded testing capacity be needed to get Americans back into the public square — and if so , what kind of testing ?
Dr. Anthony Fauci told ABC ’ s George Stephanopolous on Good Morning America that viral-identification testing has enough capacity to handle a Phase 1 start , although Fauci would like to see more of it and more efficient access by states to capacity now .
However , the talk about antibody testing and by extension “ immunity certificates ” based on it is way too early .
In the first place , Fauci says , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to COVID-19 confers immunity yet .
If not , antibody testing might end up being superfluous even if it proved reliable — and we ’ re not there yet on that point either ( via CNN ) : “ The problem is that these are tests that need to be validated and calibrated , and many of the tests out there don ’ t do that .
So even though you hear about companies flooding the market with these antibody tests , a lot of them are not validated , ” Fauci told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s an assumption – a reasonable assumption – that when you have an antibody that you are protected against reinfection , but that has not been proven for this particular virus .
It ’ s true for other viruses , ” said Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
“ But we don ’ t know how long that protection , if it exists , lasts .
Is it one month ?
Three months ?
Six months ?
A year ?
So the assumption that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you have an antibody positivity , you ’ re good to go – unless that test has been validated and you can show there ’ s a correlation between the antibody and protection , it is an assumption to say that this is something that we can work with , ” Fauci said .
“ We still have a way to go with them.
” Fauci intends this as a warning specific to the antibody tests that are set to flood the marketplace now .
Until they are validated and calibrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of value in them , unlike the viral-identification tests that show acute infection of COVID-19 .
The New York Times also offers a big warning to those hoping that antibody testing is the shortcut out of our economic thicket .
They ’ re not accurate , they ’ re not being used properly , and there aren ’ t enough of them to matter in terms of making go/no-go decisions .
Oh , and the “ Made in China ” label should be a warning all on its own these days : Officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the earlier launch of diagnostic tests that failed to monitor which Americans , and how many , had been infected or developed the disease the virus causes .
Criticized for a tragically slow and rigid oversight of those tests months ago , the federal government is now faulted by public health officials and scientists for greenlighting the antibody tests too quickly and without adequate scrutiny .
The Food and Drug Administration has allowed about 90 companies , many based in China , to sell tests that have not gotten government vetting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the agency has since warned that some of those businesses are making false claims about their products ; health officials , like their counterparts overseas , have found others deeply flawed .
Tests of “ frankly dubious quality ” have flooded the American market , said Scott Becker , executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories .
Many of them , akin to home pregnancy tests , are easy to take and promise rapid results .
And the federal guidance that does exist is so confusing that health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they may not be authorized to do so .
Some are misusing antibody test results to diagnose the disease , not realizing that they can miss the early stages of infection .
“ People don ’ t understand how dangerous this test is , ” said Michael T. Osterholm , an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota .
“ We sacrificed quality for speed , and in the end , when it ’ s people ’ s lives that are hanging in the balance , safety has to take precedence over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether infection confers immunity and for validation of antibody tests , we will have to set public policy on massively accessible viral-ID testing and some guesswork on how to manage the public square for the short term .
That ’ s really the biggest question we face for the longer-term implications of reopening , which will happen regardless but for which we must prepare in some fashion .
If exposure confers immunity , then antibodies mean safety for those who go back out in public — for themselves , anyway .
Are they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And if they ’ re not immune from re-infection , then how do we get back to normal ?
That matters more than just in policy .
To recover from the Great Hunkering Down , we need people to be confident that they won ’ t get sick from public economic engagement .
That ’ s not going to be as easy as yelling olly olly all in free after the shelter-in-place orders are lifted , as Ashley Parker points out in the Washington Post : “ I ’ ve been saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are you doing to make people comfortable to show up ?
’ Because ultimately all the governors and Trump can say , ‘ Yeah , you can go , ’ but I think people will still be very cautious , ” said Sen. Rick Scott ( R-Fla. ) .
Referring to the more than 1 million jobs in his state tied to tourism , Scott added : “ How are we going to make all these people feel comfortable coming back ?
” Indeed , more than any edict from a leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s governors to local mayors — people must feel confident returning to their pre-coronavirus existence before the economy can truly recover , according to many politicians , business leaders and consumer experts .
“ The full restoration of consumer confidence will be more difficult and will take longer to complete than following any other recession since the Great Depression , ” Richard Curtin , director of Michigan ’ s Institute for Social Research , wrote in Friday ’ s report on the hurdles to economic recovery .
“ Residual fears of exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s willingness to be in crowds at sport stadiums , theaters , airplanes , cruises , large shopping malls , or even shake hands at the workplace or social events.
” Ya think ?
Until people see that they have some resistance or immunity to COVID-19 and that they are no threat to spread it to family members , they won ’ t be in much of a mood to travel , or to go to crowded venues at all .
Validated antibody tests with confirmed conferred immunity would go a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recover from this imposed recession , but it might take a proven-effective vaccine to really close that sale with a large sector of the public .
That could take a year or more , which portends a very long dry spell for the economy — if we can ’ t validate the antibody-testing option .

