hotair--2020-04-27--Is the coronavirus an "animal passage" experiment gone wrong?

This Newsweek story is almost pure speculation but interesting anyway as a look at the sort of insanely risky experiments some virologists are doing around the world to try to anticipate how existing viruses might mutate naturally to produce a killer pandemic .
The technique involved is called “ gain of function.
” Scientists take a known virus and inject it into , say , a ferret .
Then they wait for the ferret to get sick , harvest the virus from the ferret ’ s body — which may now have mutated — and inject it into a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a third ferret , and a fourth , and so on , with the virus continually mutating , until finally it mutates into a form that can infect another ferret naturally , through proximity instead of injection .
( Viruses that are transmissible among ferrets tend to be transmissible among humans , Newsweek notes . )
They ’ re not trying to engineer a deadly pathogen via this “ animal passage ” process so much as they ’ re trying to predict what a deadly pathogen might look like if it emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The U.S. program to fund research like this is called , not coincidentally , “ PREDICT.
” In theory this will lead to antiviral drugs derived from the lab-mutated viruses so that we have a weapon that ’ s ready if/when a deadly novel virus emerges in nature , but so far it seems like there haven ’ t been any practical results from it .
The risk from this technique is obvious .
By hurrying along the mutation process , scientists are breeding pathogens right there in the lab that may prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a lab accident and someone gets infected before knocking off work for the day… You see where I ’ m going with this .
Newsweek reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency , the Pentagon ’ s version of the CIA , concluded on March 27 that it couldn ’ t rule out a lab accident as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic .
That ’ s because , based on the evidence , fully a third of the first 41 people known to be infected by the coronavirus had no direct exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the place where transmission supposedly began .
Meanwhile , as chance would have it , the nearby virology lab in Wuhan just so happens to perform “ gain of function ” research on coronaviruses , probably involving animal passage .
Some scientists have ardently opposed that type of research for years because of the risk that a virus rendered contagious through extensive gain of function might escape the lab and wreak havoc on the world .
That ’ s about the extent of the hard evidence in the Newsweek piece .
One problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory of COVID-19 ’ s origins is that viruses produced that way look like they emerged in nature — because , well , they did .
It was just nature inside a laboratory .
A true genetically engineered virus would have telltale signs of artificial manipulation that would make it easier for a trained eye to spot .
So animal passage can ’ t be ruled in .
But it can ’ t be ruled out either : Rutger ’ s Ebright , a longtime opponent of gain of function research , says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fails to rule out animal-passage as an origin of SARS-CoV-2 .
“ The reasoning is unsound , ” he wrote in an email to Newsweek .
“ Embarrassingly unsound .
They favor the possibility ‘ that the virus mutated in an animal host such as a pangolins ’ yet , simultaneously , they disfavor the possibility that the virus mutated in ‘ animal passage.
’ Because the two possibilities are identical , apart from location , one can ’ t logically favor one and disfavor the other.
” Jonathan Eisen , an evolutionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the preponderance of evidence , while not definitive , suggests that the virus came from nature , not a lab .
“ There ’ s no hint there that there ’ s something unnatural , that is , genetically engineered , ” he says .
But “ there is some wiggle room ” in the findings that admits the possibility that the virus was concocted in a lab via animal passage .
“ Passaging is hard to test for .
Escape from a lab is hard to test for , ” he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collected something from the field and they were doing some experiments in the lab with it , and some person got infected and then it spread from there , that would be really hard to distinguish from it having spread in the field directly.
” Wuhan is in possession of a virus , RATG13 , that is thought to be the most similar to SARS-CoV-2 of any known virus—the two share 96 percent of their genetic material .
That four-percent gap would still be a formidable gap for animal-passage research , says Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of North Carolina who collaborated with Shi Zheng-Li on the 2015 gain-of-function research .
“ You keep running into problems that just don ’ t make it likely , ” he says .
Wuhan would probably have had to start with a virus closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RATG13 , which is within the realm of possibilities .
Is it more or less likely than the “ animal passage ” theory that researchers simply harvested COVID-19 in its final form when they were out on one of their missions collecting bat droppings for study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain of function ” correctly then the answer should be “ less , ” because a virus harvested directly from a bat isn ’ t necessarily ( or even probably ? )
transmissible to humans .
Animal passage is what can make it transmissible .
So maybe they harvested something very similar to SARS-CoV-2 that wasn ’ t infectious , and then made it infectious , and then — whoops .
But as I say , it ’ s speculation .
Interesting speculation , given other bits and pieces of data about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about safety issues at the Wuhan lab in 2018 .
Jim Geraghty also wrote a provocative piece earlier this month pointing to circumstantial evidence of a cover-up involving lab personnel based on rumors circulating on China ’ s Internet .
It ’ s impossible to say for sure why the Chinese government might attempt to suppress information about someone — suppressing information is the party ’ s raison d ’ etre — but it doesn ’ t hurt the theory that something happened at the lab that the CCP would rather the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How will we ever know , though ?
If there ’ s no way to say with confidence through scientific analysis of the virus ’ s genome that it emerged via lab-induced “ animal passage ” then our only hope is Beijing coming clean voluntarily .
Thirty years later , they still haven ’ t come clean about Tiananmen Square .
They ’ re not going to come clean about a global biological Chernobyl .
To boost your spirits after reading this post about bat sh*t and mass death , read this NYT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine .
By chance , Oxford had already conducted trials last year that showed that a human vaccine for coronaviruses would be harmless .
Now they can skip to the part where they test their vaccine against COVID-19 on actual people .
They ’ ve already tested it on six rhesus monkeys , all of whom were vaccinated and then injected with “ heavy quantities of the virus.
” A month later , all six were just fine .

This Newsweek story is almost pure speculation but interesting anyway as a look at the sort of insanely risky experiments some virologists are doing around the world to try to anticipate how existing viruses might mutate naturally to produce a killer pandemic.
The technique involved is called “gain of function.” Scientists take a known virus and inject it into, say, a ferret. Then they wait for the ferret to get sick, harvest the virus from the ferret’s body — which may now have mutated — and inject it into a second ferret. Then they do that again with a third ferret, and a fourth, and so on, with the virus continually mutating, until finally it mutates into a form that can infect another ferret naturally, through proximity instead of injection. (Viruses that are transmissible among ferrets tend to be transmissible among humans, Newsweek notes.) They’re not trying to engineer a deadly pathogen via this “animal passage” process so much as they’re trying to predict what a deadly pathogen might look like if it emerged naturally among animals in the wild. The U.S. program to fund research like this is called, not coincidentally, “PREDICT.” In theory this will lead to antiviral drugs derived from the lab-mutated viruses so that we have a weapon that’s ready if/when a deadly novel virus emerges in nature, but so far it seems like there haven’t been any practical results from it.
The risk from this technique is obvious. By hurrying along the mutation process, scientists are breeding pathogens right there in the lab that may prove lethal *and* infectious. If there’s a lab accident and someone gets infected before knocking off work for the day…
You see where I’m going with this.
Newsweek reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s version of the CIA, concluded on March 27 that it couldn’t rule out a lab accident as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because, based on the evidence, fully a third of the first 41 people known to be infected by the coronavirus had no direct exposure to the wet market in Wuhan, the place where transmission supposedly began. Meanwhile, as chance would have it, the nearby virology lab in Wuhan just so happens to perform “gain of function” research on coronaviruses, probably involving animal passage. Some scientists have ardently opposed that type of research for years because of the risk that a virus rendered contagious through extensive gain of function might escape the lab and wreak havoc on the world.
That’s about the extent of the hard evidence in the Newsweek piece. One problem with confirming the “animal passage” theory of COVID-19’s origins is that viruses produced that way look like they emerged in nature — because, well, they did. It was just nature inside a laboratory. A true genetically engineered virus would have telltale signs of artificial manipulation that would make it easier for a trained eye to spot. So animal passage can’t be ruled in. But it can’t be ruled out either:
Rutger’s Ebright, a longtime opponent of gain of function research, says that the [Scripps Research] analysis fails to rule out animal-passage as an origin of SARS-CoV-2. “The reasoning is unsound,” he wrote in an email to Newsweek. “Embarrassingly unsound. They favor the possibility ‘that the virus mutated in an animal host such as a pangolins’ yet, simultaneously, they disfavor the possibility that the virus mutated in ‘animal passage.’ Because the two possibilities are identical, apart from location, one can’t logically favor one and disfavor the other.” Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist at UC Davis, says that the preponderance of evidence, while not definitive, suggests that the virus came from nature, not a lab. “There’s no hint there that there’s something unnatural, that is, genetically engineered,” he says. But “there is some wiggle room” in the findings that admits the possibility that the virus was concocted in a lab via animal passage. “Passaging is hard to test for. Escape from a lab is hard to test for,” he says. “If [Wuhan researchers] collected something from the field and they were doing some experiments in the lab with it, and some person got infected and then it spread from there, that would be really hard to distinguish from it having spread in the field directly.” Wuhan is in possession of a virus, RATG13, that is thought to be the most similar to SARS-CoV-2 of any known virus—the two share 96 percent of their genetic material. That four-percent gap would still be a formidable gap for animal-passage research, says Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina who collaborated with Shi Zheng-Li on the 2015 gain-of-function research. “You keep running into problems that just don’t make it likely,” he says. Wuhan would probably have had to start with a virus closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RATG13, which is within the realm of possibilities.
Is it more or less likely than the “animal passage” theory that researchers simply harvested COVID-19 in its final form when they were out on one of their missions collecting bat droppings for study? If I’m understanding “gain of function” correctly then the answer should be “less,” because a virus harvested directly from a bat isn’t necessarily (or even probably?) transmissible to humans. Animal passage is what can make it transmissible. So maybe they harvested something very similar to SARS-CoV-2 that wasn’t infectious, and then made it infectious, and then — whoops.
But as I say, it’s speculation. Interesting speculation, given other bits and pieces of data about the Wuhan lab:
The Ignatius and Owen pieces were both amplified by commentary from Richard Ebright, a biosecurity expert at Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology. Ebright said there was evidence that the Wuhan lab was operating at biosafety level 2 security, as opposed to the recommended biosafety level 4, and that the accidental infection of a laboratory worker could not be ruled out. He also told Ignatius about a video taken in December from the nearby Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, allegedly showing staff “collecting bat coronaviruses with inadequate [personal protective equipment] and unsafe operational practices.”
The State Department warned about safety issues at the Wuhan lab in 2018. Jim Geraghty also wrote a provocative piece earlier this month pointing to circumstantial evidence of a cover-up involving lab personnel based on rumors circulating on China’s Internet. It’s impossible to say for sure why the Chinese government might attempt to suppress information about someone — suppressing information is the party’s raison d’etre — but it doesn’t hurt the theory that something happened at the lab that the CCP would rather the rest of the world not know about.
How will we ever know, though? If there’s no way to say with confidence through scientific analysis of the virus’s genome that it emerged via lab-induced “animal passage” then our only hope is Beijing coming clean voluntarily. Thirty years later, they still haven’t come clean about Tiananmen Square. They’re not going to come clean about a global biological Chernobyl.
To boost your spirits after reading this post about bat sh*t and mass death, read this NYT story about Oxford researchers racing ahead towards a vaccine. By chance, Oxford had already conducted trials last year that showed that a human vaccine for coronaviruses would be harmless. Now they can skip to the part where they test their vaccine against COVID-19 on actual people. They’ve already tested it on six rhesus monkeys, all of whom were vaccinated and then injected with “heavy quantities of the virus.” A month later, all six were just fine.


