hotair--2020-03-23--Actor who contracted coronavirus believes hydroxychloroquine was 'crucial' to his recovery

Actor Daniel Dae Kim , who has had rolls in Lost and Hawaii Five-0 , made news last Thursday when he announced he had tested positive for the coronavirus .
Kim made a point of taking issue with President Trump ’ s use of the phrase “ Chinese virus ” in his announcement : “ Yes , I ’ m Asian .
And yes , I have coronavirus .
But I did not get it from China , I got it in America .
In New York City , ” Kim said in the Instagram video .
“ Despite what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I don ’ t consider the place where it ’ s from as important as the people who are sick and dying.
” “ If I did , I would call this thing the ‘ New York virus , ’ but that would be silly , right ?
” he continued .
Today , Kim published a follow-up announcement on his Instagram page in which he says he ’ s feeling much better and says he considers his doctor ’ s decision to prescribe him hydroxychloroquine was a key to his recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report that my progress has continued and I feel practically back to normal , ” Kim said .
A bit later he explained that one of the first questions he was asked when he announced his illness was “ What medicines did you take ?
” After giving a brief disclaimer that his is not a doctor , Kim said he was prescribed a cocktail of drugs including tamiflu , the antibiotic Azithromycin , an inhaler to prevent inflammation , and hydroxychloroquine .
“ And here ’ s what I consider to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kim said .
He continued , “ This is a common anti-malarial drug that has been used with great success in Korea in their fight against the coronavirus .
And yes , this is the drug that the president mentioned the other day .
It is also the drug that Dr. Anthony Fauci cautioned us about .
“ He said that evidence that the drug is promising is anecdotal and that is correct .
It means it wasn ’ t studied and is only based on personal accounts .
Well add my name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling better.
” Later , Kim added , “ I won ’ t say that it ’ s a cure and I won ’ t say definitively that you should go out and use it but what I will say is that I believe it was crucial to my recovery.
” It ’ s clear from the clip that Kim is not saying this out of any desire to support President Trump .
On the contrary , he ’ s saying it despite that .
Of course , he ’ s just an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a doctor who seems to believe this works .
However , it ’ s worth noting that the doctor whose name he mentions in this clip below tried to distance himself from this a bit saying he wasn ’ t the person who prescribed this drug cocktail for Kim : Wanted to give a shout out to our friend @ danieldaekim for sharing his # coronavirus journey to help educate and comfort our very anxious world .
I do want to clarify that I was not the doctor who treated him nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Zithromax , and Hydroxychloroquine that he received .
I think the initial data on this regimen is very encouraging and while I am hopeful , I think we still need to study this some more .
So please do not start taking these meds on your own as there are some potential associated side effects .
Above all , do your best to keep your immune systems robust and practice good hygiene and social distancing .
So the debate over the use of this drug goes on .
Yesterday , the Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors who argued that , while the definite proof of hydroxychloroquine ’ s effectiveness does not exist yet , it should be considered a “ first-line treatment.
” We had been using the protocol outlined in the research from China , but we ’ ve switched to the combination prescribed in the French study .
Our patients appear to be showing fewer symptoms .
Our experience suggests that hydroxychloroquine , with or without a Z-Pak , should be a first-line treatment .
Unfortunately , there is already a shortage of hydroxychloroquine .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturers to ramp up production .
Any stockpiles should be released .
As a matter of clinical practice , hydroxychloroquine should be given early to patients who test positive , and perhaps if Covid-19 is presumed—in the case of ill household contacts , for instance .
It may be especially useful to treat mild cases and young patients , which would significantly decrease viral transmission and , as they say , “ flatten the curve.
” The doctors conclude , “ We can use this treatment to help save lives and prevent others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait several weeks and risk discovering we didn ’ t do everything we could to end this pandemic as quickly as possible.
” Here ’ s Kim ’ s Instagram video about his treatment .
He ’ s not a doctor and neither am I so take this with a grain of salt until we have some better data to confirm it .
Maybe he ’ s just a healthy , fit person who recovered quickly because his immune system was strong .