Will expanded testing capacity be needed to get Americans back into the public square — and if so, what kind of testing? Dr. Anthony Fauci told ABC’s George Stephanopolous on Good Morning America that viral-identification testing has enough capacity to handle a Phase 1 start, although Fauci would like to see more of it and more efficient access by states to capacity now. However, the talk about antibody testing and by extension “immunity certificates” based on it is way too early.
In the first place, Fauci says, we aren’t even sure that exposure to COVID-19 confers immunity yet. If not, antibody testing might end up being superfluous even if it proved reliable — and we’re not there yet on that point either (via CNN):
“Clearly this is something that this is hurting …. but unless we get the virus under control, the real recovery, economically, is not going to happen.” — NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci on protests against stay-at-home orders. pic.twitter.com/n7x3cunEAm — Good Morning America (@GMA) April 20, 2020
“The problem is that these are tests that need to be validated and calibrated, and many of the tests out there don’t do that. So even though you hear about companies flooding the market with these antibody tests, a lot of them are not validated,” Fauci told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “There’s an assumption – a reasonable assumption – that when you have an antibody that you are protected against reinfection, but that has not been proven for this particular virus. It’s true for other viruses,” said Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “But we don’t know how long that protection, if it exists, lasts. Is it one month? Three months? Six months? A year? So the assumption that with the tests that are out there, if you have an antibody positivity, you’re good to go – unless that test has been validated and you can show there’s a correlation between the antibody and protection, it is an assumption to say that this is something that we can work with,” Fauci said. “We still have a way to go with them.”
Fauci intends this as a warning specific to the antibody tests that are set to flood the marketplace now. Until they are validated and calibrated, there’s not a lot of value in them, unlike the viral-identification tests that show acute infection of COVID-19. The New York Times also offers a big warning to those hoping that antibody testing is the shortcut out of our economic thicket. They’re not accurate, they’re not being used properly, and there aren’t enough of them to matter in terms of making go/no-go decisions.
Oh, and the “Made in China” label should be a warning all on its own these days:
Officials fear the effort may prove as problematic as the earlier launch of diagnostic tests that failed to monitor which Americans, and how many, had been infected or developed the disease the virus causes. Criticized for a tragically slow and rigid oversight of those tests months ago, the federal government is now faulted by public health officials and scientists for greenlighting the antibody tests too quickly and without adequate scrutiny. The Food and Drug Administration has allowed about 90 companies, many based in China, to sell tests that have not gotten government vetting, saying the pandemic warrants an urgent response. But the agency has since warned that some of those businesses are making false claims about their products; health officials, like their counterparts overseas, have found others deeply flawed. Tests of “frankly dubious quality” have flooded the American market, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Many of them, akin to home pregnancy tests, are easy to take and promise rapid results. And the federal guidance that does exist is so confusing that health care providers are administering certain tests unaware that they may not be authorized to do so. Some are misusing antibody test results to diagnose the disease, not realizing that they can miss the early stages of infection. “People don’t understand how dangerous this test is,” said Michael T. Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota. “We sacrificed quality for speed, and in the end, when it’s people’s lives that are hanging in the balance, safety has to take precedence over speed.”
While we wait to see whether infection confers immunity and for validation of antibody tests, we will have to set public policy on massively accessible viral-ID testing and some guesswork on how to manage the public square for the short term. That’s really the biggest question we face for the longer-term implications of reopening, which will happen regardless but for which we must prepare in some fashion. If exposure confers immunity, then antibodies mean safety for those who go back out in public — for themselves, anyway. Are they still capable of spreading COVID-19, though? And if they’re not immune from re-infection, then how do we get back to normal?
That matters more than just in policy. To recover from the Great Hunkering Down, we need people to be confident that they won’t get sick from public economic engagement. That’s not going to be as easy as yelling olly olly all in free after the shelter-in-place orders are lifted, as Ashley Parker points out in the Washington Post:
“I’ve been saying over and over to businesses: ‘What are you doing to make people comfortable to show up?’ Because ultimately all the governors and Trump can say, ‘Yeah, you can go,’ but I think people will still be very cautious,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). Referring to the more than 1 million jobs in his state tied to tourism, Scott added: “How are we going to make all these people feel comfortable coming back?” Indeed, more than any edict from a leader — from the president to the nation’s governors to local mayors — people must feel confident returning to their pre-coronavirus existence before the economy can truly recover, according to many politicians, business leaders and consumer experts. “The full restoration of consumer confidence will be more difficult and will take longer to complete than following any other recession since the Great Depression,” Richard Curtin, director of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, wrote in Friday’s report on the hurdles to economic recovery. “Residual fears of exposure to some virus may still limit people’s willingness to be in crowds at sport stadiums, theaters, airplanes, cruises, large shopping malls, or even shake hands at the workplace or social events.”
Ya think? Until people see that they have some resistance or immunity to COVID-19 and that they are no threat to spread it to family members, they won’t be in much of a mood to travel, or to go to crowded venues at all. Validated antibody tests with confirmed conferred immunity would go a long way toward creating the necessary market psychology to recover from this imposed recession, but it might take a proven-effective vaccine to really close that sale with a large sector of the public. That could take a year or more, which portends a very long dry spell for the economy — if we can’t validate the antibody-testing option.