hotair--2020-04-27--US woman blamed by China for starting coronavirus says it has been 'a nightmare day after day'

I ’ ve written many times about the Chinese propaganda claiming the coronavirus originated in the United States .
Today CNN Business reports on the American woman that many conspiracy theorists have dubbed patient zero .
Her name is Maatje Benassi and she ’ s a U.S. Army reservist .
She compares what is happening to her to cyber-bullying : Despite never having tested positive for the coronavirus or experienced symptoms , Benassi and her husband are now subjects of discussion on Chinese social media about the outbreak , including among accounts that are known drivers of large-scale coordinated activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned their lives upside down .
The couple say their home address has been posted online and that , before they shut down their accounts , their social media inboxes were overrun with messages from believers of the conspiracy .
“ It ’ s like waking up from a bad dream going into a nightmare day after day , ” Maatje Benassi told CNN Business in an exclusive interview , the first time she has spoken publicly since being smeared online… “ I want everybody to stop harassing me , because this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone way out of hand , ” Maajte said while fighting back tears .
The story which has been spread on Chinese social media is that the virus did originate in Wuhan but only because of the Military World Games which were held in the city last year .
Benassi traveled to Wuhan for the games , which are kind of a military version of the Olympics , where she competed in a cycling competition .
Unfortunately it ’ s not just the CCP that has been spreading this claim .
An American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing this in English .
Webb actually published his side of a call from the CNN reporter behind this story on this channel .
At the time he claimed to have a confidential source however , looking at the video now the description reads ( no link for this guy ) : I am officially retracting my earlier reporting that Maatje Benassi tested positive for CoronaVirus .
I realize now I was being fed bad information to entrap me , exactly in the same way an FBI informant was used on my way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I am correcting my reporting that she only acted as a NATO Courier for the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO at the Wuhan Games which was my original reporting on this topic .
Maybe that will provide a little relief to Benassi and her husband .
Matt Benassi told CNN that he had been in contact with a civil attorney to consider filing a lawsuit against Webb but that he decided the cost to do so was prohibitive .
In any case , it appears Webb has changed his tune .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benassi circulating on Chinese social media .
Nothing circulates on Chinese social media without the tacit permission of Chinese censors .
So the fact that these videos are still popular means the CCP has intentionally allowed it .

I’ve written many times about the Chinese propaganda claiming the coronavirus originated in the United States. Today CNN Business reports on the American woman that many conspiracy theorists have dubbed patient zero. Her name is Maatje Benassi and she’s a U.S. Army reservist. She compares what is happening to her to cyber-bullying:
Despite never having tested positive for the coronavirus or experienced symptoms, Benassi and her husband are now subjects of discussion on Chinese social media about the outbreak, including among accounts that are known drivers of large-scale coordinated activities by their followers. The claims have turned their lives upside down. The couple say their home address has been posted online and that, before they shut down their accounts, their social media inboxes were overrun with messages from believers of the conspiracy. “It’s like waking up from a bad dream going into a nightmare day after day,” Maatje Benassi told CNN Business in an exclusive interview, the first time she has spoken publicly since being smeared online… “I want everybody to stop harassing me, because this is cyberbullying to me and it’s gone way out of hand,” Maajte said while fighting back tears.
The story which has been spread on Chinese social media is that the virus did originate in Wuhan but only because of the Military World Games which were held in the city last year. Benassi traveled to Wuhan for the games, which are kind of a military version of the Olympics, where she competed in a cycling competition.
Unfortunately it’s not just the CCP that has been spreading this claim. An American YouTuber named George Webb has also been pushing this in English. Webb actually published his side of a call from the CNN reporter behind this story on this channel. At the time he claimed to have a confidential source however, looking at the video now the description reads (no link for this guy):
I am officially retracting my earlier reporting that Maatje Benassi tested positive for CoronaVirus. I realize now I was being fed bad information to entrap me, exactly in the same way an FBI informant was used on my way to Piketon, Ohio three years ago. I am correcting my reporting that she only acted as a NATO Courier for the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO at the Wuhan Games which was my original reporting on this topic.
Maybe that will provide a little relief to Benassi and her husband. Matt Benassi told CNN that he had been in contact with a civil attorney to consider filing a lawsuit against Webb but that he decided the cost to do so was prohibitive. In any case, it appears Webb has changed his tune.
Meanwhile, there are still videos about Maatje Benassi circulating on Chinese social media. Nothing circulates on Chinese social media without the tacit permission of Chinese censors. So the fact that these videos are still popular means the CCP has intentionally allowed it.
Here’s a video report from CNN Business:


hotair--2020-04-27--New Democrat Coalition to Pelosi: We respectfully request you get your rear in gear and reopen Congr

New Democrat Coalition to Pelosi: We respectfully request you get your rear in gear and reopen Congress

Respectfully ?
Pretty much , yes , but the subtext of this request from the New Democrat Coalition leadership to Nancy Pelosi clearly questions the wisdom of her strategy , if not her leadership .
With the COVID-19 crisis stretching out more than a month without any significant oversight in Congress , Pelosi appears to be facing a backbench revolt as House Democrats begin to wonder why Pelosi keeps them sidelined .
Politico noted the frustration this morning , as well as the Washington Post , which reported on it first .
“ We ’ re basically ill-prepared , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was everyone else .
Other essential businesses figured out a way to continue operations , and Congress should have been no exception : Yet amid the biggest national crisis in generations , the one branch of government where Democrats hold power has largely sidelined itself , struggling so far to adopt remote voting , Zoom video hearings or any of the other alternative methods that have become standard for most workplaces in the age of covid-19 .
No administration official has appeared at a congressional hearing in over a month .
Committees have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate and advance bills .
There is no firm date for when the new oversight panel will start its work .
“ I haven ’ t had a classified briefing in over six weeks , ” said Rep. Jason Crow ( D-Colo. ) , a member of the House Armed Services Committee , which needs to reauthorize the annual policy bill for the military .
Crow said he has yet to get committee leaders to agree with his proposal to “ open a nationwide infrastructure ” for classified briefings for members of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regional FBI offices and military bases across the nation .
The frustration is evident among House Democrats , with many increasingly convinced that Congress is functioning as a shadow of its former self , with rank and file largely bystanders as party leaders hastily assemble massive spending bills .
More than a dozen told The Washington Post in recent days that the House was failing to meet its constitutional mandate amid an epochal global crisis , abdicating power to the Trump administration as the nation demands strong political leadership .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times finally figured it out almost two weeks ago , which one might have supposed would grab the attention of Democrats .
Even so , most of them made their way back to Washington DC last week for a long-delayed vote on replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program , but then returned home without a peep of protest immediately afterward .
They ’ re peeping now , albeit mainly anonymously .
( Profiles in Courage this ain ’ t . )
The NDC has gone public with this letter to Pelosi , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some sort , but their concern sounds much more focused on the fact that House Democrats have become extraneous to the crisis .
NDC leadership politely but clearly wants Pelosi start figuring out a way to get their majority back in the game Look for the barely-veiled slap at Pelosi ’ s “ unanimous consent ” strategy in this passage , for instance : We understand your decision to postpone the vote on remote voting and Committee proceedings in order to pursue bipartisan discussions with your Republican counterparts , and we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bipartisan agreement .
We acknowledge that changing the House Rules is not easy , but it is crucial in these circumstances .
Organizations across the country have learned to communicate and make decisions remotely , in part because we as policymakers have encouraged them to .
As we urge the public to observe social distancing practices , comply with shelter-in-place orders , and telework as much as possible , Congress must itself adapt to the public health threat our nation faces .
For the last several weeks , Members have been working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our constituents from our districts across the country .
Now we are eager for Congress to reconvene regular legislative proceedings that typically occur in Washington D.C. Now more than ever , Congress must conduct public oversight and legislative discussions .
Congress needs to work to ensure the coronavirus recovery packages already signed into law are implemented appropriately and future packages are fully responsive to the needs in our communities .
The House needs a temporary mechanism to move legislation and convene committee hearings and mark-ups remotely so that vital legislation can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreements .
That ’ s true whether or not Pelosi can get Republicans to agree on a remote voting arrangement .
The time to address this has come and gone , however ; it should have been addressed in mid-March .
Now Republicans in both chambers want to stop playing unanimous-consent games and get back to normal legislating , even though they also agreed to recess Congress rather than remaining at their posts in the crisis .
Mitch McConnell upped the stakes today with an announcement that the Senate will come back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi does with the House : Steny Hoyer shortly thereafter signaled the House to come to order at the same time : In other words , rule by unanimous consent appears to be over .
Remote voting might still be a good idea for the next crisis .
It ’ s time that the Brave Sir Robin Congress started showing up for this one .

