hotair--2020-04-21--The decline in demand for oil could wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs (Update)

The Denver Post reports analysts are struggling to find the words appropriate to what is happening to the oil industry right now : Analysts and industry officials searched for new adjectives Monday to describe the cataclysmic fall of oil prices into sub-zero territory for the first time ever , prompting analysts to predict the idling of wells and bankruptcies .
“ It ’ s unprecedented .
It ’ s like a doomsday scenario , ” said Jack Strauss , with the Daniels School of Business at the University of Denver .
The NY Times has more of the same from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employs 10 million people among thousands of companies with billions in collective debt .
A lot of those people are going to be out of work as the smaller companies seek bankruptcy protection : Many smaller oil companies are expected to seek bankruptcy protection in the coming months after having spent years borrowing billions of dollars to extract and move crude .
Production companies have $ 86 billion in debt coming due between 2020 and 2024 , and pipeline companies have an additional $ 123 billion they have to repay or refinance over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Investors Service… The reverberations to other industries could be significant .
A decade or two ago , low oil prices would serve to bolster the American economy by reducing energy costs .
But the oil industry has become so big and important — it directly and indirectly employs 10 million people — that its problems will deal a blow to many kinds of businesses , including manufacturers that build its equipment , steel companies that make its pipes and banks and hedge funds that lend it money… “ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s for damn sure , ” said Jim Wilkes , president of Texland .
“ The future is very cloudy right now because the pricing is below our production costs.
” … “ April is going to be terrible , but May is going to be impossible , ” he said .
And for every job the industry employs directly , there are many other jobs that are dependent on those jobs , such as restaurants and other service jobs .
Many of those may be shut down temporarily because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of their former customers could be out of work for the longer term .
Bloomberg points out that for every well that is shut down , there are dozens of smaller companies that will lose work and be forced to cut jobs : Oilfield servicers are hardest hit , as roughly 20 companies are employed at each well site .
As the explorers who own the wells file for bankruptcy , their pain spreads throughout the supply chain .
“ Oil and gas has suddenly become a hobby that only the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to continue to enjoy engaging in , ” said Dan Eberhart , the chief executive of oil-field services company Canary Drilling Services , which has laid off about 200 people and implemented across-the-board salary cuts .
“ A hefty amount of the jobs in oil and gas are provided by oilfield service companies-and those companies are weaker than the oil companies and are going to start disappearing quickly.
” Finally , CNBC reports that 10 % of oil production in the U.S. comes from tiny family owned companies producing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. industry is so diversified that about 10 % of U.S. oil comes from mom and pop drillers , with output of less than 15 barrels a day .
“ Big picture , you ’ ve got maybe 140 refineries in this country .
You probably have more than 5,000 producers .
There ’ s no reason why the industry has to be so fragmented , ” he said .
Longer term , someone will buy up all the assets that are about to get wiped out because of the glut , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the coronavirus situation has stabilized and no one really knows when that will be .
Meanwhile , wells that are capped off can be reopened but with no guarantee they ’ ll be as productive as they were before .
CBS This Morning had a pretty good report on this today .
These are the blue collar workers and their families that AOC is not thinking about when she gets herself excited about the collapse in oil prices .
Update : An estimate out of Oklahoma says the downturn could result in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the WSJ just published a story with an estimate for possible job losses in Louisiana : A Louisiana survey during the last two weeks of March , when oil prices were still above $ 20 a barrel , showed members of the state oil and gas association anticipated cutting production and employees by as much as 70 % within four months , a reduction that could cost the state more than 24,000 jobs and $ 2 billion in wages .
Louisiana Oil & Gas Association President Gifford Briggs said the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections in light of the recent price crash .
“ Our members are telling me that they ’ ve instructed their field people to begin shutting in production immediately , ” he said .
So that 24,000 estimate was made before the negative prices on Monday .
It ’ s going to be higher than that .
Also , a Houston company cut 6,000 jobs last week .

The Denver Post reports analysts are struggling to find the words appropriate to what is happening to the oil industry right now:
Analysts and industry officials searched for new adjectives Monday to describe the cataclysmic fall of oil prices into sub-zero territory for the first time ever, prompting analysts to predict the idling of wells and bankruptcies. “It’s unprecedented. It’s like a doomsday scenario,” said Jack Strauss, with the Daniels School of Business at the University of Denver.
The NY Times has more of the same from people in the industry:
“I’m just living a nightmare,” said Ben Sheppard, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, which represents companies in the area of Texas and New Mexico that became the world’s most productive oil field last year.
The industry employs 10 million people among thousands of companies with billions in collective debt. A lot of those people are going to be out of work as the smaller companies seek bankruptcy protection:
Many smaller oil companies are expected to seek bankruptcy protection in the coming months after having spent years borrowing billions of dollars to extract and move crude. Production companies have $86 billion in debt coming due between 2020 and 2024, and pipeline companies have an additional $123 billion they have to repay or refinance over the same period, according to Moody’s Investors Service… The reverberations to other industries could be significant. A decade or two ago, low oil prices would serve to bolster the American economy by reducing energy costs. But the oil industry has become so big and important — it directly and indirectly employs 10 million people — that its problems will deal a blow to many kinds of businesses, including manufacturers that build its equipment, steel companies that make its pipes and banks and hedge funds that lend it money… “It’s a sad time for our business, that’s for damn sure,” said Jim Wilkes, president of Texland. “The future is very cloudy right now because the pricing is below our production costs.”… “April is going to be terrible, but May is going to be impossible,” he said.
And for every job the industry employs directly, there are many other jobs that are dependent on those jobs, such as restaurants and other service jobs. Many of those may be shut down temporarily because of the virus but when they reopen, many of their former customers could be out of work for the longer term. Bloomberg points out that for every well that is shut down, there are dozens of smaller companies that will lose work and be forced to cut jobs:
Oilfield servicers are hardest hit, as roughly 20 companies are employed at each well site. As the explorers who own the wells file for bankruptcy, their pain spreads throughout the supply chain. “Oil and gas has suddenly become a hobby that only the best capitalized companies in the industry are going to be able to continue to enjoy engaging in,” said Dan Eberhart, the chief executive of oil-field services company Canary Drilling Services, which has laid off about 200 people and implemented across-the-board salary cuts. “A hefty amount of the jobs in oil and gas are provided by oilfield service companies-and those companies are weaker than the oil companies and are going to start disappearing quickly.”
Finally, CNBC reports that 10% of oil production in the U.S. comes from tiny family owned companies producing a few barrels a day:
Glickman said the U.S. industry is so diversified that about 10% of U.S. oil comes from mom and pop drillers, with output of less than 15 barrels a day. “Big picture, you’ve got maybe 140 refineries in this country. You probably have more than 5,000 producers. There’s no reason why the industry has to be so fragmented,” he said.
Longer term, someone will buy up all the assets that are about to get wiped out because of the glut, but that probably won’t happen until the coronavirus situation has stabilized and no one really knows when that will be. Meanwhile, wells that are capped off can be reopened but with no guarantee they’ll be as productive as they were before.
CBS This Morning had a pretty good report on this today. These are the blue collar workers and their families that AOC is not thinking about when she gets herself excited about the collapse in oil prices.
Update: An estimate out of Oklahoma says the downturn could result in 10,000 lost jobs in that state alone. And the WSJ just published a story with an estimate for possible job losses in Louisiana:
A Louisiana survey during the last two weeks of March, when oil prices were still above $20 a barrel, showed members of the state oil and gas association anticipated cutting production and employees by as much as 70% within four months, a reduction that could cost the state more than 24,000 jobs and $2 billion in wages. Louisiana Oil & Gas Association President Gifford Briggs said the group is in the process of updating those projections in light of the recent price crash. “Our members are telling me that they’ve instructed their field people to begin shutting in production immediately,” he said.
So that 24,000 estimate was made before the negative prices on Monday. It’s going to be higher than that. Also, a Houston company cut 6,000 jobs last week.


hotair--2020-04-21--WaPo blogger: The GOP is planning to sabotage Biden... and America