After all , most people do recover from this .

Actor Daniel Dae Kim, who has had rolls in Lost and Hawaii Five-0, made news last Thursday when he announced he had tested positive for the coronavirus. Kim made a point of taking issue with President Trump’s use of the phrase “Chinese virus” in his announcement:
“Yes, I’m Asian. And yes, I have coronavirus. But I did not get it from China, I got it in America. In New York City,” Kim said in the Instagram video. “Despite what certain political leaders want to call it, I don’t consider the place where it’s from as important as the people who are sick and dying.” “If I did, I would call this thing the ‘New York virus,’ but that would be silly, right?” he continued.
Today, Kim published a follow-up announcement on his Instagram page in which he says he’s feeling much better and says he considers his doctor’s decision to prescribe him hydroxychloroquine was a key to his recovery.
“I’m happy to report that my progress has continued and I feel practically back to normal,” Kim said. A bit later he explained that one of the first questions he was asked when he announced his illness was “What medicines did you take?” After giving a brief disclaimer that his is not a doctor, Kim said he was prescribed a cocktail of drugs including tamiflu, the antibiotic Azithromycin, an inhaler to prevent inflammation, and hydroxychloroquine.
“And here’s what I consider to be the secret weapon: hydroxychloroquine,” Kim said. He continued, “This is a common anti-malarial drug that has been used with great success in Korea in their fight against the coronavirus. And yes, this is the drug that the president mentioned the other day. It is also the drug that Dr. Anthony Fauci cautioned us about.
“He said that evidence that the drug is promising is anecdotal and that is correct. It means it wasn’t studied and is only based on personal accounts. Well add my name to those personal accounts because I am feeling better.”
Later, Kim added, “I won’t say that it’s a cure and I won’t say definitively that you should go out and use it but what I will say is that I believe it was crucial to my recovery.” It’s clear from the clip that Kim is not saying this out of any desire to support President Trump. On the contrary, he’s saying it despite that. Of course, he’s just an actor but he is following the orders of a doctor who seems to believe this works. However, it’s worth noting that the doctor whose name he mentions in this clip below tried to distance himself from this a bit saying he wasn’t the person who prescribed this drug cocktail for Kim:
Wanted to give a shout out to our friend @danieldaekim for sharing his #coronavirus journey to help educate and comfort our very anxious world. I do want to clarify that I was not the doctor who treated him nor did I prescribe the regimen of Tamiflu, Zithromax, and Hydroxychloroquine that he received. I think the initial data on this regimen is very encouraging and while I am hopeful, I think we still need to study this some more. So please do not start taking these meds on your own as there are some potential associated side effects. Above all, do your best to keep your immune systems robust and practice good hygiene and social distancing.
So the debate over the use of this drug goes on. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by two doctors who argued that, while the definite proof of hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness does not exist yet, it should be considered a “first-line treatment.”
We had been using the protocol outlined in the research from China, but we’ve switched to the combination prescribed in the French study. Our patients appear to be showing fewer symptoms. Our experience suggests that hydroxychloroquine, with or without a Z-Pak, should be a first-line treatment. Unfortunately, there is already a shortage of hydroxychloroquine. The federal government should immediately contract with generic manufacturers to ramp up production. Any stockpiles should be released. As a matter of clinical practice, hydroxychloroquine should be given early to patients who test positive, and perhaps if Covid-19 is presumed—in the case of ill household contacts, for instance. It may be especially useful to treat mild cases and young patients, which would significantly decrease viral transmission and, as they say, “flatten the curve.”
The doctors conclude, “We can use this treatment to help save lives and prevent others from becoming infected. Or we can wait several weeks and risk discovering we didn’t do everything we could to end this pandemic as quickly as possible.”
Here’s Kim’s Instagram video about his treatment. He’s not a doctor and neither am I so take this with a grain of salt until we have some better data to confirm it. Maybe he’s just a healthy, fit person who recovered quickly because his immune system was strong. After all, most people do recover from this.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B-BCcuygbmO/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link


hotair--2020-03-23--When a company pleads guilty to manslaughter

This doesn ’ t happen often , but every once in awhile a corporation can be convicted of a crime .