Respectfully? Pretty much, yes, but the subtext of this request from the New Democrat Coalition leadership to Nancy Pelosi clearly questions the wisdom of her strategy, if not her leadership. With the COVID-19 crisis stretching out more than a month without any significant oversight in Congress, Pelosi appears to be facing a backbench revolt as House Democrats begin to wonder why Pelosi keeps them sidelined.
Politico noted the frustration this morning, as well as the Washington Post, which reported on it first. “We’re basically ill-prepared,” one House Democrat lamented, but so was everyone else. Other essential businesses figured out a way to continue operations, and Congress should have been no exception:
Yet amid the biggest national crisis in generations, the one branch of government where Democrats hold power has largely sidelined itself, struggling so far to adopt remote voting, Zoom video hearings or any of the other alternative methods that have become standard for most workplaces in the age of covid-19. No administration official has appeared at a congressional hearing in over a month. Committees have been unable to meet in person to debate and advance bills. There is no firm date for when the new oversight panel will start its work. “I haven’t had a classified briefing in over six weeks,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which needs to reauthorize the annual policy bill for the military. Crow said he has yet to get committee leaders to agree with his proposal to “open a nationwide infrastructure” for classified briefings for members of Congress, by using the secure rooms in regional FBI offices and military bases across the nation. The frustration is evident among House Democrats, with many increasingly convinced that Congress is functioning as a shadow of its former self, with rank and file largely bystanders as party leaders hastily assemble massive spending bills. More than a dozen told The Washington Post in recent days that the House was failing to meet its constitutional mandate amid an epochal global crisis, abdicating power to the Trump administration as the nation demands strong political leadership.
That’s precisely what has happened. The New York Times finally figured it out almost two weeks ago, which one might have supposed would grab the attention of Democrats. Even so, most of them made their way back to Washington DC last week for a long-delayed vote on replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program, but then returned home without a peep of protest immediately afterward.
They’re peeping now, albeit mainly anonymously. (Profiles in Courage this ain’t.) The NDC has gone public with this letter to Pelosi, which emphasizes its support for a remote-voting system of some sort, but their concern sounds much more focused on the fact that House Democrats have become extraneous to the crisis. NDC leadership politely but clearly wants Pelosi start figuring out a way to get their majority back in the game Look for the barely-veiled slap at Pelosi’s “unanimous consent” strategy in this passage, for instance:
We understand your decision to postpone the vote on remote voting and Committee proceedings in order to pursue bipartisan discussions with your Republican counterparts, and we are hopeful those discussions will quickly lead to a bipartisan agreement. We acknowledge that changing the House Rules is not easy, but it is crucial in these circumstances. Organizations across the country have learned to communicate and make decisions remotely, in part because we as policymakers have encouraged them to. As we urge the public to observe social distancing practices, comply with shelter-in-place orders, and telework as much as possible, Congress must itself adapt to the public health threat our nation faces. For the last several weeks, Members have been working hard to advance the interests and needs of our constituents from our districts across the country. Now we are eager for Congress to reconvene regular legislative proceedings that typically occur in Washington D.C. Now more than ever, Congress must conduct public oversight and legislative discussions. Congress needs to work to ensure the coronavirus recovery packages already signed into law are implemented appropriately and future packages are fully responsive to the needs in our communities. The House needs a temporary mechanism to move legislation and convene committee hearings and mark-ups remotely so that vital legislation cannot be hamstrung by relying on unanimous consent agreements.
That’s true whether or not Pelosi can get Republicans to agree on a remote voting arrangement. The time to address this has come and gone, however; it should have been addressed in mid-March. Now Republicans in both chambers want to stop playing unanimous-consent games and get back to normal legislating, even though they also agreed to recess Congress rather than remaining at their posts in the crisis. Mitch McConnell upped the stakes today with an announcement that the Senate will come back into session on May 4 regardless of what Pelosi does with the House:
The GOP leader said the Senate will “modify” its routines but will not try to legislate long-distance anymore. “We will honor our constitutional duty to the American people and conduct critical business in person,” he said.
Steny Hoyer shortly thereafter signaled the House to come to order at the same time:
“Mr. Hoyer just announced on today’s Caucus conference call that the House will be in session next week, beginning Monday, May 4th, and that votes are possible,” his office said on Twitter.
In other words, rule by unanimous consent appears to be over. Remote voting might still be a good idea for the next crisis. It’s time that the Brave Sir Robin Congress started showing up for this one.


hotair--2020-04-27--New data from Cuomo: Almost 25% of New York City residents have coronavirus antibodies

A few days ago it was 21.2 percent .
The new number is from the second round of tests , leaving me with the same question Nate Silver had : Is this new 25 percent figure the product of a bigger sample or is there reason to think that prevalence in NYC has increased by four points or so between the time of the first round of testing and this second round ?
If the latter , can we guesstimate how long it ’ ll be until they reach the 60 percent or so needed ( we think ) for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe that doesn ’ t matter .
A more humane way to think about the road to herd immunity is how many deaths , not how much time , it ’ ll take to get there .
If the price of 20 percent of the city getting infected was 10,000 or so fatalities , we should expect 20,000 more , whether sooner or more gradually .
We should have comprehensive data from New York soon-ish , as Cuomo says he ’ s authorizing 5,000 independent pharmacies to conduct antibody testing going forward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYC has been infected and 12,287 city residents have died , that would mean an infection fatality rate a shade under 0.6 percent… …if you accept the official death toll as definitive .
We have a denominator problem in calculating the disease ’ s fatality rate since no one knows how many people have been infected .
( Including many of those people .
It may well be that a majority of all infections are asymptomatic . )
Antibody tests will give us an inkling .
But we have a numerator problem too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected and recovered without ever having had their illness confirmed as COVID because they were never tested , many have died without their deaths being confirmed as due to COVID because they were never tested either .
How many of those are out there ?
“ Excess deaths ” are the subject of two stories worth your time today , one from WaPo about the extent of the problem here in the U.S. and the other from the Financial Times about the extent globally .
The calculation is simple : Take the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a given city/state/country during the last week or month of this year and subtract the number of people who died in the same jurisdiction over the same period last year .
The difference should give us a rough sense of how many people died directly *and indirectly* from the coronavirus epidemic .
“ Indirectly ” would be someone who died at home from a cause unrelated to COVID because they were too afraid of getting infected — or dying in isolation — to go to the hospital .
Case in point : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sokoloff say they believe he is one of the uncounted .
The retired owner of a pet products company , he had just celebrated his 99th birthday when he started showing symptoms of covid-19 on March 19 , his daughter Karen Sokoloff said .
His family said his pulmonologist diagnosed him with covid-19 because of spiking fevers and coughing — and because two of his caregivers had come down with chills and lost their sense of taste , a telltale sign of the virus .
Sokoloff ’ s children had decided not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear that he would die there alone .
They couldn ’ t get him tested for covid-19 at home .
Was Sokoloff a direct or indirect casualty of coronavirus ?
Other people may be dying as a direct cause of the disease but without doctors realizing it .
For instance , not until the last 10 days or so have I seen it widely reported that some patients , many of them younger than you ’ d think , are dying of strokes due to the virus ’ s frightening ability to cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people with coronavirus had fatal strokes in the first month of the epidemic that went unrecognized by doctors and EMTs at the time as a symptom of COVID-19 ?
Here ’ s what WaPo found when it looked at “ excess deaths ” in various U.S. hot spots through the month of March up until April 4 : In New York City and New Jersey , there were more “ excess deaths ” during that period than there were official coronavirus deaths .
If we add the 3,757 excess deaths in NYC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death toll to the current official COVID death toll , we ’ d end up with a true fatality rate of close to 0.8 percent , nearer to the one percent rate that experts feared at the beginning of the epidemic .
Again , that comes with an asterisk because some of the excess deaths aren ’ t directly caused by infection .
But an excess death is an excess death , a fatality which we suspect might not have resulted if not for the pandemic .
And it ’ s not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times : In Lombardy , Italy ’ s beleaguered northern region , there were 4,348 official coronavirus deaths — among more than 13,000 excess deaths .
Excess deaths also show how stark the difference is between Sweden , which famously has avoided lockdowns and school closings during its outbreak , and Denmark .
Denmark ’ s population is a little more than half the size of Sweden ’ s but Sweden ’ s number of weekly excess deaths far outstrips that difference : The 14 countries that the Financial Times looked at registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the past few weeks based on historical averages .
That was 45,000 more deaths than are accounted for in the countries ’ combined official COVID-19 death counts .
I ’ ll leave you with this from a microbiologist involved in Mt .
Sinai ’ s antibody testing program .
He ’ s skeptical of Cuomo ’ s number , believing that the true rate of infection among New York City residents is far lower than 25 percent .