Some people just can ’ t take yes for an answer it seems .
That may well be the case with Washington Post blogger Paul Waldman .
Looking forward to the potential of a Democratic victory in November and a subsequent Joe Biden presidency ( assuming Joe doesn ’ t get lost on the way to the inauguration ) , Waldman has a dire warning for Democrats .
The GOP is already planning in secret for this eventuality and they will be working from day one ( if not before ) to sabotage the country and prevent a new era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landscape into one covered with rainbows and unicorns… or something .
( And yes , he literally used the word “ sabotage ” in the title .
So how are Republicans going to pull off this dastardly deed ?
The same way they did after Barack Obama became president .
The author reminds of us a string of policy wins that Obama pushed through in his first two years before pointing out that two years later the GOP “ took back the House and ground it all to a halt.
” That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if Joe Biden becomes president next year .
You can see it in the “ Let ’ s all come to the state capitol and infect each other ” protests against stay-at-home orders that are attracting small crowds but huge media attention .
Like a miniature version of the Tea Party , it ’ s a phenomenon of genuine sentiment that is shaped and organized by right-wing elites , promoted relentlessly by Fox News , and in this case , validated by President Trump himself .
It may not be much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can bet that Republicans will be holding strategy meetings and fielding polls and writing reports to determine not just how to stop Americans from becoming more open to expansive government action , but how to turn this crisis into anger at government itself — assuming Biden becomes president in January .
A quick reminder for those who missed class on the applicable day .
Pretty much every Republican I know has given up on the idea that the GOP is ever going to make any serious effort at cutting spending and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean that fiscal conservatives are happy about it , but it does appear that most of us have dejectedly put on our Eeyore faces and accepted the facts .
January of 2017 should have been a moment where the federal government finally got serious about our addiction to “ free money.
” But instead , ever since Donald Trump was elected , we ’ ve only accelerated the train as it rushes toward the fiscal cliff .
Such is our fate .
I realize that ’ s not the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ column , but it ’ s important to note .
As far as the money we ’ re spending this year , the massive sinkhole created by the coronavirus and the government ’ s need to prevent the damage from being as bad as it might be were unavoidable .
The GOP went along with it ( mostly ) to avoid a literal great depression .
They spent the money with no intention of figuring out how to pay for it so America wouldn ’ t turn into a Mad Max movie in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re settling for a Stephen King movie . )
Of course , the real “ sabotage ” that Waldman is speaking of is less about spending and more about the attitudes of Americans toward their government .
Note how speaks in metaphorically hushed tones about Republican dreams of stopping Americans from becoming “ more open to expansive government action.
” I hate to break it to you , Paul , but you haven ’ t stumbled on a top-secret Republican plan .
That ’ s sort of the foundation of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis , the federal government is doling out vast sums of cash , but that ’ s only because the scope of the challenge is so vast .
Waldman also kvetches about the protesters showing up in various states to decry government overreach in issuing lockdown orders .
While I don ’ t agree with their timing , their message is an important one and I ’ ve lost track of how many columns I ’ ve written on the subject here .
Even in a state of a declared emergency like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply allow government executives to assume the complete right to restrict religious liberties , Second Amendment rights or even our freedom of movement more than is absolutely needed to keep people alive .
And even in cases where we agree to such restrictions , we should do so only grimly while providing loud and frequent reminders that this type of authoritarian activity will not be tolerated one second longer than necessary after the pandemic has mostly passed .
This is the opposite of sabotage .
It ’ s an effort to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to Walden don ’ t use this disaster as an excuse to usher in some sort of permanent socialist “ paradise.
” And nobody is trying to hide those intentions .

Some people just can’t take yes for an answer it seems. That may well be the case with Washington Post blogger Paul Waldman. Looking forward to the potential of a Democratic victory in November and a subsequent Joe Biden presidency (assuming Joe doesn’t get lost on the way to the inauguration), Waldman has a dire warning for Democrats. The GOP is already planning in secret for this eventuality and they will be working from day one (if not before) to sabotage the country and prevent a new era of big government that would transform the landscape into one covered with rainbows and unicorns… or something. (And yes, he literally used the word “sabotage” in the title.
So how are Republicans going to pull off this dastardly deed? The same way they did after Barack Obama became president. The author reminds of us a string of policy wins that Obama pushed through in his first two years before pointing out that two years later the GOP “took back the House and ground it all to a halt.”
That is precisely what Republicans are planning to repeat, especially if Joe Biden becomes president next year. You can see it in the “Let’s all come to the state capitol and infect each other” protests against stay-at-home orders that are attracting small crowds but huge media attention. Like a miniature version of the Tea Party, it’s a phenomenon of genuine sentiment that is shaped and organized by right-wing elites, promoted relentlessly by Fox News, and in this case, validated by President Trump himself. It may not be much yet, but this is just beginning. You can bet that Republicans will be holding strategy meetings and fielding polls and writing reports to determine not just how to stop Americans from becoming more open to expansive government action, but how to turn this crisis into anger at government itself — assuming Biden becomes president in January.
A quick reminder for those who missed class on the applicable day. Pretty much every Republican I know has given up on the idea that the GOP is ever going to make any serious effort at cutting spending and reducing the debt and deficit. That doesn’t mean that fiscal conservatives are happy about it, but it does appear that most of us have dejectedly put on our Eeyore faces and accepted the facts. January of 2017 should have been a moment where the federal government finally got serious about our addiction to “free money.” But instead, ever since Donald Trump was elected, we’ve only accelerated the train as it rushes toward the fiscal cliff. Such is our fate.
I realize that’s not the only thing Waldman is talking about in his column, but it’s important to note. As far as the money we’re spending this year, the massive sinkhole created by the coronavirus and the government’s need to prevent the damage from being as bad as it might be were unavoidable. The GOP went along with it (mostly) to avoid a literal great depression. They spent the money with no intention of figuring out how to pay for it so America wouldn’t turn into a Mad Max movie in real life. (Instead, we’re settling for a Stephen King movie.)
Of course, the real “sabotage” that Waldman is speaking of is less about spending and more about the attitudes of Americans toward their government. Note how speaks in metaphorically hushed tones about Republican dreams of stopping Americans from becoming “more open to expansive government action.” I hate to break it to you, Paul, but you haven’t stumbled on a top-secret Republican plan. That’s sort of the foundation of the party platform. Even in the midst of this crisis, the federal government is doling out vast sums of cash, but that’s only because the scope of the challenge is so vast.
Waldman also kvetches about the protesters showing up in various states to decry government overreach in issuing lockdown orders. While I don’t agree with their timing, their message is an important one and I’ve lost track of how many columns I’ve written on the subject here. Even in a state of a declared emergency like the pandemic, we can’t simply allow government executives to assume the complete right to restrict religious liberties, Second Amendment rights or even our freedom of movement more than is absolutely needed to keep people alive. And even in cases where we agree to such restrictions, we should do so only grimly while providing loud and frequent reminders that this type of authoritarian activity will not be tolerated one second longer than necessary after the pandemic has mostly passed.
This is the opposite of sabotage. It’s an effort to make sure that people in the government with attitudes similar to Walden don’t use this disaster as an excuse to usher in some sort of permanent socialist “paradise.” And nobody is trying to hide those intentions.


hotair--2020-04-21--Barr: We may join lawsuits against governors over their lockdown orders