In this case , it ’ s Pacific Gas & Electric ( PG & E ) in California , and that corporate entity has pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter .
In case you ’ re wondering how a company can commit manslaughter , it ’ s based on the people that died in the wildfire that destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018 , killing more than 80 people .
The Camp Fire was eventually blamed on faulty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the blaze .
( National Review ) California electricity provider Pacific Gas & Electric Co. agreed to a plea deal that will see it plead guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter charges for its role in starting the deadliest wildfire in state history .
The company , which disclosed the charges Monday in a regulatory finding , filed for chapter 11 protection last year , after its aging and faulty equipment was blamed for five of the ten most destructive fires in California since 2015 .
Butte County , the home of the Camp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the town of Paradise and killed 85 people — the deadliest wildfire in California history — charged the company with 84 counts of manslaughter and one count of unlawfully causing a fire .
So what happens when a company pleads guilty to a charge involving the death of actual human beings rather than some sort of white-collar crime ?
You can ’ t exactly send a company to prison .
Instead , this appears to simply open the door to more liability for PG & E in the various lawsuits they are facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at war with PG & E for a while now , vowing to “ hold them accountable ” for the fires “ bring them to justice , ” despite having accepted hefty campaign contributions from them in the past .
In an odd twist , this isn ’ t even the first time that PG & E has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter .
The first time came in 2016 after a 2010 explosion involving one of their natural gas lines in San Bruno , California resulted in the death of multiple people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bankruptcy protection , but Newsom has been engaging in what he himself described as “ unprecedented intervention ” in the bankruptcy process .
He ’ s been trying to steer the company out of bankruptcy so their books can be opened and their money funneled into a fund that ’ s been set up for wildfire victims .
I would definitely not want to be one of PG & E ’ s investors about now since the “ deal ” also apparently includes provisions to make no payments to investors for at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written here in the past , while the energy company should definitely be responsible for performing required maintenance on their own equipment , this entire saga still sounds fishy .
If high winds knock a tree down onto the powerlines or lead to some sparking that causes a fire , that used to be considered an Act of God .
And while PG & E should keep tree branches clear of their power lines , surely the state holds an even larger degree of responsibility for not clearing decades of dead brush out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burns or hefty levels of manpower .
But Newsom and the rest of the California Democrats didn ’ t want to see any fingers pointed in their direction , so PG & E had to be made to take the fall .
Assuming California manages to sue PG & E out of existence and empty their coffers completely , who in their right mind would sign up to take over the contracts and supply a huge part of the state with power ?
Perhaps they should just tell Newsom to have the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can do a better job of it .

This doesn’t happen often, but every once in awhile a corporation can be convicted of a crime. In this case, it’s Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in California, and that corporate entity has pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter. In case you’re wondering how a company can commit manslaughter, it’s based on the people that died in the wildfire that destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018, killing more than 80 people. The Camp Fire was eventually blamed on faulty PG&E equipment which allegedly sparked the blaze. (National Review)
California electricity provider Pacific Gas & Electric Co. agreed to a plea deal that will see it plead guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter charges for its role in starting the deadliest wildfire in state history. The company, which disclosed the charges Monday in a regulatory finding, filed for chapter 11 protection last year, after its aging and faulty equipment was blamed for five of the ten most destructive fires in California since 2015. Butte County, the home of the Camp Fire of November 2018, which destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 85 people — the deadliest wildfire in California history — charged the company with 84 counts of manslaughter and one count of unlawfully causing a fire.
So what happens when a company pleads guilty to a charge involving the death of actual human beings rather than some sort of white-collar crime? You can’t exactly send a company to prison. Instead, this appears to simply open the door to more liability for PG&E in the various lawsuits they are facing. California Governor Gavin Newsom has been at war with PG&E for a while now, vowing to “hold them accountable” for the fires “bring them to justice,” despite having accepted hefty campaign contributions from them in the past.