A few days ago it was 21.2 percent. The new number is from the second round of tests, leaving me with the same question Nate Silver had: Is this new 25 percent figure the product of a bigger sample or is there reason to think that prevalence in NYC has increased by four points or so between the time of the first round of testing and this second round? If the latter, can we guesstimate how long it’ll be until they reach the 60 percent or so needed (we think) for herd immunity effects to be seen?
Maybe that doesn’t matter. A more humane way to think about the road to herd immunity is how many deaths, not how much time, it’ll take to get there. If the price of 20 percent of the city getting infected was 10,000 or so fatalities, we should expect 20,000 more, whether sooner or more gradually.
Regionally, the results suggest: 24.7% positive in New York City
15.1% positive in Westchester/Rockland
14.4% positive on Long Island
3.2% positive in the rest of the state The governor said he’s going to conduct antibody surveys of 1,000 NYPD and FDNY personnel to determine the infection rate in those organizations. A similar survey will be done with 3,000 health care workers and 1,000 transit workers.
We should have comprehensive data from New York soon-ish, as Cuomo says he’s authorizing 5,000 independent pharmacies to conduct antibody testing going forward. Quickie math: If 24.7 percent of NYC has been infected and 12,287 city residents have died, that would mean an infection fatality rate a shade under 0.6 percent…
…if you accept the official death toll as definitive. We have a denominator problem in calculating the disease’s fatality rate since no one knows how many people have been infected. (Including many of those people. It may well be that a majority of all infections are asymptomatic.) Antibody tests will give us an inkling. But we have a numerator problem too. Just as many people have gotten infected and recovered without ever having had their illness confirmed as COVID because they were never tested, many have died without their deaths being confirmed as due to COVID because they were never tested either. How many of those are out there?
“Excess deaths” are the subject of two stories worth your time today, one from WaPo about the extent of the problem here in the U.S. and the other from the Financial Times about the extent globally. The calculation is simple: Take the number of people who died of all causes in a given city/state/country during the last week or month of this year and subtract the number of people who died in the same jurisdiction over the same period last year. The difference should give us a rough sense of how many people died directly *and indirectly* from the coronavirus epidemic. “Indirectly” would be someone who died at home from a cause unrelated to COVID because they were too afraid of getting infected — or dying in isolation — to go to the hospital. Case in point:
The family of Long Island resident Adrian Sokoloff say they believe he is one of the uncounted. The retired owner of a pet products company, he had just celebrated his 99th birthday when he started showing symptoms of covid-19 on March 19, his daughter Karen Sokoloff said. His family said his pulmonologist diagnosed him with covid-19 because of spiking fevers and coughing — and because two of his caregivers had come down with chills and lost their sense of taste, a telltale sign of the virus. Sokoloff’s children had decided not to take him to a hospital out of fear that he would die there alone. They couldn’t get him tested for covid-19 at home.
Was Sokoloff a direct or indirect casualty of coronavirus? Other people may be dying as a direct cause of the disease but without doctors realizing it. For instance, not until the last 10 days or so have I seen it widely reported that some patients, many of them younger than you’d think, are dying of strokes due to the virus’s frightening ability to cause blood clots in some victims. How many people with coronavirus had fatal strokes in the first month of the epidemic that went unrecognized by doctors and EMTs at the time as a symptom of COVID-19?
Here’s what WaPo found when it looked at “excess deaths” in various U.S. hot spots through the month of March up until April 4:
In New York City and New Jersey, there were more “excess deaths” during that period than there were official coronavirus deaths. If we add the 3,757 excess deaths in NYC that went uncounted in the official COVID death toll to the current official COVID death toll, we’d end up with a true fatality rate of close to 0.8 percent, nearer to the one percent rate that experts feared at the beginning of the epidemic. Again, that comes with an asterisk because some of the excess deaths aren’t directly caused by infection. But an excess death is an excess death, a fatality which we suspect might not have resulted if not for the pandemic.
And it’s not just New York City, says the Financial Times:
NEW: a lot of data on reported Covid deaths is highly suspect, so we’ve been looking into excess mortality — how many more people than usual have been dying around the world in recent weeks? Story by me, @ChrisGiles_ & @valentinaromei (free to read): https://t.co/EiE5Q3OSmR pic.twitter.com/AiTdBnBma9 — John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) April 26, 2020
In Lombardy, Italy’s beleaguered northern region, there were 4,348 official coronavirus deaths — among more than 13,000 excess deaths. Excess deaths also show how stark the difference is between Sweden, which famously has avoided lockdowns and school closings during its outbreak, and Denmark. Denmark’s population is a little more than half the size of Sweden’s but Sweden’s number of weekly excess deaths far outstrips that difference:
The number of deaths recorded in Sweden in the first three weeks of April are 2354, 2505 and 2310 respectively, which equates to 530, 755 and 558 excess deaths compared to the average between 2015 and 2019 for those same three weeks. All three weeks saw more deaths than previous highs recorded in the past five years. The equivalent figures in Denmark are 1152, 1138 and 1061 deaths, translating into 96, 69 and 36 excess deaths.
The 14 countries that the Financial Times looked at registered 122,000 more deaths than “normal” over the past few weeks based on historical averages. That was 45,000 more deaths than are accounted for in the countries’ combined official COVID-19 death counts.
I’ll leave you with this from a microbiologist involved in Mt. Sinai’s antibody testing program. He’s skeptical of Cuomo’s number, believing that the true rate of infection among New York City residents is far lower than 25 percent.


hotair--2020-04-27--As New York cancels primary, Sanders' campaign warns it is a 'precedent' for Trump postponing the 20

As New York cancels primary, Sanders' campaign warns it is a 'precedent' for Trump postponing the 2020 election

New York canceled its Democratic primary today because of concerns about the coronavirus : New York election officials took the unprecedented step on Monday of canceling the state ’ s Democratic presidential primary to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus .
Democratic commissioners of the State Board of Elections approved a resolution that removed 10 candidates from the primary ballot who had publicly stated they were suspending their campaigns .
That included U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders , whose campaign said Sunday that it would like the primary to move forward .
The primary was scheduled for June 23 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ canceled in March when it became clear that Trump would be the only person on the ballot .
But the Sanders campaign reacted strongly to the cancelation .
Campaign adviser Jeff Weaver released a statement calling it a “ an outrage , a blow to American democracy.
” Weaver also included a reference to a popular democratic conspiracy theory that President Trump plans to cancel the 2020 election : “ Just last week Vice President Biden warned the American people that President Trump could use the current crisis as an excuse to postpone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a precedent thanks to New York state.
” Here ’ s the full statement : Last month Biden was asked about this by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel .
I tried to track down the source of this unfounded rumor and found it went back to a NY Times column and before that a story at Buzzfeed which cited concern among liberals on Twitter ( in early March ) that President Trump might attempt this .
One thread in particular , which suggested Trump might postpone the election , went viral in early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s radar .
As the Sanders ’ campaign statement above points out , Biden himself brought this up again just a few days ago .
Curiously , the media firefighters who are always eager to pounce on right-wing conspiracies , have been exceedingly tolerant of this burgeoning left-wing conspiracy .
As for the cancellation of the New York primary , the Sanders campaign was aware this was coming and argued against the decision : In a Sunday letter , a lawyer for the Sanders campaign asked the commissioners not to cancel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collaborated with state parties , the national party and the Biden campaign , to strengthen the Democrats by aligning the party ’ s progressive and moderate wings .
His removal from the ballot would hamper those efforts , to the detriment of the party in the general election , ” wrote the lawyer , Malcolm Seymour .
Personally , I suspect there could be more going on here than generalized concern about the process .
The Sanders campaign is well aware that Joe Biden is now under the gun because of sexual assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hashtag # DropOutBiden was trending on Twitter and while she didn ’ t adopt the hashtag , Bernie ’ s former spokesperson was pointing out that there was still a way to remedy the “ mistake ” of selecting Biden .
So the Bernie people are well aware of what is happening to the Biden campaign right now and they are well aware that Bernie is the most credible alternative given his 2nd place finish overall .
Canceling the New York primary makes it harder to allow Democrats to have a change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of opening to return to the field .
Instead this decision just seals the conclusion that this is over .
Maybe it was already too late for that but I suspect based on the news today you ’ re going to hear from a lot more Democrats wondering if there isn ’ t some way to reverse course .