This is terrible politics but in keeping with Trump ’ s strategy of playing to his base and only his base , always .
Governors are the MAGA villains of the month and the point of Trump-style politics is to attack the villain , so that ’ s what he ’ s going to do whether or not it ’ s good for him long-term .
Barr ’ s already being criticized for this on Twitter on grounds that it ’ s an affront to federalism .
But ( a ) constitutional rights , which is what he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( b ) Barr has always seemed keener on executive power than on federal deference to the states .
He also doesn ’ t make any bones about the fact that he ’ s a political appointee , not a quasi-independent law enforcement officer .
A few weeks ago he was on Fox grumbling about how hydroxychloroquine , the president ’ s favorite wonder drug , had gotten a bad rap from the lamestream media .
That ’ s not normal AG behavior .
If Trump ’ s going to wage political war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to look for reasons to join in .
By doing so , though , he ’ s going to create three political problems for Trump , and the president can ’ t afford any more political problems related to coronavirus .
“ If the testing does not get sorted out as soon as possible , it will be another nail in an almost closed coffin , ” said one Republican “ close to the White House ” to Politico about the hit Trump ’ s taken since the crisis began .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means to deal with the pandemic , such as stay-at-home orders and directives shutting down businesses , are justified up to a point , Barr said in an interview Tuesday on “ The Hugh Hewitt Show.
” Eventually , though , states should move to more targeted measures , Barr said .
He cited the approach laid out by President Donald Trump .
“ We have to give businesses more freedom to operate in a way that ’ s reasonably safe , ” Barr said .
“ To the extent that governors don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights or on the national commerce — our common market that we have here — then we ’ ll have to address that.
” … “ We ’ re looking carefully at a number of these rules that are being put into place , ” Barr said .
“ And if we think one goes too far , we initially try to jawbone the governors into rolling them back or adjusting them .
And if they ’ re not and people bring lawsuits , we file statement of interest and side with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview , Barr said “ these are very , very burdensome impingements on liberty .
And we adopted them , we have to remember , for the limited purpose of slowing down the spread , that is bending the curve .
We didn ’ t adopt them as the comprehensive way of dealing with this disease.
” First problem : By joining suits filed by individual citizens against their governors , Barr ’ s going to make the political narrative less favorable to the plaintiff .
If it ’ s John Doe vs. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little guy fighting back against a heavy-handed state that ’ s gone too far in its zeal to enforce social distancing .
If it ’ s Bill Barr vs. Gretchen Whitmer , it ’ s the Trump administration playing partisan politics ahead of the election to try to galvanize voters in a swing state .
It goes back to what I said yesterday in the post about the optics of anti-lockdown protests .
The message protesters should want to convey is one of nonpartisan economic necessity : They ’ re demonstrating because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is blocking them .
The message protesters actually are conveying , per all the tea-party trappings at the rallies , is one of right-wing culture war .
Barr ’ s lawsuits will have the same effect .
They ’ ll be seen as culture war , with all the polarization that entails .
Second problem : Suing and winning would put Trump on the hook for any bad consequences that result , like a second-wave outbreak triggered by reopening too early .
The *whole point* of him deciding to defer to governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ periodically screaming about “ LIBERATION ” from the sidelines ) is that he wants them to take the blame for any second wave .
He and his public health team have issued guidelines for responsible reopening ; he ’ s told the governors personally that it ’ s their call when to act .
Now , if they reopen — even with his full rhetorical support — and it backfires , he can shrug and say , “ They did it , not me.
” But that changes if Barr sues and wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be lifted .
Then Democrats can push any adverse consequences back onto Trump ’ s administration .
If the White House strategy was to hand this hot potato to the states and then get out of the way , why the hell would they have the DOJ race in to try to snatch it back ?
Third problem : In poll after poll , a majority of the public rates their governor ’ s response to the crisis highly and supports continued social distancing .
The latest is from HuffPost and YouGov : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the share of Americans staying home has remained between 86 % and 89 % , and the share supporting states ’ decisions to issue stay-at-home orders has stayed between 77 % and 81 % … Just 15 % said there are too many coronavirus-related restrictions in place where they live , with 53 % saying restrictions are at the right level , and 23 % that there are not enough restrictions .
A 78 % majority said state governments that have told residents to stay at home unless they have an essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right decision by issuing such orders , with just 9 % saying those states are making the wrong decision .
Americans said , 60 % to 24 % , that they ’ re more concerned that states will lift the restrictions too quickly than that they will not lift the restrictions quickly enough… In the latest HuffPost/YouGov poll , 87 % of Democrats and 77 % of Republicans said that state stay-at-home orders remain the right decision ; 91 % of Democrats and 85 % of Republicans said they ’ re personally making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those numbers are phenomenally high , especially given the mind-boggling economic sacrifices that are being made to try to slow the contagion .
This isn ’ t remotely a 50/50 issue — yet : A different YouGov poll asked people when a state should reopen and found majorities across all three parties , including 51 percent of Republicans , say that it should happen when public-health officials are able to perform the testing and contact tracing needed to contain new outbreaks .
Yet another poll , from ABC/WaPo , found 72 percent rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis excellent or good versus 44 percent who say the same of Trump .
At least two surveys have found the share of people who say Trump has given trustworthy and accurate information about the crisis to be below his job approval , which means even some Republicans who support him find him hard to believe .
All of that is what Barr would be up against if he joined any lawsuits against the states .
The public wants to go slow here despite the economic pain and it trusts its state leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it trusts the president .
Yet here comes the DOJ to try to disrupt that and force a premature reopening because the president and some not particularly large share of his base thinks there ’ s too much electoral peril to him in keeping the economy shuttered for any longer .
Any negative consequences that flow from a forced reopening spearheaded by Barr will be hung around Trump ’ s neck by his opponents all the way to November .
And the punchline is that the DOJ ’ s participation is unnecessary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to file suit on their own .
They don ’ t need Barr joining their effort .
And we can ’ t be more than a month out from even reluctant governors being forced by economic circumstance to start tentatively reopening for business .
Andrew Cuomo , who presides over one of the hottest hot spots on Earth , has already begun talking about plans for a phased restart to the New York economy .
These states aren ’ t going to be locked down until November .
They ’ re coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DOJ does .
So why would the DOJ do anything , knowing the political price ?

This is terrible politics but in keeping with Trump’s strategy of playing to his base and only his base, always. Governors are the MAGA villains of the month and the point of Trump-style politics is to attack the villain, so that’s what he’s going to do whether or not it’s good for him long-term.
Barr’s already being criticized for this on Twitter on grounds that it’s an affront to federalism. But (a) constitutional rights, which is what he’s allegedly concerned with, trump federalism and (b) Barr has always seemed keener on executive power than on federal deference to the states. He also doesn’t make any bones about the fact that he’s a political appointee, not a quasi-independent law enforcement officer. A few weeks ago he was on Fox grumbling about how hydroxychloroquine, the president’s favorite wonder drug, had gotten a bad rap from the lamestream media. That’s not normal AG behavior. If Trump’s going to wage political war against governors, Barr’s obviously going to look for reasons to join in.
By doing so, though, he’s going to create three political problems for Trump, and the president can’t afford any more political problems related to coronavirus. “If the testing does not get sorted out as soon as possible, it will be another nail in an almost closed coffin,” said one Republican “close to the White House” to Politico about the hit Trump’s taken since the crisis began. This would be another nail too.
Blunt means to deal with the pandemic, such as stay-at-home orders and directives shutting down businesses, are justified up to a point, Barr said in an interview Tuesday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” Eventually, though, states should move to more targeted measures, Barr said. He cited the approach laid out by President Donald Trump. “We have to give businesses more freedom to operate in a way that’s reasonably safe,” Barr said. “To the extent that governors don’t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce — our common market that we have here — then we’ll have to address that.”… “We’re looking carefully at a number of these rules that are being put into place,” Barr said. “And if we think one goes too far, we initially try to jawbone the governors into rolling them back or adjusting them. And if they’re not and people bring lawsuits, we file statement of interest and side with the plaintiffs.” In Tuesday’s radio interview, Barr said “these are very, very burdensome impingements on liberty. And we adopted them, we have to remember, for the limited purpose of slowing down the spread, that is bending the curve. We didn’t adopt them as the comprehensive way of dealing with this disease.”
First problem: By joining suits filed by individual citizens against their governors, Barr’s going to make the political narrative less favorable to the plaintiff. If it’s John Doe vs. Gretchen Whitmer, it’s the little guy fighting back against a heavy-handed state that’s gone too far in its zeal to enforce social distancing. If it’s Bill Barr vs. Gretchen Whitmer, it’s the Trump administration playing partisan politics ahead of the election to try to galvanize voters in a swing state. It goes back to what I said yesterday in the post about the optics of anti-lockdown protests. The message protesters should want to convey is one of nonpartisan economic necessity: They’re demonstrating because they need to earn a living and the state is blocking them. The message protesters actually are conveying, per all the tea-party trappings at the rallies, is one of right-wing culture war. Barr’s lawsuits will have the same effect. They’ll be seen as culture war, with all the polarization that entails.
Second problem: Suing and winning would put Trump on the hook for any bad consequences that result, like a second-wave outbreak triggered by reopening too early. The *whole point* of him deciding to defer to governors on when to reopen (notwithstanding him periodically screaming about “LIBERATION” from the sidelines) is that he wants them to take the blame for any second wave. He and his public health team have issued guidelines for responsible reopening; he’s told the governors personally that it’s their call when to act. Now, if they reopen — even with his full rhetorical support — and it backfires, he can shrug and say, “They did it, not me.” But that changes if Barr sues and wins, forcing some of the restrictions to be lifted. Then Democrats can push any adverse consequences back onto Trump’s administration. If the White House strategy was to hand this hot potato to the states and then get out of the way, why the hell would they have the DOJ race in to try to snatch it back?
Third problem: In poll after poll, a majority of the public rates their governor’s response to the crisis highly and supports continued social distancing. The latest is from HuffPost and YouGov:
In four surveys over the past month, the share of Americans staying home has remained between 86% and 89%, and the share supporting states’ decisions to issue stay-at-home orders has stayed between 77% and 81%… Just 15% said there are too many coronavirus-related restrictions in place where they live, with 53% saying restrictions are at the right level, and 23% that there are not enough restrictions. A 78% majority said state governments that have told residents to stay at home unless they have an essential reason for going out are making the right decision by issuing such orders, with just 9% saying those states are making the wrong decision. Americans said, 60% to 24%, that they’re more concerned that states will lift the restrictions too quickly than that they will not lift the restrictions quickly enough… In the latest HuffPost/YouGov poll, 87% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans said that state stay-at-home orders remain the right decision; 91% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans said they’re personally making an effort to remain at home.
Those numbers are phenomenally high, especially given the mind-boggling economic sacrifices that are being made to try to slow the contagion. This isn’t remotely a 50/50 issue — yet:
The reason why there has been no change in behavior should be obvious. Americans are still very fearful about their health which remains the top worry, even as an increasing number of people are saying the “worst is over” in our poll. pic.twitter.com/2DYBy4zPWN — Nick Gourevitch (@nickgourevitch) April 21, 2020
A different YouGov poll asked people when a state should reopen and found majorities across all three parties, including 51 percent of Republicans, say that it should happen when public-health officials are able to perform the testing and contact tracing needed to contain new outbreaks. Yet another poll, from ABC/WaPo, found 72 percent rate their governor’s response to the crisis excellent or good versus 44 percent who say the same of Trump. At least two surveys have found the share of people who say Trump has given trustworthy and accurate information about the crisis to be below his job approval, which means even some Republicans who support him find him hard to believe.
All of that is what Barr would be up against if he joined any lawsuits against the states. The public wants to go slow here despite the economic pain and it trusts its state leaders to do the right thing more than it trusts the president. Yet here comes the DOJ to try to disrupt that and force a premature reopening because the president and some not particularly large share of his base thinks there’s too much electoral peril to him in keeping the economy shuttered for any longer. Any negative consequences that flow from a forced reopening spearheaded by Barr will be hung around Trump’s neck by his opponents all the way to November.
And the punchline is that the DOJ’s participation is unnecessary. As I say, individual people are going to file suit on their own. They don’t need Barr joining their effort. And we can’t be more than a month out from even reluctant governors being forced by economic circumstance to start tentatively reopening for business. Andrew Cuomo, who presides over one of the hottest hot spots on Earth, has already begun talking about plans for a phased restart to the New York economy. These states aren’t going to be locked down until November. They’re coming back online soon, irrespective of what the DOJ does. So why would the DOJ do anything, knowing the political price?