In an odd twist, this isn’t even the first time that PG&E has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The first time came in 2016 after a 2010 explosion involving one of their natural gas lines in San Bruno, California resulted in the death of multiple people.
PG&E was already in bankruptcy protection, but Newsom has been engaging in what he himself described as “unprecedented intervention” in the bankruptcy process. He’s been trying to steer the company out of bankruptcy so their books can be opened and their money funneled into a fund that’s been set up for wildfire victims. I would definitely not want to be one of PG&E’s investors about now since the “deal” also apparently includes provisions to make no payments to investors for at least three years.
As I’ve written here in the past, while the energy company should definitely be responsible for performing required maintenance on their own equipment, this entire saga still sounds fishy. If high winds knock a tree down onto the powerlines or lead to some sparking that causes a fire, that used to be considered an Act of God. And while PG&E should keep tree branches clear of their power lines, surely the state holds an even larger degree of responsibility for not clearing decades of dead brush out the dry areas, either through controlled burns or hefty levels of manpower. But Newsom and the rest of the California Democrats didn’t want to see any fingers pointed in their direction, so PG&E had to be made to take the fall.
Assuming California manages to sue PG&E out of existence and empty their coffers completely, who in their right mind would sign up to take over the contracts and supply a huge part of the state with power? Perhaps they should just tell Newsom to have the state take over the utility and see if they can do a better job of it.


hotair--2020-03-23--Sen. Collins blasts Democrats over delay: 'This is unbelievable' (Update: NY Times to the rescue)

The unexpected negative press must be getting to Democrats .
As Ed pointed out both last night and this morning , Democrats are suddenly finding themselves on the defensive from a media that is usually eager to spin things their way .
This morning that apparently led to another own goal when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer objected to allowing Sen. Susan Collins to speak .
PBS reporter Lisa Desjardins says she has never seen this happen before and describes the angry confrontation on the floor : Here ’ s a slightly more detailed version .
In the clip below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak and Sen. Schumer ’ s objection .
She says , “ This is unbelievable ” but then it seems some of the microphones are cut off .
I think I hear Collins saying “ This is appaling , ” but it ’ s hard to make out .
The Hill describes what happened next : Sen. Bill Cassidy ( R-La . )
then tried to speak , but Schumer similarly objected .
The tactics sparked vocal pushback from Republican senators who were on be floor .
Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-Ark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the front of the chamber , could be overheard calling the maneuvers “ bullshit.
” Schumer then tried to consent to speak , and Sen. Jim Risch ( R-Idaho ) , who was in his seat at the back of the chamber , yelled that he also objected .
When Schumer tried to argue that he still has control of the floor , Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-Neb . )
, who was presiding over the floor drama , replied : “ No , you do not.
” You may have to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the off-mic comments .
Eventually , Sen. Collins did get her chance to speak and she used the opportunity to bash Democrats for delaying the bill over a wish list of progressive priorities .
Collins said she had never seen Democrats and Republicans fail to come together in a crisis but then tore into Sen. Schumer .
“ Unbelievably , the Democratic leader objected to my even being able to speak this morning .
Is that what we ’ ve come to ?
” she said .
She concluded by saying of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgraceful .
We do not have time .
Time is not on our side .
Let ’ s get the job done for the American people.
” Just last night , Sen. Schumer told CNN , “ to my delight and surprise there has been a great deal of bipartisan cooperation.
” What happened to this guy ?
Democrats may have created a real problem for themselves .
The talking point already being widely used by the left online is that the Senate bill is a “ slush fund ” and a corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already been poisoned .
Can Democrats retreat and vote for this bill now ?
At a minimum they are going to need some face saving changes to claim this delay was worthwhile or risk really irritating their own base .
But further delay could be costly if the media continues to hold Democrats responsible .
Master legislator Nancy Pelosi may have overreached here and Schumer , by going along with it , is taking a big risk with the biggest issue Dems are facing in an election year .
But never discount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad behavior by Democrats into a story about Republicans seizing on their self-inflicted misfortune .