New York canceled its Democratic primary today because of concerns about the coronavirus:
New York election officials took the unprecedented step on Monday of canceling the state’s Democratic presidential primary to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus. Democratic commissioners of the State Board of Elections approved a resolution that removed 10 candidates from the primary ballot who had publicly stated they were suspending their campaigns. That included U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign said Sunday that it would like the primary to move forward. The primary was scheduled for June 23.
The GOP primary in New York was canceled in March when it became clear that Trump would be the only person on the ballot. But the Sanders campaign reacted strongly to the cancelation. Campaign adviser Jeff Weaver released a statement calling it a “an outrage, a blow to American democracy.” Weaver also included a reference to a popular democratic conspiracy theory that President Trump plans to cancel the 2020 election: “Just last week Vice President Biden warned the American people that President Trump could use the current crisis as an excuse to postpone the November election. Well he now has a precedent thanks to New York state.” Here’s the full statement:
Our campaign statement on the New York State Board of Elections decision to cancel the state’s presidential primary: pic.twitter.com/BzylNaqCaS — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 27, 2020
Last month Biden was asked about this by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. I tried to track down the source of this unfounded rumor and found it went back to a NY Times column and before that a story at Buzzfeed which cited concern among liberals on Twitter (in early March) that President Trump might attempt this. One thread in particular, which suggested Trump might postpone the election, went viral in early February before the coronavirus was on most people’s radar.
As the Sanders’ campaign statement above points out, Biden himself brought this up again just a few days ago. Curiously, the media firefighters who are always eager to pounce on right-wing conspiracies, have been exceedingly tolerant of this burgeoning left-wing conspiracy.
As for the cancellation of the New York primary, the Sanders campaign was aware this was coming and argued against the decision:
In a Sunday letter, a lawyer for the Sanders campaign asked the commissioners not to cancel the primary. “Senator Sanders has collaborated with state parties, the national party and the Biden campaign, to strengthen the Democrats by aligning the party’s progressive and moderate wings. His removal from the ballot would hamper those efforts, to the detriment of the party in the general election,” wrote the lawyer, Malcolm Seymour.
Personally, I suspect there could be more going on here than generalized concern about the process. The Sanders campaign is well aware that Joe Biden is now under the gun because of sexual assault allegations by Tara Reade. This weekend the hashtag #DropOutBiden was trending on Twitter and while she didn’t adopt the hashtag, Bernie’s former spokesperson was pointing out that there was still a way to remedy the “mistake” of selecting Biden.
The Democratic Party effectively chose Biden as its candidate when it coerced competing moderates to drop out following SC. Now it can choose to remedy that mistake, but it would have to put the interests of the people before corporate donors. https://t.co/mJwlW9B6Sh — Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) April 24, 2020
It's a good time to note that Bernie's on the ballot. — Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) April 25, 2020
So the Bernie people are well aware of what is happening to the Biden campaign right now and they are well aware that Bernie is the most credible alternative given his 2nd place finish overall. Canceling the New York primary makes it harder to allow Democrats to have a change of heart which might give Bernie some kind of opening to return to the field. Instead this decision just seals the conclusion that this is over. Maybe it was already too late for that but I suspect based on the news today you’re going to hear from a lot more Democrats wondering if there isn’t some way to reverse course.


hotair--2020-04-27--SCOTUS dismisses NYC gun rights case

SCOTUS dismisses NYC gun rights case

The Supreme Court handed down a ruling today in a case that many of us have been tracking closely because of its potential implications for Second Amendment rights in this country .
In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York , gun owners challenged a law that basically criminalized the transport of a legally owned firearm anywhere inside the city except when going directly to or from an approved shooting range .
The complicating factor here was that as soon as the challenge to the law headed toward the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fearful of the national consequences that might follow if it was struck down .
It turns out that they didn ’ t have much to worry about .
In a 5-3 ruling , the court dismissed the challenge , saying that the case was moot and they didn ’ t intend to rule on a law that ’ s no longer on the books .
In other words , they punted .
( National Review ) The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a case brought by three New York City handgun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners from transporting their firearms outside the city .
The court agreed to hear the case in December , but the city then amended the regulation to allow gun owners to bring firearms to other locations .
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in an unsigned opinion that the case was moot because the city had amended its original regulation .
Conservative justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Neil Gorsuch wrote in their dissent that the case should not have been dismissed .
The majority opinion was unsigned , so I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t wind up voting .
But Alito , Gorsuch and Thomas penned a dissent .
The trio argued that the case should have had a full hearing and resolution because the defendants were manipulating the court ’ s docket “ in a way that should not be countenanced.
” Be that as it may , it didn ’ t look like this case would make it across the finish line from the beginning .
I initially allowed myself to get my hopes up a bit back in October when the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even then I noted that the arguments in favor of dismissal were compelling and in keeping with previous actions by the Supremes .
Things began to look even more gloomy after oral arguments took place in December .
Sotomayor seemed to take the lead for the rest of the four liberal justices , repeatedly asking why they should rule on a case “ where the other side has thrown in the towel.
” At that point , I predicted that even if we did get some sort of a ruling , Chief Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would probably side with the four liberal justices and find a way to duck out of having to make a sweeping Second Amendment decision .
Assuming he went that way , and given that three of the other conservative justices signed the dissent , we might posit a guess that Kavanaugh didn ’ t vote .
If we ’ re going to be honest , while disappointing , it ’ s tough to say that this was the “ wrong call ” for the court to make .
Asking them to rule on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist , leaving the plaintiffs with no provable damages to confirm their standing to bring the challenge , could be a dangerous precedent .
It was a case of asking the Supreme Court to essentially rule on a theory .
And if they accept that invitation once , what other general theories of law might they decide to start issuing summary judgments about ?
The New York City government turned tail and ran when they saw this challenge moving forward .
They could see the writing on the wall .
Sooner or later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenged on a law that they try to take all the way to the end of the road .
And given the current makeup of the court , when that happens , all similar restrictions on the transportation of lawfully owned firearms will probably start going up in smoke .

The Supreme Court handed down a ruling today in a case that many of us have been tracking closely because of its potential implications for Second Amendment rights in this country. In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, gun owners challenged a law that basically criminalized the transport of a legally owned firearm anywhere inside the city except when going directly to or from an approved shooting range. The complicating factor here was that as soon as the challenge to the law headed toward the Supreme Court, the city panicked and repealed the law, fearful of the national consequences that might follow if it was struck down.
It turns out that they didn’t have much to worry about. In a 5-3 ruling, the court dismissed the challenge, saying that the case was moot and they didn’t intend to rule on a law that’s no longer on the books. In other words, they punted. (National Review)
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a case brought by three New York City handgun owners challenging a city regulation that prohibited gun owners from transporting their firearms outside the city. The court agreed to hear the case in December, but the city then amended the regulation to allow gun owners to bring firearms to other locations. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in an unsigned opinion that the case was moot because the city had amended its original regulation. Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch wrote in their dissent that the case should not have been dismissed.
The majority opinion was unsigned, so I’m not sure at this point who didn’t wind up voting. But Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas penned a dissent. The trio argued that the case should have had a full hearing and resolution because the defendants were manipulating the court’s docket “in a way that should not be countenanced.”
Be that as it may, it didn’t look like this case would make it across the finish line from the beginning. I initially allowed myself to get my hopes up a bit back in October when the court agreed to hear the challenge. But even then I noted that the arguments in favor of dismissal were compelling and in keeping with previous actions by the Supremes.
Things began to look even more gloomy after oral arguments took place in December. Sotomayor seemed to take the lead for the rest of the four liberal justices, repeatedly asking why they should rule on a case “where the other side has thrown in the towel.” At that point, I predicted that even if we did get some sort of a ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts, at a minimum, would probably side with the four liberal justices and find a way to duck out of having to make a sweeping Second Amendment decision. Assuming he went that way, and given that three of the other conservative justices signed the dissent, we might posit a guess that Kavanaugh didn’t vote.
If we’re going to be honest, while disappointing, it’s tough to say that this was the “wrong call” for the court to make. Asking them to rule on portions of a law that no longer exist, leaving the plaintiffs with no provable damages to confirm their standing to bring the challenge, could be a dangerous precedent. It was a case of asking the Supreme Court to essentially rule on a theory. And if they accept that invitation once, what other general theories of law might they decide to start issuing summary judgments about?
The New York City government turned tail and ran when they saw this challenge moving forward. They could see the writing on the wall. Sooner or later one of these liberal cities will be challenged on a law that they try to take all the way to the end of the road. And given the current makeup of the court, when that happens, all similar restrictions on the transportation of lawfully owned firearms will probably start going up in smoke.


hotair--2020-04-27--On second thought: Trump un-cancels today's coronavirus briefing, plans to discuss testing; <span co

On second thought: Trump un-cancels today's coronavirus briefing, plans to discuss testing; Update: "Blueprint" for states?