hotair--2020-04-21--China's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong is groundwork for the next election

Last weekend Jazz wrote about the arrest of several pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong .
The NY Times clarified that there were actually 15 arrests in all .
Not only does the crackdown come as Hong Kong protesters are stuck in their homes , but also as the U.S. is dealing with the peak of its own coronavirus outbreak : Lau Siu-kai , vice president of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies , a powerful Beijing advisory group , said that the arrests on Saturday represented an early step toward a broader crackdown by Beijing on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an assessment by Beijing that protests in Hong Kong over the past year pose such a threat to national security that it is worthwhile to defy American threats of retaliation if a crackdown takes place , he said .
“ Now Beijing is calling the U.S. ’ s bluff and taking the initial steps against the Hong Kong opposition , and there will be more steps to shrink their space , ” said Mr. Lau , who was also a senior Hong Kong government official in the years immediately after Britain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also this weekend , Taylor wrote about the way in which China ’ s government office in Hong Kong , which under law is not supposed to interfere in politics there , has suddenly decided to ignore those rules .
In a follow-up story published today , the Times suggests the endgame here is Beijing ’ s control over the next elections in Hong Kong , which take place in September .
Because of the months of protests , China is expecting pro-democracy politicians to win elections .
However , they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the office in charge of Hong Kong affairs in Beijing issued three statements asserting the central government ’ s authority over the territory .
It criticized opposition members including Joshua Wong , a prominent activist , and Jimmy Lai , the publisher of Apple Daily , a pro-democracy newspaper , who was also arrested on Saturday .
The office also accused Mr. Kwok , the lawmaker , of trying to push for Hong Kong ’ s independence and encouraging foreign interference by supporting U.S. legislation that authorized possible sanctions against Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has raised fears that the authorities are laying the groundwork to bar him and others from running in the legislative elections .
Several candidates were disqualified in 2016 after local officials determined they held pro-independence views .
And six lawmakers who won seats were later removed for altering their oaths of office , after a rare intervention by Beijing .
“ The worrying thing is I can see signs this time around that the government may make wider use of so-called disqualification powers to stop pro-democratic camp people from running , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Hong Kong .
This is similar to what Nicolas Maduro has done in Venezuela , simply having pro-democracy politicians arrested on vague charges and then announcing they were disallowed from running in the next election .
There is another story circulating this week which involves attempts to cast a false light on pro-democracy protesters .
A police sergeant was arrested after it became clerar he had asked people to bring homemade petrol bombs to the area outside the police station so police could find them .
The officer , 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will be suspended from duties .
He is being held for questioning , with the case handled by the New Territories North regional crime unit .
A police spokesman confirmed an individual had been detained for perversion of justice over a criminal investigation .
Sources said the officer was allegedly involved in an incident last Monday night , when a 21-year-old man with two petrol bombs was arrested in Kwai Chung .
The officer was suspected to have asked the man to show up with the items .
Why would police want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple Daily says the goal was to portray pro-democracy protesters in a bad light ( as violent and dangerous ) while simultaneously making the police look competent : It is reported that a 38-year-old sergeant is suspected of planning a recent search for a petrol bomb outside the Kwai Chung Police Station .
It is known that he recruited others through an intermediary The petrol bombs were placed outside the police station , and even the petrol bombs were snatched in order to make public opinion and blame the protesters , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong have a lot of powerful forces aligned against them and with the threat of the coronavirus still lingering they have no way to peacefully assert their opposition to what China is doing .

Last weekend Jazz wrote about the arrest of several pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. The NY Times clarified that there were actually 15 arrests in all. Not only does the crackdown come as Hong Kong protesters are stuck in their homes, but also as the U.S. is dealing with the peak of its own coronavirus outbreak:
Lau Siu-kai, vice president of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, a powerful Beijing advisory group, said that the arrests on Saturday represented an early step toward a broader crackdown by Beijing on the Hong Kong opposition. The arrests reflect an assessment by Beijing that protests in Hong Kong over the past year pose such a threat to national security that it is worthwhile to defy American threats of retaliation if a crackdown takes place, he said. “Now Beijing is calling the U.S.’s bluff and taking the initial steps against the Hong Kong opposition, and there will be more steps to shrink their space,” said Mr. Lau, who was also a senior Hong Kong government official in the years immediately after Britain’s return of the city to Chinese sovereignty.
Also this weekend, Taylor wrote about the way in which China’s government office in Hong Kong, which under law is not supposed to interfere in politics there, has suddenly decided to ignore those rules. In a follow-up story published today, the Times suggests the endgame here is Beijing’s control over the next elections in Hong Kong, which take place in September. Because of the months of protests, China is expecting pro-democracy politicians to win elections. However, they have ways of preventing that:
On Tuesday, the office in charge of Hong Kong affairs in Beijing issued three statements asserting the central government’s authority over the territory. It criticized opposition members including Joshua Wong, a prominent activist, and Jimmy Lai, the publisher of Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper, who was also arrested on Saturday. The office also accused Mr. Kwok, the lawmaker, of trying to push for Hong Kong’s independence and encouraging foreign interference by supporting U.S. legislation that authorized possible sanctions against Hong Kong officials. The criticism of Mr. Kwok has raised fears that the authorities are laying the groundwork to bar him and others from running in the legislative elections. Several candidates were disqualified in 2016 after local officials determined they held pro-independence views. And six lawmakers who won seats were later removed for altering their oaths of office, after a rare intervention by Beijing. “The worrying thing is I can see signs this time around that the government may make wider use of so-called disqualification powers to stop pro-democratic camp people from running,” said Eric Cheung, a law lecturer at the University of Hong Kong.
This is similar to what Nicolas Maduro has done in Venezuela, simply having pro-democracy politicians arrested on vague charges and then announcing they were disallowed from running in the next election.
There is another story circulating this week which involves attempts to cast a false light on pro-democracy protesters. A police sergeant was arrested after it became clerar he had asked people to bring homemade petrol bombs to the area outside the police station so police could find them.
The officer, 38, was arrested in Sau Mau Ping and will be suspended from duties. He is being held for questioning, with the case handled by the New Territories North regional crime unit. A police spokesman confirmed an individual had been detained for perversion of justice over a criminal investigation. Sources said the officer was allegedly involved in an incident last Monday night, when a 21-year-old man with two petrol bombs was arrested in Kwai Chung. The officer was suspected to have asked the man to show up with the items.
Why would police want to do this? Independent news site Apple Daily says the goal was to portray pro-democracy protesters in a bad light (as violent and dangerous) while simultaneously making the police look competent:
It is reported that a 38-year-old sergeant is suspected of planning a recent search for a petrol bomb outside the Kwai Chung Police Station. It is known that he recruited others through an intermediary The petrol bombs were placed outside the police station, and even the petrol bombs were snatched in order to make public opinion and blame the protesters, and then pretend to investigate and solve the case.
The pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong have a lot of powerful forces aligned against them and with the threat of the coronavirus still lingering they have no way to peacefully assert their opposition to what China is doing.


hotair--2020-04-21--The airlines are sitting on $10B in customer refunds. Give it back. Now.