Update : The NY Times is racing to save Democrats from themselves with an editorial blaming Mitch McConnell for everything .
This is what they do .
No only was this predictable , it was actually predicted .

The unexpected negative press must be getting to Democrats. As Ed pointed out both last night and this morning, Democrats are suddenly finding themselves on the defensive from a media that is usually eager to spin things their way. This morning that apparently led to another own goal when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer objected to allowing Sen. Susan Collins to speak.
Tension between McConnell and Schumer is intense. Schumer blocked the consent required to allow Sen. Collins to speak. https://t.co/1UBlTYFCuC — Jennifer Haberkorn (@jenhab) March 23, 2020
PBS reporter Lisa Desjardins says she has never seen this happen before and describes the angry confrontation on the floor:
Senate chamber boils over. – Sen. Collins asked to speak, Schumer objected.
– Sen. Cotton shouted, "C'mon", "This is bullshit!"
– Collins walked thru her row to Schumer – stood a foot or so away, finger pointed, exclaimed, "you are objecting to my speaking? This is appalling!" — Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) March 23, 2020
3/ – Sen. Cotton, standing near the well, presses the point and in an oddly "I am Spartacus!" moment, asks to speak himself.
– Schumer: objection.
– Sen. Cassidy is now Spartacus, asks to speak.
– Schumer: objection. — Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) March 23, 2020
Here’s a slightly more detailed version. In the clip below you’ll hear Sen. Collins ask to speak and Sen. Schumer’s objection. She says, “This is unbelievable” but then it seems some of the microphones are cut off. I think I hear Collins saying “This is appaling,” but it’s hard to make out. The Hill describes what happened next:
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) then tried to speak, but Schumer similarly objected. The tactics sparked vocal pushback from Republican senators who were on be floor. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who was standing at the front of the chamber, could be overheard calling the maneuvers “bullshit.” Schumer then tried to consent to speak, and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who was in his seat at the back of the chamber, yelled that he also objected. When Schumer tried to argue that he still has control of the floor, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who was presiding over the floor drama, replied: “No, you do not.”
You may have to turn the volume up to here some of the off-mic comments.
.@SenatorCollins: "I ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with." Sen. Sasse (presiding): "Is there objection?"@SenSchumer: "I object." @senatemajldr: "Oh, come on." Collins: "This is unbelievable." pic.twitter.com/Bg3pBv09Ch — CSPAN (@cspan) March 23, 2020
Eventually, Sen. Collins did get her chance to speak and she used the opportunity to bash Democrats for delaying the bill over a wish list of progressive priorities. Collins said she had never seen Democrats and Republicans fail to come together in a crisis but then tore into Sen. Schumer. “Unbelievably, the Democratic leader objected to my even being able to speak this morning. Is that what we’ve come to?” she said. She concluded by saying of the Democratic delaying tactics, “This is disgraceful. We do not have time. Time is not on our side. Let’s get the job done for the American people.”
We are in the midst of a crisis in our country caused by the coronavirus. When it comes to Americans’ health and saving Americans’ jobs and our small businesses, we don't have another day. We don't have another hour. We don't have another minute to delay acting. pic.twitter.com/xbeagCoLvQ — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) March 23, 2020
Just last night, Sen. Schumer told CNN, “to my delight and surprise there has been a great deal of bipartisan cooperation.” What happened to this guy?
Democrats may have created a real problem for themselves. The talking point already being widely used by the left online is that the Senate bill is a “slush fund” and a corporate bailout. In short, the well has already been poisoned. Can Democrats retreat and vote for this bill now? At a minimum they are going to need some face saving changes to claim this delay was worthwhile or risk really irritating their own base. But further delay could be costly if the media continues to hold Democrats responsible.
Master legislator Nancy Pelosi may have overreached here and Schumer, by going along with it, is taking a big risk with the biggest issue Dems are facing in an election year. But never discount the ability of the media to turn bad behavior by Democrats into a story about Republicans seizing on their self-inflicted misfortune.
Update: The NY Times is racing to save Democrats from themselves with an editorial blaming Mitch McConnell for everything. This is what they do. No only was this predictable, it was actually predicted.