Is there news on testing , specifically testing capacity ?
That would be legit cause for a presidential announcement .
The reference to “ guidance ” suggests something else , though , like maybe the CDC formally endorsing certain criteria or symptoms to help doctors prioritize who should be tested .
Setting guidelines for a de facto queue would be a bad sign at a moment where we ’ re aiming to reach enough capacity that everyone who thinks they need a test can have one .
Presumably Trump will speak from a script and keep it short and sweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as happened on Friday .
I ’ ll stick with my prediction that he won ’ t be back to jousting with the media for two hours until Thursday at the earliest .
Anthony Fauci said at a meeting over the weekend that we should try to at least double testing capacity before the country reopens , although he ’ s optimistic that we can get there “ in the next several weeks.
” One size doesn ’ t fit all , though .
Stat looked at the severity of the epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some states are much closer than others to running the number of daily tests they ’ d need in order to detect outbreaks quickly once they reopen .
States harder hit by the pandemic face a much heavier lift : New York would have to do 130,000 to 155,000 tests every day , New Jersey 75,000 to 90,000 , and both Massachusetts and Illinois about 30,000 to 35,000 .
Many hard-hit states are not even close to their goals .
New York , for instance , has been averaging barely more than 20,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey has been doing about 7,000 , on average .
Neither has announced reopening plans or dates , giving them time to ramp up testing .
Massachusetts and Illinois are in no better shape , conducting just under 7,000 a day .
Michigan , Connecticut , and Colorado are all about 15,000 tests a day below their May 1 targets .
Texas , with more than 9,000 tests a day , and Washington state , with more than 3,000 , are already doing enough .
The more worrisome gap involves states that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are easing mitigation strategies by , for instance , allowing more businesses and public spaces such as beaches to reopen .
To catch hot spots before they turn into wildfires of disease , Georgia must do 9,600 to 10,000 tests per day ; it has been averaging around 4,000 .
Florida will need 16,000 ; in the last week it has been hitting just above 10,000 .
Thorough testing would include enough people such that only three percent or so of tests come back positive .
Adequate testing , which is what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back 10 percent positive .
The rate we ’ re currently at typically finds 20 percent positive each day .
Note that Georgia , which has already reopened in a limited fashion , is at less than half of the capacity it needs to feel confident that it ’ s catching new outbreaks as they happen .
Scott Gottlieb also warned about that yesterday : Deborah Birx was asked yesterday about testing too and mentioned the need for a technological “ breakthrough , ” specifically in the form of a test that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know what those look like : You swab someone , you pop the swab into a chemical solution , then you apply the solution to some chemically treated strips .
If the strips react , voila — you ’ ve got COVID .
You don ’ t need to wait days for your test result in that case since there ’ s no need for any fancy lab machinery to process the sample .
Antigen tests merely detect viral proteins , not the virus ’ s genetic material ; they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how to do them .
For what it ’ s worth , despite weeks of political chatter about the need for testing , this call for a “ breakthrough ” is the first I ’ d heard of a top official like Birx insisting that that ’ s the necessary next step in ramping up capacity .
Maybe she and Fauci were holding out hope that we could double capacity via labs by producing more swabs and reagents , etc , and have now written that off as a fantasy .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait to reopen until antigen tests were widely available .
But we can ’ t , so here we are , praying for deus ex machinas .
Update : USA Today has seen the “ blueprint ” the White House will announce tonight but is vague on details .
Sounds like it ’ s a proposal for a federal/state partnership of some sort : The blueprint outlines the federal government ’ s role in assisting states with access to testing platforms , increasing testing and laboratory supplies as well as enhancing sample collection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan reviewed by USA TODAY… The challenging complexity of testing for the virus , combined with the different “ platforms ” in each state , is the reason it has taken as long as it has to develop the system .
One official said it is a “ miracle ” the blueprint has been developed as quickly as possible .
Officials said they are putting responsibility on the states , which are already administering the tests .
The federal government ’ s role is to provide supplies , they said .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next generation ” of tests , which I assume is a reference to antigen testing .

This morning:
NEW: @PressSec Kayleigh McEnany says there will be no briefing today, despite WH guidance released last night. 4p event w/ retail execs will open to pool. There will be some briefings later in the week, she said, but they "might have a new look to them, a new focus to them." — Betsy Klein (@betsy_klein) April 27, 2020
This afternoon:
UPDATE: The White House has additional testing guidance and other announcements about safely opening up America again. President @realDonaldTrump will brief the nation during a press conference this evening. — Kayleigh McEnany 45 Archived (@PressSec45) April 27, 2020
Is there news on testing, specifically testing capacity? That would be legit cause for a presidential announcement. The reference to “guidance” suggests something else, though, like maybe the CDC formally endorsing certain criteria or symptoms to help doctors prioritize who should be tested. Setting guidelines for a de facto queue would be a bad sign at a moment where we’re aiming to reach enough capacity that everyone who thinks they need a test can have one.
Presumably Trump will speak from a script and keep it short and sweet, without a Q&A portion, as happened on Friday. I’ll stick with my prediction that he won’t be back to jousting with the media for two hours until Thursday at the earliest.
Anthony Fauci said at a meeting over the weekend that we should try to at least double testing capacity before the country reopens, although he’s optimistic that we can get there “in the next several weeks.” One size doesn’t fit all, though. Stat looked at the severity of the epidemic in all 50 states and concluded that some states are much closer than others to running the number of daily tests they’d need in order to detect outbreaks quickly once they reopen.
States harder hit by the pandemic face a much heavier lift: New York would have to do 130,000 to 155,000 tests every day, New Jersey 75,000 to 90,000, and both Massachusetts and Illinois about 30,000 to 35,000. Many hard-hit states are not even close to their goals. New York, for instance, has been averaging barely more than 20,000 tests per day since mid-April. New Jersey has been doing about 7,000, on average. Neither has announced reopening plans or dates, giving them time to ramp up testing. Massachusetts and Illinois are in no better shape, conducting just under 7,000 a day. Michigan, Connecticut, and Colorado are all about 15,000 tests a day below their May 1 targets. Texas, with more than 9,000 tests a day, and Washington state, with more than 3,000, are already doing enough. The more worrisome gap involves states that, despite having thousands of Covid-19 cases, are easing mitigation strategies by, for instance, allowing more businesses and public spaces such as beaches to reopen. To catch hot spots before they turn into wildfires of disease, Georgia must do 9,600 to 10,000 tests per day; it has been averaging around 4,000. Florida will need 16,000; in the last week it has been hitting just above 10,000.
Thorough testing would include enough people such that only three percent or so of tests come back positive. Adequate testing, which is what we’re aiming at, would bring back 10 percent positive. The rate we’re currently at typically finds 20 percent positive each day. Note that Georgia, which has already reopened in a limited fashion, is at less than half of the capacity it needs to feel confident that it’s catching new outbreaks as they happen. Scott Gottlieb also warned about that yesterday:
ANALYSIS: “Georgia is certainly not out of the woods,” @ScottGottliebMD tells @margbrennan and that the state continues to see increases in #coronavirus cases as the state is set to reopen sectors of its economy. “Georgia is jumping the gun,” he adds. pic.twitter.com/ccq6LSOUqL — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) April 26, 2020
Deborah Birx was asked yesterday about testing too and mentioned the need for a technological “breakthrough,” specifically in the form of a test that can deliver positive results by detecting antigens. You know what those look like: You swab someone, you pop the swab into a chemical solution, then you apply the solution to some chemically treated strips. If the strips react, voila — you’ve got COVID. You don’t need to wait days for your test result in that case since there’s no need for any fancy lab machinery to process the sample. Antigen tests merely detect viral proteins, not the virus’s genetic material; they’re quick and cheap — once we figure out how to do them. For what it’s worth, despite weeks of political chatter about the need for testing, this call for a “breakthrough” is the first I’d heard of a top official like Birx insisting that that’s the necessary next step in ramping up capacity. Maybe she and Fauci were holding out hope that we could double capacity via labs by producing more swabs and reagents, etc, and have now written that off as a fantasy. It’d be nice if we could wait to reopen until antigen tests were widely available. But we can’t, so here we are, praying for deus ex machinas.
Update: USA Today has seen the “blueprint” the White House will announce tonight but is vague on details. Sounds like it’s a proposal for a federal/state partnership of some sort:
The blueprint outlines the federal government’s role in assisting states with access to testing platforms, increasing testing and laboratory supplies as well as enhancing sample collection, according to a copy of the plan reviewed by USA TODAY… The challenging complexity of testing for the virus, combined with the different “platforms” in each state, is the reason it has taken as long as it has to develop the system. One official said it is a “miracle” the blueprint has been developed as quickly as possible. Officials said they are putting responsibility on the states, which are already administering the tests. The federal government’s role is to provide supplies, they said.
Trump’s also going to discuss the “next generation” of tests, which I assume is a reference to antigen testing.


hotair--2020-04-27--Former neighbor recalls Tara Reade telling her details of sexual assault by Biden in the mid-90s (Up

Former neighbor recalls Tara Reade telling her details of sexual assault by Biden in the mid-90s (Update)