I was already aware that many customers have had issues trying to get refunds from the airlines on flights they had booked before the coronavirus shut everything down .
But I had no idea the extent of the problem was so vast .
This report from NextGov indicates that there are currently enough of these cancellations that ten billion dollars worth of refunds are in limbo .
The airlines want to give people travel vouchers instead of money , basically saying that once they have your money , they ’ re going to keep it .
Whether you fly or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , these are the same airlines that are currently pushing their snouts deep into the government trough for bailout money that adds up to more than all of those refunds combined .
We got almost nothing from the airlines in exchange for this taxpayer largesse .
It ’ s time to pony up .
Four Senate Democrats on Friday revealed that major domestic airlines are holding on to roughly $ 10 billion in customers ’ cash following dramatic spikes in flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic .
In a joint statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the matter , Sens .
Ed Markey , D-Mass.
, Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , and Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , also pressed the companies to release customers ’ money via full cash refunds—not solely as travel vouchers—to all who cancel flights during the worldwide public health emergency .
“ The ongoing pandemic is placing enormous financial strain on millions of Americans , ” the senators wrote .
“ If these companies released that money back to the public , it would provide a significant stimulus for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front that this doesn ’ t apply to all of the airlines .
There are two of them ( Allegiant and Spirit ) that are offering cash refunds .
Good for them .
But they are two of the smallest and account for only a slim fraction of total air travel .
Moving on , I will admit that it ’ s a rare day indeed when I get the chance to heap some praise on Ed Markey , Elizabeth Warren , Richard Blumenthal or Kamala Harris , so I will take this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m glad that they are “ expressing their outrage ” over the situation and bringing the details to the public ’ s attention .
Unfortunately , expressions of outrage are not enough .
If we ’ ve learned anything about the management of these airlines over the years , it ’ s that they are completely incapable of shame .
They continue to make air travel more and more intolerable for their customers , packing them in like sardines and decreasing services while continuing to raise prices .
And when they were making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality , they were flushing all of that cash into buying their own stock back .
If that ’ s how they choose to run their business as part of a capitalist system , so be it .
But they received $ 25B in bailouts from the first aid package and now they ’ re back asking for more .
That means there is leverage available if Congress has the collective cojones to employ it .
Simply expressing outrage and sending letters isn ’ t getting us anywhere .
It would take little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future aid packages to include a provision stating that any airlines holding on to refund money from taxpayers and only offering travel vouchers in return will be ineligible for another dime of federal assistance , either through grants , assured loans or anything else .
Return all of the passenger ’ s money in cash or no bailout for you .

I was already aware that many customers have had issues trying to get refunds from the airlines on flights they had booked before the coronavirus shut everything down. But I had no idea the extent of the problem was so vast. This report from NextGov indicates that there are currently enough of these cancellations that ten billion dollars worth of refunds are in limbo. The airlines want to give people travel vouchers instead of money, basically saying that once they have your money, they’re going to keep it. Whether you fly or not is up to you.
Of course, these are the same airlines that are currently pushing their snouts deep into the government trough for bailout money that adds up to more than all of those refunds combined. We got almost nothing from the airlines in exchange for this taxpayer largesse. It’s time to pony up.
Four Senate Democrats on Friday revealed that major domestic airlines are holding on to roughly $10 billion in customers’ cash following dramatic spikes in flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In a joint statement outlining the results of their recent investigation into the matter, Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., also pressed the companies to release customers’ money via full cash refunds—not solely as travel vouchers—to all who cancel flights during the worldwide public health emergency. “The ongoing pandemic is placing enormous financial strain on millions of Americans,” the senators wrote. “If these companies released that money back to the public, it would provide a significant stimulus for struggling families.”
We should note up front that this doesn’t apply to all of the airlines. There are two of them (Allegiant and Spirit) that are offering cash refunds. Good for them. But they are two of the smallest and account for only a slim fraction of total air travel.
Moving on, I will admit that it’s a rare day indeed when I get the chance to heap some praise on Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal or Kamala Harris, so I will take this opportunity to do so. I’m glad that they are “expressing their outrage” over the situation and bringing the details to the public’s attention.
Unfortunately, expressions of outrage are not enough. If we’ve learned anything about the management of these airlines over the years, it’s that they are completely incapable of shame. They continue to make air travel more and more intolerable for their customers, packing them in like sardines and decreasing services while continuing to raise prices. And when they were making record profits, rather than improving service quality, they were flushing all of that cash into buying their own stock back.
If that’s how they choose to run their business as part of a capitalist system, so be it. But they received $25B in bailouts from the first aid package and now they’re back asking for more. That means there is leverage available if Congress has the collective cojones to employ it.
Simply expressing outrage and sending letters isn’t getting us anywhere. It would take little effort to draft legislation modifying current and future aid packages to include a provision stating that any airlines holding on to refund money from taxpayers and only offering travel vouchers in return will be ineligible for another dime of federal assistance, either through grants, assured loans or anything else. Return all of the passenger’s money in cash or no bailout for you.


hotair--2020-04-21--Study of VA's COVID patients: Those who got hydroxychloroquine saw no benefit and died more often

Politico noticed this morning that , after weeks of hype , the president and his many friends at Fox have grown strangely quiet about hydroxychloroquine lately “ for reasons that remain unclear.
” Is this why ?
Did Trump maybe get a heads up that a study of patients in the government ’ s own care was in the works that was going to prove embarrassing to him ?
That would have been his cue to climb off the HCQ express quickly and quietly .
This is at least the third study this month to find no clear benefit from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most encouraging thing we can say about it as a potential therapy for COVID-19 is that results are “ mixed , ” which doesn ’ t bode well for it becoming a reliable therapeutic .
In fact , say the authors of today ’ s stay , VA patients treated with HCQ were more likely to die than patients who didn ’ t receive the drug .
The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment .
But with 368 patients , it ’ s the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday… About 28 % who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died , versus 11 % of those getting routine care alone .
About 22 % of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too , but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival .
Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine , either .
Researchers did not track side effects , but noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organs .
“ I think we ’ re all rather underwhelmed ” by the drug ’ s efficacy for coronavirus , said one University of Wisconsin doctor to the AP .
You can read the full study here .
Of note : Hydroxychloroquine was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease , which may help explain why patients who were given the drug were more likely to die .
That ’ s one potential problem with the study , that not everyone was given the drug at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors say they took that into consideration when modeling to try to control for those differences : “ Nevertheless , the increased risk of overall mortality in the hydroxychloroquine-only group persisted after adjusting for the propensity of being treated with the drug.
” They also considered differences among patients in “ comorbidities , medications , clinical and laboratory abnormalities ” before drawing their conclusions .
Did the drug hasten patients ’ demise ?
A Twitter pal notes that , based on these results , the effective ingredient in the “ HCQ + azithromycin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This passage from the study is interesting , and may explain why promising results for HCQ against COVID-19 *in the lab , * as observed by Chinese doctors , might not translate into promising results in actual people : Hydroxychloroquine could conceivably work against the virus in high doses — too high to be safely ingested by people .
John Cornyn puts the best possible result on the verdict : Yes , clinical trials will answer the question definitively .
But it takes giant stones for a top Republican to demand people reserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are finished when Trump ’ s been out there for weeks encouraging people to give it a shot ( “ What do you have to lose ?
” ) , knowing that lupus patients who need hydroxychloroquine were destined to run into shortages as a result .
The HCQ result is depressing but this is more hopeful : A young COVID-19 patient at the Children ’ s Hospital of Philadelphia is recovering after receiving donated plasma , marking a possible breakthrough in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic… “ So it took us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said we wanted to use it to it actually being in the patient around 40 hours , ” Dr Teachey said .
The treatment is still in an experimental stage and doctors could not say conclusively that it was the primary reason for the child ’ s recovery .
Dr. Teachey still believes the results are encouraging however .
It ’ ll take clinical trials before we know if that works too , but plasma treatments have worked for ages against other diseases .
Experts like Scott Gottlieb have been touting them as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sooner , the better : The one-month death toll from coronavirus has already surpassed the number of deaths from the flu across the entire 2018-19 flu season .