hotair--2020-03-23--The argument against an airline bailout

The argument against an airline bailout

Not too long ago , I posed the question , “ am I a bad person for not caring if the airlines go bankrupt ?
” Admittedly , my reasons were a bit on the personal side and I ’ m sure that particular essay left me looking a bit vindictive .
I focused on the deteriorating quality of service we ’ re provided , shrinking seat sizes , disappearing legroom and the massive profits the airlines were making until recently , much of which was plowed into huge stock buybacks .
Why should the taxpayers bail them out ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a more pragmatic argument to be made against the requested bailout .
It ’ s explained in an op-ed at the Washington Post by Richard Squire , a professor at the Fordham University School of Law who teaches corporate bankruptcy law .
Rather than expressing any seething discontent with the major air carriers , Squire offers a more calm explanation of the reason that the airlines shouldn ’ t get a bailout .
It ’ s because they don ’ t really need one .
They can simply file for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will return to normal when the pandemic has passed .
With flight bookings in free fall , U.S. airlines have gone to Washington with their hands out , asking for more than $ 50 billion in loans , guarantees and outright cash grants .
And President Trump wants to give them the money , explaining in a White House briefing last week , “ We don ’ t want airlines going out of business.
” Yet there is no danger that the airlines are about to disappear , leaving the flying public grounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bailout , the air carriers would renegotiate their terms of credit with their lenders outside court , or they would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection .
Either way , they would keep flying .
Congress seems all too ready to repeat the fiasco of 2008 and just start writing fat checks , grants and loans for all the airlines .
The President has voiced his support for such a move as well , citing as a reason his concern over the airlines “ going out of business.
” But as Squire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scare tactic .
Without a bailout , none of the major airlines are going to go out of business .
From 2002 through 2011 , nearly every major American airline went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy .
The list includes American , Delta , Frontier , Northwest , United and US Airways .
Each and every one of them came out of it okay and returned to greater profitability than they ’ d seen in ages .
( The only reason a few of those names aren ’ t around today is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not because they went out of business . )
Different types of corporations wind up going into bankruptcy for different reasons , and some of them do indeed go out of business .
But that ’ s usually because of either disastrously bad management or the fact that the industry they operate in has become far less viable than it had been previously .
Those conditions are not present for the remaining major airlines in the United States .
They ’ ve shown repeatedly that they are capable of turning impressive profits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed noticeably in ages .
When the pandemic has passed , demand for their services will almost immediately return to previous levels and they will still have all the planes and the infrastructure required to get back up to full speed .
Squire further notes that the worries being expressed over the fate of all the airlines ’ employees are also mostly crocodile tears .
Payroll is far from their biggest expense and companies under Chapter 11 protection are nearly always able to secure loans to cover such necessities because the risk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if some of the workers are furloughed , they would qualify for unemployment benefits ( which Congress will almost certainly extend again if this pandemic drags on for too long ) .
And not to sound too heartless about this but there are tons of workers in other industries who are losing their jobs right now but their employers aren ’ t in line for any sort of huge congressional cash giveaway .
Why should they be treated differently ?
In the end , the airlines ’ investors , who have drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade from the investment risk they took , should bear the brunt of the current situation .
The ones who should not be carrying that burden are the taxpayers .
We went through that with the Obama bailouts and should have learned something from that experience .

Not too long ago, I posed the question, “am I a bad person for not caring if the airlines go bankrupt?” Admittedly, my reasons were a bit on the personal side and I’m sure that particular essay left me looking a bit vindictive. I focused on the deteriorating quality of service we’re provided, shrinking seat sizes, disappearing legroom and the massive profits the airlines were making until recently, much of which was plowed into huge stock buybacks. Why should the taxpayers bail them out?
As it turns out, however, there’s a more pragmatic argument to be made against the requested bailout. It’s explained in an op-ed at the Washington Post by Richard Squire, a professor at the Fordham University School of Law who teaches corporate bankruptcy law. Rather than expressing any seething discontent with the major air carriers, Squire offers a more calm explanation of the reason that the airlines shouldn’t get a bailout. It’s because they don’t really need one. They can simply file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and their business will return to normal when the pandemic has passed.