I think this is the end of the media stonewall of Tara Reade ’ s story .
I genuinely can ’ t imagine how they could continue to ignore her now .
Business Insider just reported a significant break in the story which adds to her credibility .
Two additional people have come forward saying they recall Reade talking about a sexual assault she experienced and both heard about it in the mid-90s .
One of the individuals was a neighbor who says Reade not only named Biden but described the details of the assault which Reade made public last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know it did because I remember talking about it , ” Lynda LaCasse , who lived next door to Reade in the mid-1990s , told Insider… LaCasse told Insider that in 1995 or 1996 , Reade told her she had been assaulted by Biden .
“ I remember her saying , here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him , ” LaCasse said .
“ And he kind of put her up against a wall .
And he put his hand up her skirt and he put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like she was assaulted , and she really didn ’ t feel there was anything she could do.
” LaCasse said that she remembers Reade getting emotional as she told the story .
“ She was crying , ” she said .
“ She was upset .
And the more she talked about it , the more she started crying .
I remember saying that she needed to file a police report.
” LaCasse said she does not recall whether Reade supplied any other details , like the location of the alleged assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I don ’ t remember all the details , ” LaCasse said .
“ I remember the skirt .
I remember the fingers .
I remember she was devastated.
” Business Insider verified that LaCasse and Reade were neighbors in 1995 when they both lived in an apartment complex in California .
LaCasse said Reade told her about the experience with Biden one night when they were both discussing violent incidents from their past .
LaCasse says she lost touch with Reade for many years but they reconnected in 2016 .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come forward to back up her story .
LaCasse also says she is a lifelong Democrat and ( oddly ) that she still intends to vote for Biden despite believing Reade ’ s story about him .
BI also spoke with a second person who remembers Reade telling them about sexual harassment in the mid-90s .
Lorraine Sanchez worked with Reade in the office of California State Senator Jack O ’ Connell from 1994-96 .
She says Reade told her “ she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t recall if Reade specifically mentioned Biden or the details of the harassment , but she does recall reassuring Reade that nothing like that would happen in O ’ Connell ’ s office .
Up to this point there have been three people who Reade claims knew about the alleged assault .
One was Reade ’ s friend who has given several interviews but has asked that her name not be used .
You can listen to her interview with podcast host Katie Halper here .
The second was Reade ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her mother .
It appeared unlikely there would be any way to back up the claim that Reade ’ s mother knew about the allegation because she passed away in 2016 .
But last Friday a recording of Reade ’ s mother calling into Larry King Live in 1993 was identified .
While her mother never mentioned sexual assault , she did say her daughter had experienced problems involving a prominent senator and that these problems would have been newsworthy .
The media has been slow-walking this story since it broke last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days to mention it .
Outlets like NBC News and CNN were similarly slow to engage .
But with this report , the situation has changed .
Reade ’ s allegations have frequently been compared to those against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford , including by Reade herself .
In light of this new development there can no longer be any doubt that the comparison is unfair to Reade .
There are now five people who say they knew something about this story decades ago , two of whom heard the exact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month .
Dr. Ford never had any corroboration approaching this .
The media ’ s excuse for protecting Biden from these allegations should be over .
All of the excuses about Reade changing her story have to be put away now that we know her story has been consistent with what she is now saying since 1995 .
That means Biden is finally going to have to answer these allegations himself .
It ’ s about time .
As Reade ’ s neighbor said , “ This happened.
” Biden should be careful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be several more people out there who Tara Reade told about this decades ago .
And that ’ s not all the Biden camp should be worried about .
Because one thing we ’ ve seen in previous cases of alleged sexual assault is that once the silence protecting a powerful public figure ends , additional accusers come forward .
That could happen in this case too .
Update : Two weeks ago I wrote about Michelle Goldberg ’ s piece for the NY Times claiming Reade seemed “ almost engineered in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems she ’ s changing her tune .
One down about 1,000 more progressive hypocrites to go .

I think this is the end of the media stonewall of Tara Reade’s story. I genuinely can’t imagine how they could continue to ignore her now. Business Insider just reported a significant break in the story which adds to her credibility. Two additional people have come forward saying they recall Reade talking about a sexual assault she experienced and both heard about it in the mid-90s. One of the individuals was a neighbor who says Reade not only named Biden but described the details of the assault which Reade made public last month.
“This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-1990s, told Insider… LaCasse told Insider that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she had been assaulted by Biden. “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,” LaCasse said. “And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.” LaCasse said that she remembers Reade getting emotional as she told the story. “She was crying,” she said. “She was upset. And the more she talked about it, the more she started crying. I remember saying that she needed to file a police report.” LaCasse said she does not recall whether Reade supplied any other details, like the location of the alleged assault or anything Biden may have said. “I don’t remember all the details,” LaCasse said. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”
Business Insider verified that LaCasse and Reade were neighbors in 1995 when they both lived in an apartment complex in California. LaCasse said Reade told her about the experience with Biden one night when they were both discussing violent incidents from their past. LaCasse says she lost touch with Reade for many years but they reconnected in 2016. However she says Reade never asked her to come forward to back up her story. LaCasse also says she is a lifelong Democrat and (oddly) that she still intends to vote for Biden despite believing Reade’s story about him.
BI also spoke with a second person who remembers Reade telling them about sexual harassment in the mid-90s. Lorraine Sanchez worked with Reade in the office of California State Senator Jack O’Connell from 1994-96. She says Reade told her “she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC.” Sanchez told BI she doesn’t recall if Reade specifically mentioned Biden or the details of the harassment, but she does recall reassuring Reade that nothing like that would happen in O’Connell’s office.
Up to this point there have been three people who Reade claims knew about the alleged assault. One was Reade’s friend who has given several interviews but has asked that her name not be used. You can listen to her interview with podcast host Katie Halper here.
The second was Reade’s brother and the third person was her mother. It appeared unlikely there would be any way to back up the claim that Reade’s mother knew about the allegation because she passed away in 2016. But last Friday a recording of Reade’s mother calling into Larry King Live in 1993 was identified. While her mother never mentioned sexual assault, she did say her daughter had experienced problems involving a prominent senator and that these problems would have been newsworthy.
The media has been slow-walking this story since it broke last month. It took the NY Times 19 days to mention it. Outlets like NBC News and CNN were similarly slow to engage. But with this report, the situation has changed.
Reade’s allegations have frequently been compared to those against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford, including by Reade herself. In light of this new development there can no longer be any doubt that the comparison is unfair to Reade. There are now five people who say they knew something about this story decades ago, two of whom heard the exact details Reade revealed in a podcast last month. Dr. Ford never had any corroboration approaching this.
The media’s excuse for protecting Biden from these allegations should be over. All of the excuses about Reade changing her story have to be put away now that we know her story has been consistent with what she is now saying since 1995. That means Biden is finally going to have to answer these allegations himself. It’s about time. As Reade’s neighbor said, “This happened.”
Biden should be careful how he denies this. There could be several more people out there who Tara Reade told about this decades ago. And that’s not all the Biden camp should be worried about. Because one thing we’ve seen in previous cases of alleged sexual assault is that once the silence protecting a powerful public figure ends, additional accusers come forward. That could happen in this case too.
Update: Two weeks ago I wrote about Michelle Goldberg’s piece for the NY Times claiming Reade seemed “almost engineered in a lab to inspire skepticism.” Now it seems she’s changing her tune.
This is the most persuasive corroborating evidence that has come out so far. What a nightmare. https://t.co/u4yPbEElaf — Michelle Goldberg (@michelleinbklyn) April 27, 2020
One down about 1,000 more progressive hypocrites to go.


hotair--2020-04-27--Does CNN know something about Joe Biden that we don't?

Over at the Washington Examiner , Tiana Lowe poses an interesting question that I ’ ll confess hadn ’ t crossed my mind until now .
It deals yet again with the allegations against Joe Biden brought forward by Tara Reade , including the recent , intriguing revelation about a phone call that Reade ’ s mother placed to Larry King ’ s television show back in 1993 .
( The same one I was discussing earlier today . )
But Lowe ’ s query has less to do with Biden himself and any wrongs he may be guilty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from CNN or lack thereof .
After news of the allegations initially broke , virtually every other cable news network and major newspaper offered some coverage of the story , albeit generally in a manner very skeptical of Reade and filled with potential cover for Uncle Joe .
Remember that Reade first aired her recent and most serious charges against Biden on March 25th .
For a solid month , up until this weekend , the hosts at CNN has virtually nothing to say about it an not a single article containing Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the Larry King Live story broke , CNN finally hit the topic , but perhaps only briefly .
There was no mention of it on their Sunday morning shows yesterday .
That brings us to Lowe ’ s central theme .
If you really wanted to do Biden a favor ( and there ’ s scant doubt that most of the folks at CNN fall into that category ) , there was an easy and obvious way to do , just as the New York Times , the Washington Post and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story out there , spin it as needed , declare that you ’ ve done your due diligence , and move along , allowing Reade ’ s claims to slowly die off from a lack of oxygen .
But why didn ’ t CNN go that route ?
A generous and even sensible reading of this call is that it confirms what Reade originally alleged in 2019 , that Biden , as we ’ ve known he ’ s done for years , creepily touched her neck and generally invaded her personal space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal gratification , sexually or otherwise .
Even if you ’ re the most die-hard Democrat in the media , it makes little sense why you wouldn ’ t just want to investigate and then exhaust the Reade allegation so it doesn ’ t hang over his head until Election Day .
But after months of the media hedging on the Reade story , the specific Larry King Live episode apparently featuring Reade ’ s mother has inexplicably gone missing on CNN ’ s Google Play archives of the show .
All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN know that we don ’ t ?
It ’ s a fair question .
Reading all of Tiana ’ s analysis , she makes a very good point about the Reade allegations .
Even with the addition of the Larry King tidbit , Reade ’ s most serious claims still generally fail the tests we normally apply to these types of ancient , nearly unprovable , “ he said , she said ” situations .
We lack any sort of physical evidence or even a direct witness to the claimed attack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple contemporaneously corroborating witnesses , of which Reade has a few , but far more of her former coworkers in Biden ’ s Senate office tell very different tales .
We would also normally check for a consistent description of events by the victim over the years .
Reade fails that test entirely .
With all that in mind , why wouldn ’ t CNN do precisely what the New York time and other liberal outlets have done ?
Interview her , along with any available witnesses for both sides and publish their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitely has a history of invading women ’ s personal spaces and making them “ uncomfortable , ” but never in a way signaling that he was seeking sexual gratification .
Then simply note Reade ’ s changing tale over the years , and conclude that she has a right to tell her story , but they simply can ’ t find enough hard data to conclude that her version of events is accurate .
At that point you can simply ignore Reade and if anyone complains about the lack of coverage you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation and say that there ’ s nothing new and relevant to add .
Surely the powers that be at CNN are aware of all this .
They could have flushed the Reade allegations out of the public debate weeks ago , perhaps briefly revisiting it this weekend after the Larry King material came out .
Why didn ’ t they ?
Is it conceivable that some of the reporters at CNN know , or at least suspect something that may come to light about the Reade allegations later ?
And if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to be caught on the wrong side of history for having dismissed her initially .
This is still nothing more than a rather wild theory at this point .
CNN ’ s total blackout on Reade coverage for almost a month may have been the result of something else entirely .
But it certainly is intriguing to ponder .