Politico noticed this morning that, after weeks of hype, the president and his many friends at Fox have grown strangely quiet about hydroxychloroquine lately “for reasons that remain unclear.”
Is this why? Did Trump maybe get a heads up that a study of patients in the government’s own care was in the works that was going to prove embarrassing to him? That would have been his cue to climb off the HCQ express quickly and quietly.
This is at least the third study this month to find no clear benefit from treating coronavirus patients with hydroxychloroquine. The most encouraging thing we can say about it as a potential therapy for COVID-19 is that results are “mixed,” which doesn’t bode well for it becoming a reliable therapeutic. In fact, say the authors of today’s stay, VA patients treated with HCQ were more likely to die than patients who didn’t receive the drug.
The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it’s the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday… About 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. About 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival. Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either. Researchers did not track side effects, but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs.
“I think we’re all rather underwhelmed” by the drug’s efficacy for coronavirus, said one University of Wisconsin doctor to the AP. You can read the full study here. Of note: Hydroxychloroquine was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, which may help explain why patients who were given the drug were more likely to die. That’s one potential problem with the study, that not everyone was given the drug at the same stage of the illness. But the authors say they took that into consideration when modeling to try to control for those differences: “Nevertheless, the increased risk of overall mortality in the hydroxychloroquine-only group persisted after adjusting for the propensity of being treated with the drug.” They also considered differences among patients in “comorbidities, medications, clinical and laboratory abnormalities” before drawing their conclusions. Did the drug hasten patients’ demise?
A Twitter pal notes that, based on these results, the effective ingredient in the “HCQ + azithromycin” equation may not be HCQ:
Azithromycin is a standard pneumonia treatment, and the no HC control group could receive it; 50/158 patients did. Since there is little difference btw the HC+AZ group and the control, but a huge difference btw the HC/no AZ group and the control, it may be the AZ that matters. pic.twitter.com/Vs0c211X1R — Non-essential Fred (@LesserFrederick) April 21, 2020
This passage from the study is interesting, and may explain why promising results for HCQ against COVID-19 *in the lab,* as observed by Chinese doctors, might not translate into promising results in actual people:
Hydroxychloroquine could conceivably work against the virus in high doses — too high to be safely ingested by people.
John Cornyn puts the best possible result on the verdict:
How about real clinical trials? “The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it’s the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday.” https://t.co/oxXmOuiDcJ — Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) April 21, 2020
Yes, clinical trials will answer the question definitively. But it takes giant stones for a top Republican to demand people reserve judgment on this drug until clinical trials are finished when Trump’s been out there for weeks encouraging people to give it a shot (“What do you have to lose?”), knowing that lupus patients who need hydroxychloroquine were destined to run into shortages as a result.
The HCQ result is depressing but this is more hopeful:
A young COVID-19 patient at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is recovering after receiving donated plasma, marking a possible breakthrough in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic… “So it took us from start to finish from when we said we wanted to use it to it actually being in the patient around 40 hours,” Dr Teachey said. The treatment is still in an experimental stage and doctors could not say conclusively that it was the primary reason for the child’s recovery. Dr. Teachey still believes the results are encouraging however.
It’ll take clinical trials before we know if that works too, but plasma treatments have worked for ages against other diseases. Experts like Scott Gottlieb have been touting them as an obvious near-term hope for treating COVID. The sooner, the better: The one-month death toll from coronavirus has already surpassed the number of deaths from the flu across the entire 2018-19 flu season.


hotair--2020-04-21--Today's hot #TEMS topics: PPP grown, COVID moan, Biden's VP millstone, debt tip-over zone, and what'

Today's hot #TEMS topics: PPP grown, COVID moan, Biden's VP millstone, debt tip-over zone, and what's happening in Kansas!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Andrew and I will talk about the new deal on PPP , the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Joe Biden ’ s running mate pick matters more than for most candidates in most cycles .
And we ’ ll try to take a look at the Campaign Ad of the Year , while we ’ re at it .
• How has the Great Hunkering Down impacted electioneering at the more local level ?
We ’ ll talk with Bryan Pruitt , running for the state senate in Kansas , about how he ’ s had to throw out the playbook .
We ’ ll also talk about passing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforming the primary process , and how you can help him win .
• Peter Grandich returns just as the Washington Post focuses on one of Peter ’ s key warnings about debt and recovery .
Just how much resilience does the US economy have when 22 million or more consumers lose their jobs — and can ’ t service their debt load ?
And does the current “ helicopter money ” approach of crisis management make it more difficult to avoid longer-term damage ?
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. Andrew and I will talk about the new deal on PPP, the latest on COVID-19 related developments, and also why Joe Biden’s running mate pick matters more than for most candidates in most cycles. And we’ll try to take a look at the Campaign Ad of the Year, while we’re at it.
How has the Great Hunkering Down impacted electioneering at the more local level? We’ll talk with Bryan Pruitt, running for the state senate in Kansas, about how he’s had to throw out the playbook. We’ll also talk about passing a pro-life amendment to the state constitution, reforming the primary process, and how you can help him win.
Peter Grandich returns just as the Washington Post focuses on one of Peter’s key warnings about debt and recovery. Just how much resilience does the US economy have when 22 million or more consumers lose their jobs — and can’t service their debt load? And does the current “helicopter money” approach of crisis management make it more difficult to avoid longer-term damage?
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-04-21--Here we go: Missouri files COVID-19 lawsuit against China

It ’ s not the first lawsuit against China over the coronavirus outbreak , not even in the US .
It is , however , the first such lawsuit filed by a state government , which makes it not just a legal but also a diplomatic issue .
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed the complaint in federal court today , naming China ’ s government and its Communist Party as respondents , among others : Missouri became the first state to file a lawsuit against China on Tuesday , accusing the country of being responsible for the severity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make up for “ the enormous loss of life , human suffering , and economic turmoil ” resulting from the disease .
The suit in the Eastern District of Missouri follows at least seven federal class-action suits that have been filed by private groups , with one filed in Florida saying that China knew “ COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic , yet slowly acted , proverbially put their head in the sand , and/or covered it up in their own economic self-interest.
” It also comes on the heels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration bring a case against China to the International Court of Justice ( ICIJ ) for the country ’ s actions during the pandemic .
Schmitt ’ s office called the lawsuit “ historical , ” and cited the enormous impact on the state : “ In Missouri , the impact of the virus is very real – thousands have been infected and many have died ; families have been separated from dying loved ones ; small businesses are shuttering their doors , and those living paycheck-to-paycheck are struggling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schmitt said in a release announcing the lawsuit .
A spokesperson representing Schmitt ’ s office described the move as “ historical.
” Read the complaint here , but it won ’ t hold many surprises .
It alleges that China lied , that those lies materially compromised the global , national , and state response to COVID-19 , and that led to almost 200 deaths so far of Missourians , with thousands more sick and the economy in free fall .
In other words , it ’ s a restatement of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , concealment , misfeasance , and inaction by Chinese authorities unleashed this pandemic .
During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak , Chinese authorities deceived the public , suppressed crucial information , arrested whistleblowers , denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence , destroyed critical medical research , permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus , and even hoarded personal protective equipment—thus causing a global pandemic that was unnecessary and preventable .
Defendants are responsible for the enormous death , suffering , and economic losses they inflicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they should be held accountable .
… When their actions began to kill hundreds of thousands of people across the globe , Defendants sought to minimize the consequences , engaging in a coverup and misleading public relations campaign by censoring scientists , ordering the destruction and suppression of valuable research , and refusing cooperation with the global community , all in violation of international health standards .
Defendants ’ actions and inactions had profound effects in Missouri .
Literally every Missourian has been adversely affected by Defendants ’ course of conduct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ international law as the basis for this complaint .
However , that usually falls under the federal purview as a matter of international diplomacy rather than domestic civil law .
Although there are some exceptions , most such lawsuits do not succeed in recovering damages , except where the federal government intervenes ( such as the Lockerbie bombing case ) , because states and private individuals simply don ’ t have the authority to enforce judgment on a sovereign nation .
For that matter , neither do the courts .
Even as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea , writes Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review : Making lawsuits the response to foreign provocations also distorts governmental responsibilities .
The courts do not have a national-security function .
In our system , the defense of the nation is committed to the political branches that are accountable to the American people whose lives are at stake .
It is the president and Congress who are supposed to deal with provocations by foreign powers , using diplomatic , military , intelligence , and other government capabilities to seek accommodations — including any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accidental harms .
We quite intentionally insulate our courts from this political role .
The judiciary ’ s duty is not to safeguard the public ; it is to ensure that parties in court cases are afforded the law ’ s due-process safeguards .
A bill that makes the judiciary responsible for responding to and punishing China over the COVID-19 disaster is a bill that takes that responsibility away from the political branches where it rightfully resides , and gives it to the non-political branch charged with protecting China ’ s rights as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most Americans ’ idea of justice .
And then there is the reciprocity problem .
No nation is more active on the world stage than the United States .
No nation , then , has more interest in upholding the doctrine of sovereign immunity than ours .
We are deeply involved in overt military operations and covert intelligence operations ; our diplomatic officers , as well as our other appointed and elected officials , play a decisive role in policies that dramatically affect people in other countries , mostly for the good , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ill. Sovereign immunity from liability in court proceedings prevents American officials and operatives from being hauled into foreign courts , ensuring that disputes among foreign powers are handled diplomatically .
How much would the rogue regimes in China , Russia , and Iran love a world in which the United States , the defender of the international order , undermined the basic protections of that order ?
How much would they exploit the implicit invitation to use the kangaroo courts of their vassals as a weapon against the West ?
Be sure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes a series of excellent points in his perhaps-counterintuitive take .
Primarily , he argues that the COVID-19 outbreak should carry a different kind of accountability — a recognition by the American public that China is not our friend , but rather “ a hostile , aggressive power that seeks to displace us on the world stage.
” In that environment , it is far better for us to protect the principles of sovereign immunity rather than undermine it , which would inadvertently push us even further into the kind of globalization that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McCarthy probably doesn ’ t have to worry about this too much , though .
This lawsuit and the others like it won ’ t go very far , and even a win in court will produce nothing but momentary bragging rights .
Our attention should focus more on treating China as the threat it is , not as just another respondent in civil court .