With flight bookings in free fall, U.S. airlines have gone to Washington with their hands out, asking for more than $50 billion in loans, guarantees and outright cash grants. And President Trump wants to give them the money, explaining in a White House briefing last week, “We don’t want airlines going out of business.” Yet there is no danger that the airlines are about to disappear, leaving the flying public grounded after the coronavirus crisis passes. Without a bailout, the air carriers would renegotiate their terms of credit with their lenders outside court, or they would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Either way, they would keep flying.
Congress seems all too ready to repeat the fiasco of 2008 and just start writing fat checks, grants and loans for all the airlines. The President has voiced his support for such a move as well, citing as a reason his concern over the airlines “going out of business.” But as Squire points out, this is basically just a scare tactic.
Without a bailout, none of the major airlines are going to go out of business. From 2002 through 2011, nearly every major American airline went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The list includes American, Delta, Frontier, Northwest, United and US Airways. Each and every one of them came out of it okay and returned to greater profitability than they’d seen in ages. (The only reason a few of those names aren’t around today is that they were swallowed up in mergers, not because they went out of business.)
Different types of corporations wind up going into bankruptcy for different reasons, and some of them do indeed go out of business. But that’s usually because of either disastrously bad management or the fact that the industry they operate in has become far less viable than it had been previously. Those conditions are not present for the remaining major airlines in the United States.
They’ve shown repeatedly that they are capable of turning impressive profits. Their core business model hasn’t changed noticeably in ages. When the pandemic has passed, demand for their services will almost immediately return to previous levels and they will still have all the planes and the infrastructure required to get back up to full speed.
Squire further notes that the worries being expressed over the fate of all the airlines’ employees are also mostly crocodile tears. Payroll is far from their biggest expense and companies under Chapter 11 protection are nearly always able to secure loans to cover such necessities because the risk to the lender is so low. And even if some of the workers are furloughed, they would qualify for unemployment benefits (which Congress will almost certainly extend again if this pandemic drags on for too long). And not to sound too heartless about this but there are tons of workers in other industries who are losing their jobs right now but their employers aren’t in line for any sort of huge congressional cash giveaway. Why should they be treated differently?
In the end, the airlines’ investors, who have drawn handsome profits for at least the past decade from the investment risk they took, should bear the brunt of the current situation. The ones who should not be carrying that burden are the taxpayers. We went through that with the Obama bailouts and should have learned something from that experience.


hotair--2020-03-23--Wisconsin, Michigan governors order to shelter in place -- Minnesota next?

So much for going back to work in a week or so .
Two states critical to Donald Trump ’ s presidential chances in November just announced shelter in place orders , replacing earlier guidelines for social distancing .
“ This is not a recommendation , ” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer declared , “ this is an order , ” and it will last at least three weeks : Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer issued Monday a “ Stay Home , Stay Safe ” executive order to stem the spread of coronavirus .
The order requires all Michigan businesses to suspend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 13 , unless the operations are part of the “ critical infrastructure workforce ” or those needed for “ minimal basic operations.
” Schools also will remain closed through April 13 .
… “ The goal here is simple : Stay home .
Stay safe .
Save lives , ” Whitmer said during a Monday livestreamed press event .
“ This will be temporary .
This intervention is important to buy time so we can create surge capacity in our hospitals , so we can ramp up testing and develop therapeutic drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s been observed : If it were possible to wave a magic wand and make all Americans freeze in place for 14 days , six feet away from one another , the whole epidemic would sputter to a halt .
It ’ s on all of us to do our part .
“ Our ability to safely lift this order will depend on factors like data on COVID-19 infections and the disease ’ s rate of spread , depend on whether sufficient medical personnel , hospital beds and equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s capacity to test for COVID-19 cases and isolate infected people.
” The Detroit Free Press notes that this is a significant change in position for Whitmer .