Over at the Washington Examiner, Tiana Lowe poses an interesting question that I’ll confess hadn’t crossed my mind until now. It deals yet again with the allegations against Joe Biden brought forward by Tara Reade, including the recent, intriguing revelation about a phone call that Reade’s mother placed to Larry King’s television show back in 1993. (The same one I was discussing earlier today.) But Lowe’s query has less to do with Biden himself and any wrongs he may be guilty of and more to do with the response from CNN or lack thereof. After news of the allegations initially broke, virtually every other cable news network and major newspaper offered some coverage of the story, albeit generally in a manner very skeptical of Reade and filled with potential cover for Uncle Joe.
Remember that Reade first aired her recent and most serious charges against Biden on March 25th. For a solid month, up until this weekend, the hosts at CNN has virtually nothing to say about it an not a single article containing Reade’s name appeared on their website. After the Larry King Live story broke, CNN finally hit the topic, but perhaps only briefly. There was no mention of it on their Sunday morning shows yesterday.
That brings us to Lowe’s central theme. If you really wanted to do Biden a favor (and there’s scant doubt that most of the folks at CNN fall into that category), there was an easy and obvious way to do, just as the New York Times, the Washington Post and NBC News have done. Put the story out there, spin it as needed, declare that you’ve done your due diligence, and move along, allowing Reade’s claims to slowly die off from a lack of oxygen. But why didn’t CNN go that route?
A generous and even sensible reading of this call is that it confirms what Reade originally alleged in 2019, that Biden, as we’ve known he’s done for years, creepily touched her neck and generally invaded her personal space, albeit with no obvious intent of personal gratification, sexually or otherwise. Even if you’re the most die-hard Democrat in the media, it makes little sense why you wouldn’t just want to investigate and then exhaust the Reade allegation so it doesn’t hang over his head until Election Day. But after months of the media hedging on the Reade story, the specific Larry King Live episode apparently featuring Reade’s mother has inexplicably gone missing on CNN’s Google Play archives of the show. All of which raises the question: What does CNN know that we don’t?
It’s a fair question. Reading all of Tiana’s analysis, she makes a very good point about the Reade allegations. Even with the addition of the Larry King tidbit, Reade’s most serious claims still generally fail the tests we normally apply to these types of ancient, nearly unprovable, “he said, she said” situations. We lack any sort of physical evidence or even a direct witness to the claimed attack. We would also normally be looking for multiple contemporaneously corroborating witnesses, of which Reade has a few, but far more of her former coworkers in Biden’s Senate office tell very different tales. We would also normally check for a consistent description of events by the victim over the years. Reade fails that test entirely.
With all that in mind, why wouldn’t CNN do precisely what the New York time and other liberal outlets have done? Interview her, along with any available witnesses for both sides and publish their findings. They could state that Biden definitely has a history of invading women’s personal spaces and making them “uncomfortable,” but never in a way signaling that he was seeking sexual gratification. Then simply note Reade’s changing tale over the years, and conclude that she has a right to tell her story, but they simply can’t find enough hard data to conclude that her version of events is accurate. At that point you can simply ignore Reade and if anyone complains about the lack of coverage you can simply point them to your previous investigation and say that there’s nothing new and relevant to add.
Surely the powers that be at CNN are aware of all this. They could have flushed the Reade allegations out of the public debate weeks ago, perhaps briefly revisiting it this weekend after the Larry King material came out. Why didn’t they? Is it conceivable that some of the reporters at CNN know, or at least suspect something that may come to light about the Reade allegations later? And if that happened, perhaps they wouldn’t want to be caught on the wrong side of history for having dismissed her initially.
This is still nothing more than a rather wild theory at this point. CNN’s total blackout on Reade coverage for almost a month may have been the result of something else entirely. But it certainly is intriguing to ponder.


hotair--2020-04-27--Chutzpah: Tedros scolds world for not listening to WHO on COVID-19

Say what ?
Most of us still remember when we did listen to the World Health Organization on COVID-19 .
That was on January 14th , when despite a warning from Taiwan of the high probability of community spread in late December , WHO sent out this tweet : Tedros and WHO ignored the warning from Taiwan and instead pushed the party line coming out of Beijing .
Why ?
China ’ s Communist Party has blocked Taiwan from having any separate standing in the United Nations , and WHO is a subsidiary of the UN .
Rather than following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s input when Beijing overruled it .
It would take more than two weeks before Tedros and WHO acknowledged the risk of community spread .
And let ’ s not forget that Tedros and WHO got warned of that risk from its own researcher at the same time , and ignored her as well .
That ’ s what makes this argument today from Tedros not just tedious but outrageous : Speaking at a WHO briefing on Monday , Dr Tedros said : “ We can only give advice to countries .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force countries to implement what we advise them .
On January 30 , we declared the highest level of emergency , global emergency on COVID-19 .
“ During that time , there were only 82 cases outside China .
No cases in Latin America , no cases in Africa .
Only 10 cases in Europe .
No deaths in the rest of the world .
Nothing .
“ The world should have listened to the WHO carefully .
Every country could have trigged all its public health measures possible .
We advised the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health approach – find , test , contact tracing and so on .
The countries who followed that are in a better position than others.
” Listened to WHO when , exactly ?
How about when the WHO scolded Donald Trump for imposing travel restrictions from China after their belated warning on community transmission ?
This is what Tedros had to say about travel restrictions four days after declaring an emergency .
On February 3rd , he was still calling the spread of COVID-19 “ minimal and slow , ” apparently still relying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for data : World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday there was no need for measures that “ unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade ” in trying to halt the spread of a coronavirus that has killed 361 people in China .
“ We call on all countries to implement decisions that are evidence-based and consistent , ” Tedros told the WHO executive board , reiterating his message from last week when he declared an international emergency .
… “ Because of this strategy and it weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside China would have been very much higher , ” he said .
Referring to the virus ’ spread abroad , he said it was “ minimal and slow ” , while warning that it could worsen .
Nothing about the spread of COVID-19 has been “ minimal and slow , ” except to the extent that WHO bought China ’ s lies and amplified them for several weeks .
Had we still been listening to Tedros and WHO at that time , travelers from China would have still been seeding cities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks .
Indeed , had WHO reacted more quickly , we might have closed down travel from Europe weeks ahead of time and prevented much of the rapid spread of the disease .
So much for listening to WHO to enact “ all its public health measures possible.
” Rather than acting as a Cassandra , Tedros continued acting as Xi Jinping ’ s mouthpiece and soft-peddling the disease — until China ’ s lies became too obvious to ignore .
If WHO wants people to listen to it in the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its executives to rebuild its credibility — starting with Tedros , whose chutzpah apparently knows no bounds .

Say what? Most of us still remember when we did listen to the World Health Organization on COVID-19. That was on January 14th, when despite a warning from Taiwan of the high probability of community spread in late December, WHO sent out this tweet:
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG — World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) January 14, 2020
Tedros and WHO ignored the warning from Taiwan and instead pushed the party line coming out of Beijing. Why? China’s Communist Party has blocked Taiwan from having any separate standing in the United Nations, and WHO is a subsidiary of the UN. Rather than following the science, Tedros ignored Taiwan’s input when Beijing overruled it. It would take more than two weeks before Tedros and WHO acknowledged the risk of community spread. And let’s not forget that Tedros and WHO got warned of that risk from its own researcher at the same time, and ignored her as well.
That’s what makes this argument today from Tedros not just tedious but outrageous:
Speaking at a WHO briefing on Monday, Dr Tedros said: “We can only give advice to countries. We don’t have any mandate to force countries to implement what we advise them. On January 30, we declared the highest level of emergency, global emergency on COVID-19. “During that time, there were only 82 cases outside China. No cases in Latin America, no cases in Africa. Only 10 cases in Europe. No deaths in the rest of the world. Nothing. “The world should have listened to the WHO carefully. Every country could have trigged all its public health measures possible. We advised the whole world to implement a comprehensive public health approach – find, test, contact tracing and so on. The countries who followed that are in a better position than others.”
Listened to WHO when, exactly? How about when the WHO scolded Donald Trump for imposing travel restrictions from China after their belated warning on community transmission? This is what Tedros had to say about travel restrictions four days after declaring an emergency. On February 3rd, he was still calling the spread of COVID-19 “minimal and slow,” apparently still relying entirely on Beijing’s public relations for data:
World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday there was no need for measures that “unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade” in trying to halt the spread of a coronavirus that has killed 361 people in China. “We call on all countries to implement decisions that are evidence-based and consistent,” Tedros told the WHO executive board, reiterating his message from last week when he declared an international emergency. … “Because of this strategy and it weren’t for China, the number of cases outside China would have been very much higher,” he said. Referring to the virus’ spread abroad, he said it was “minimal and slow”, while warning that it could worsen.
Nothing about the spread of COVID-19 has been “minimal and slow,” except to the extent that WHO bought China’s lies and amplified them for several weeks. Had we still been listening to Tedros and WHO at that time, travelers from China would have still been seeding cities in the US with COVID-19 for several more weeks. Indeed, had WHO reacted more quickly, we might have closed down travel from Europe weeks ahead of time and prevented much of the rapid spread of the disease.
So much for listening to WHO to enact “all its public health measures possible.” Rather than acting as a Cassandra, Tedros continued acting as Xi Jinping’s mouthpiece and soft-peddling the disease — until China’s lies became too obvious to ignore. If WHO wants people to listen to it in the future, then they need to fire all of its executives to rebuild its credibility — starting with Tedros, whose chutzpah apparently knows no bounds.