It’s not the first lawsuit against China over the coronavirus outbreak, not even in the US. It is, however, the first such lawsuit filed by a state government, which makes it not just a legal but also a diplomatic issue. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed the complaint in federal court today, naming China’s government and its Communist Party as respondents, among others:
Missouri became the first state to file a lawsuit against China on Tuesday, accusing the country of being responsible for the severity of the coronavirus pandemic and seeking damages to make up for “the enormous loss of life, human suffering, and economic turmoil” resulting from the disease. The suit in the Eastern District of Missouri follows at least seven federal class-action suits that have been filed by private groups, with one filed in Florida saying that China knew “COVID-19 was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic, yet slowly acted, proverbially put their head in the sand, and/or covered it up in their own economic self-interest.” It also comes on the heels of 22 Republican lawmakers on Monday requesting that the Trump administration bring a case against China to the International Court of Justice (ICIJ) for the country’s actions during the pandemic.
Schmitt’s office called the lawsuit “historical,” and cited the enormous impact on the state:
“In Missouri, the impact of the virus is very real – thousands have been infected and many have died; families have been separated from dying loved ones; small businesses are shuttering their doors, and those living paycheck-to-paycheck are struggling to put food on their table,” Schmitt said in a release announcing the lawsuit. A spokesperson representing Schmitt’s office described the move as “historical.”
Read the complaint here, but it won’t hold many surprises. It alleges that China lied, that those lies materially compromised the global, national, and state response to COVID-19, and that led to almost 200 deaths so far of Missourians, with thousands more sick and the economy in free fall. In other words, it’s a restatement of the obvious:
An appalling campaign of deceit, concealment, misfeasance, and inaction by Chinese authorities unleashed this pandemic. During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak, Chinese authorities deceived the public, suppressed crucial information, arrested whistleblowers, denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence, destroyed critical medical research, permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus, and even hoarded personal protective equipment—thus causing a global pandemic that was unnecessary and preventable. Defendants are responsible for the enormous death, suffering, and economic losses they inflicted on the world, including Missourians, and they should be held accountable. … When their actions began to kill hundreds of thousands of people across the globe, Defendants sought to minimize the consequences, engaging in a coverup and misleading public relations campaign by censoring scientists, ordering the destruction and suppression of valuable research, and refusing cooperation with the global community, all in violation of international health standards. Defendants’ actions and inactions had profound effects in Missouri. Literally every Missourian has been adversely affected by Defendants’ course of conduct.
Schmitt cites China’s obligations under international law as the basis for this complaint. However, that usually falls under the federal purview as a matter of international diplomacy rather than domestic civil law. Although there are some exceptions, most such lawsuits do not succeed in recovering damages, except where the federal government intervenes (such as the Lockerbie bombing case), because states and private individuals simply don’t have the authority to enforce judgment on a sovereign nation. For that matter, neither do the courts.
Even as a symbolic action it’s a terrible idea, writes Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review:
Making lawsuits the response to foreign provocations also distorts governmental responsibilities. The courts do not have a national-security function. In our system, the defense of the nation is committed to the political branches that are accountable to the American people whose lives are at stake. It is the president and Congress who are supposed to deal with provocations by foreign powers, using diplomatic, military, intelligence, and other government capabilities to seek accommodations — including any monetary compensation for victims of willful or accidental harms. We quite intentionally insulate our courts from this political role. The judiciary’s duty is not to safeguard the public; it is to ensure that parties in court cases are afforded the law’s due-process safeguards. A bill that makes the judiciary responsible for responding to and punishing China over the COVID-19 disaster is a bill that takes that responsibility away from the political branches where it rightfully resides, and gives it to the non-political branch charged with protecting China’s rights as a litigant. That would not be most Americans’ idea of justice. And then there is the reciprocity problem. No nation is more active on the world stage than the United States. No nation, then, has more interest in upholding the doctrine of sovereign immunity than ours. We are deeply involved in overt military operations and covert intelligence operations; our diplomatic officers, as well as our other appointed and elected officials, play a decisive role in policies that dramatically affect people in other countries, mostly for the good, but sometimes for ill, including lethal ill. Sovereign immunity from liability in court proceedings prevents American officials and operatives from being hauled into foreign courts, ensuring that disputes among foreign powers are handled diplomatically. How much would the rogue regimes in China, Russia, and Iran love a world in which the United States, the defender of the international order, undermined the basic protections of that order? How much would they exploit the implicit invitation to use the kangaroo courts of their vassals as a weapon against the West?
Be sure to read the whole essay, but McCarthy makes a series of excellent points in his perhaps-counterintuitive take. Primarily, he argues that the COVID-19 outbreak should carry a different kind of accountability — a recognition by the American public that China is not our friend, but rather “a hostile, aggressive power that seeks to displace us on the world stage.” In that environment, it is far better for us to protect the principles of sovereign immunity rather than undermine it, which would inadvertently push us even further into the kind of globalization that redounds to Xi Jinping’s benefit.
McCarthy probably doesn’t have to worry about this too much, though. This lawsuit and the others like it won’t go very far, and even a win in court will produce nothing but momentary bragging rights. Our attention should focus more on treating China as the threat it is, not as just another respondent in civil court.


hotair--2020-04-21--Russia, China and Iran have formed an axis of disinformation

A State Department report which is not yet public concludes that Russia , China and Iran have been coordinating their propaganda efforts in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic .
All three countries have been spreading the message that the U.S. , not China , is the origin point of the virus .
The three governments are pushing a host of matching messages : that the novel coronavirus is an American bioweapon , that the U.S. is scoring political points off the crisis , that the virus didn ’ t come from China , that U.S. troops spread it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranians , that China ’ s response was great while the U.S. ’ was negligent , that all three governments are managing the crisis well , and that the U.S. economy can ’ t bear the toll of the virus… One core message has been that China is a strong global health leader and the United States , meanwhile , is a weak ally .
Lea Gabrielle , who helms the GEC , told POLITICO that China has also let Russian propaganda efforts targeting the U.S. spread throughout its country — where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notoriously relentless .
“ What we saw as the health crisis started to come under control in China is that the CCP really started pushing a concerted effort to try to reshape that narrative , ” she said , using the acronym for the Chinese Communist Party .
“ So in a short period of time the CCP went from letting Russian disinformation claiming the U.S. was the source of the virus proliferate in Chinese social media , to raising questions on state media about the origin ’ s source , to promoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus.
” The fact that this is circulating inside China as well as being pushed outside China suggests the goal here is to protect Xi Jinping from the potential backlash within China which was clearly building after the death of Dr. Li Wenliang in February .
The article points to a particular conspiracy theory involving Bill Gates as the creator of a U.S. bioweapon which was published by a news site run by Russia ’ s military earlier this month : There are many theories about the origin of coronavirus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most popular one concerns the monstrous prediction of Microsoft CEO Bill Gates .
Last year , he said that 33 million people could die from such a coronavirus in 250 days .
The calculations are purely mathematical , but true , the IT tycoon is sure .
After such statements , adherents of conspiracy theories literally have no doubt that the virus is of artificial origin , and Bill Gates is one of its main sponsors .
Another fact adds weight to this theory – a few months ago , the head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 201 , which simulated an outbreak of a new virus that killed 65 million people in 18 months .
The idea of the teachings is simple – globalization in the name of salvation .
Russia ’ s RT also published a story quoting an Iranian military leader speculating the virus was actually a U.S. bioweapon : The US сould be the prime culprit behind Covid-2019 outbreak that hit China and then Iran , head of its elite Revolutionary Guards claimed , threatening that the virus will eventually be turned against those who unleashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this virus is a product of a biological attack by America which initially spread to China and then to Iran and the rest of the world , ” Hossein Salami said on Thursday .
As I pointed out here , there was briefly some push back from within Iran about the credibility of China ’ s coronavirus numbers but that was quickly shut down .
It ’ s good to know that the State Department is paying attention to this convergence in messaging .
Hopefully we ’ ll get to see the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that before the virus the only thing all three states shared in common was opposition to the U.S. position on Venezuela .
Now that they ’ ve found it useful to combine their efforts against the U.S. on the coronvirus , we ’ re probably going to see a lot more coordination in the future , including possibly during the 2020 election .

A State Department report which is not yet public concludes that Russia, China and Iran have been coordinating their propaganda efforts in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. All three countries have been spreading the message that the U.S., not China, is the origin point of the virus.
The three governments are pushing a host of matching messages: that the novel coronavirus is an American bioweapon, that the U.S. is scoring political points off the crisis, that the virus didn’t come from China, that U.S. troops spread it, that America’s sanctions are killing Iranians, that China’s response was great while the U.S.’ was negligent, that all three governments are managing the crisis well, and that the U.S. economy can’t bear the toll of the virus… One core message has been that China is a strong global health leader and the United States, meanwhile, is a weak ally. Lea Gabrielle, who helms the GEC, told POLITICO that China has also let Russian propaganda efforts targeting the U.S. spread throughout its country — where the Beijing government’s internet censorship is notoriously relentless. “What we saw as the health crisis started to come under control in China is that the CCP really started pushing a concerted effort to try to reshape that narrative,” she said, using the acronym for the Chinese Communist Party. “So in a short period of time the CCP went from letting Russian disinformation claiming the U.S. was the source of the virus proliferate in Chinese social media, to raising questions on state media about the origin’s source, to promoting disinformation that the U.S. was the source of the virus.”
The fact that this is circulating inside China as well as being pushed outside China suggests the goal here is to protect Xi Jinping from the potential backlash within China which was clearly building after the death of Dr. Li Wenliang in February.
The article points to a particular conspiracy theory involving Bill Gates as the creator of a U.S. bioweapon which was published by a news site run by Russia’s military earlier this month:
There are many theories about the origin of coronavirus and the further development of events. The most popular one concerns the monstrous prediction of Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. Last year, he said that 33 million people could die from such a coronavirus in 250 days. The calculations are purely mathematical, but true, the IT tycoon is sure. After such statements, adherents of conspiracy theories literally have no doubt that the virus is of artificial origin, and Bill Gates is one of its main sponsors. Another fact adds weight to this theory – a few months ago, the head of Microsoft held a conditional exercise called Event 201, which simulated an outbreak of a new virus that killed 65 million people in 18 months. The idea of the teachings is simple – globalization in the name of salvation.
Russia’s RT also published a story quoting an Iranian military leader speculating the virus was actually a U.S. bioweapon:
The US сould be the prime culprit behind Covid-2019 outbreak that hit China and then Iran, head of its elite Revolutionary Guards claimed, threatening that the virus will eventually be turned against those who unleashed it. “It is possible that this virus is a product of a biological attack by America which initially spread to China and then to Iran and the rest of the world,” Hossein Salami said on Thursday.
As I pointed out here, there was briefly some push back from within Iran about the credibility of China’s coronavirus numbers but that was quickly shut down.
It’s good to know that the State Department is paying attention to this convergence in messaging. Hopefully we’ll get to see the full report at some point. Politico notes that before the virus the only thing all three states shared in common was opposition to the U.S. position on Venezuela. Now that they’ve found it useful to combine their efforts against the U.S. on the coronvirus, we’re probably going to see a lot more coordination in the future, including possibly during the 2020 election.


hotair--2020-04-21--New Zealand could be setting itself up for a hard fall

Some countries have been hit harder than others by the novel coronavirus , with the United States currently being among the most affected .
There are exceptions in other parts of the globe , however , with one of the most glaring examples being New Zealand .
On the relatively rare occasions when the national media pays any attention to the tiny nation , they generally fall all over themselves to heap praise on that nation ’ s Prime Minister , Jacinda Ardern .
She has been on a crusade to wipe the virus from her islands entirely , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , they are edging closer to achieving that goal .
But what comes next ?
( NY Post ) While most countries are working on ways to contain the coronavirus , New Zealand has set itself a much more ambitious goal : eliminating it altogether .
And experts believe the country could pull it off .
The virus “ doesn ’ t have superpowers , ” said Helen Petousis-Harris , a vaccine expert at the University of Auckland .
“ Once transmission is stopped , it ’ s gone.
” And Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , putting the country under a strict lockdown in late March , when only about 100 people had tested positive for the new virus .
Ardern ’ s motto from the beginning has been to “ go hard and go early.
” The virus didn ’ t show up in New Zealand until March , but as soon as it did , when there are less than one hundred cases , Ardern terminated all travel to and from New Zealand with almost zero exceptions .
She shut down nearly all businesses that didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources to people .
She ordered everyone into lockdown and brought the country ( and its economy ) to a standstill .
And at least so far it ’ s worked .
The country ’ s infection rate never went above 100 per day in the following weeks and today they reported only five .
The government appears to sincerely believe that they can wait this thing out for another week or two and there should be no cases of COVID-19 in the entire country .
And I have to admit… they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
Ardern will be the leader of a nation with no infections , but also virtually zero herd immunity .
At the moment , most workers are at home receiving government-subsidized pay .
Soon , if nothing changes , they may indeed be back to work and life would look as if it ’ s returning to normal .
But New Zealand relies on tourism to stay alive .
The travel industry supports nearly ten percent of the jobs held by New Zealanders and accounts for a significant portion of their GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealand into a hermit nation .
Sooner or later they will have to open their doors to the outside world again .
And if a vaccine hasn ’ t been developed ( something that is not only unlikely in the near future but may prove entirely impossible in the end ) they will be wide open to a fresh surge in cases .
How many times will New Zealand be able to “ go hard ” and return to total lockdown conditions before their economy is completely collapsed ?
What we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete opposite of the experiment going on in Sweden .
They went with the herd immunity approach , for the most part , only locking down the oldest and those with compromised immune systems .
New Zealand is putting itself in a vacuum .
But sooner or later that vacuum has to be released and the air will come rushing back in .
Air that will most likely contain the novel coronavirus .
By the end of the year which should know which of these approaches was wise , assuming either of them @ @ @ @ @ @

Some countries have been hit harder than others by the novel coronavirus, with the United States currently being among the most affected. There are exceptions in other parts of the globe, however, with one of the most glaring examples being New Zealand. On the relatively rare occasions when the national media pays any attention to the tiny nation, they generally fall all over themselves to heap praise on that nation’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. She has been on a crusade to wipe the virus from her islands entirely, no matter the cost. And at this point, they are edging closer to achieving that goal. But what comes next? (NY Post)
While most countries are working on ways to contain the coronavirus, New Zealand has set itself a much more ambitious goal: eliminating it altogether. And experts believe the country could pull it off. The virus “doesn’t have superpowers,” said Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccine expert at the University of Auckland. “Once transmission is stopped, it’s gone.” And Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has taken bold steps, putting the country under a strict lockdown in late March, when only about 100 people had tested positive for the new virus.
Ardern’s motto from the beginning has been to “go hard and go early.” The virus didn’t show up in New Zealand until March, but as soon as it did, when there are less than one hundred cases, Ardern terminated all travel to and from New Zealand with almost zero exceptions. She shut down nearly all businesses that didn’t involve getting food and medical resources to people. She ordered everyone into lockdown and brought the country (and its economy) to a standstill.
And at least so far it’s worked. The country’s infection rate never went above 100 per day in the following weeks and today they reported only five. The government appears to sincerely believe that they can wait this thing out for another week or two and there should be no cases of COVID-19 in the entire country. And I have to admit… they could be right.
But what happens after that? Ardern will be the leader of a nation with no infections, but also virtually zero herd immunity. At the moment, most workers are at home receiving government-subsidized pay. Soon, if nothing changes, they may indeed be back to work and life would look as if it’s returning to normal. But New Zealand relies on tourism to stay alive. The travel industry supports nearly ten percent of the jobs held by New Zealanders and accounts for a significant portion of their GDP.
She can’t simply turn New Zealand into a hermit nation. Sooner or later they will have to open their doors to the outside world again. And if a vaccine hasn’t been developed (something that is not only unlikely in the near future but may prove entirely impossible in the end) they will be wide open to a fresh surge in cases. How many times will New Zealand be able to “go hard” and return to total lockdown conditions before their economy is completely collapsed?
What we’re seeing here is pretty much the complete opposite of the experiment going on in Sweden. They went with the herd immunity approach, for the most part, only locking down the oldest and those with compromised immune systems. New Zealand is putting itself in a vacuum. But sooner or later that vacuum has to be released and the air will come rushing back in. Air that will most likely contain the novel coronavirus. By the end of the year which should know which of these approaches was wise, assuming either of them come out of it intact.