Just last Thursday , she told the newspaper that she wasn ’ t even considering a shelter-in-place order .
By yesterday , however , Whitmer acknowledged that the situation was “ moving fast ” after the confirmed cases tripled in 72 hours .
Despite some pushback from Republicans over the economic damage the order will do , Whitmer decided to proceed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , theaters , bars , and gyms to close and shut down dine-in service at restaurants , which means the economic damage was already significant — and it wasn ’ t sufficient to stop or slow the spread .
In Wisconsin , Gov .
Tony Evers also finally ordered a shelter-in-place , calling it # SaferAtHome in his Twitter announcement .
Evers also had earlier discounted the necessity for such a move , and also cited “ rapidly evolving ” developments on the virus ’ spread : Gov .
Tony Evers on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay in their homes starting this week to fend off the coronavirus outbreak that is ravaging populations worldwide .
The governor ’ s order will require nearly all workers in the state to work remotely or lose their jobs by closing all workplaces that aren ’ t deemed essential .
Restaurants and bars may stay open but only for delivery and curbside pick-up orders .
The Democratic governor made the announcement on Twitter just three days after saying he did not think he would have to issue such an order but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Monday , Evers ’ spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff said the governor changed course because of a “ rapidly evolving ” spread of the coronavirus , which has claimed four lives in Wisconsin and infected at least 400 people in the state .
Evers didn ’ t mention an end date , but the state ’ s primary is scheduled to take place on April 7 .
Best guess is that this order will force its postponement , or else force it to take place entirely by mail .
Wisconsin Republicans haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend they praised Evers ’ response while warning against a shelter-in-place order as excessive .
With Wisconsin , Michigan , and Illinois mandating a narrowing of the public square , it seems only a matter of time before we get an order here in Minnesota , too .
Governor Tim Walz has been more open to issuing an order than either Whitmer or Evers , and he has been public about his mulling of the necessity of delivering it .
If Walz decides to issue the order , now he ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tim Walz said Monday he will be quarantined at home for the next two weeks after coming in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 .
He will continue to oversee the state ’ s response to the pandemic from the governor ’ s residence , according to an announcement from Walz ’ s office .
“ The most important thing Minnesotans can do to stop the spread of COVID-19 is to stay home , ” Walz said in a statement .
“ I ’ m using this as an opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m feeling healthy and not showing any symptoms , I ’ m going to work from home and model the protocol we are asking all Minnesotans to follow.
” One of the members of Walz ’ s security team was found to have the virus Sunday night .
The governor was in close proximity to that person late last week , according to a news release .
That ’ s not the only political leader in Minnesota dealing with a personal connection to the outbreak , although not in the state at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier in the day that her husband had to be hospitalized with COVID-19 : U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar announced Monday that her husband John Bessler has been diagnosed with coronavirus .
“ While I can not see him and he is of course cut off from all visitors , our daughter Abigail and I are constantly calling and texting and e-mailing , ” Klobuchar said in a statement .
“ We love him very much and pray for his recovery .
He is exhausted and sick but a very strong and resilient person.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ works as a law professor in Baltimore , had quarantined himself and stopped going to work after coming down with cold symptoms .
After developing a fever and coughing up blood , he sought medical care and was hospitalized in Virginia due to testing that showed “ very low oxygen levels.
” Bessler , 52 , has developed pneumonia and is on oxygen , but does not need a ventilator at this time , according to the statement .
He received confirmation that he has coronavirus on Monday morning , five days after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evers providing some political cover , expect to see Walz follow suit soon and issue a shelter-in-place order , especially with our own COVID-19 cases doubling over the weekend .
We largely haven ’ t seen flouting of the guidelines here , though , at least not from my perspective in the first-ring suburbs of the Twin Cities .
Grocery stores are relatively well stocked and operating orderly , and there isn ’ t much traffic besides that out here .
Many of us have been more or less adopting a shelter-in-place attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( My wife is high risk as a transplant patient using immune suppressing medication , so we have tried to strictly adhere to the guidelines . )
This looks as though it will shortly become the norm rather than the exception as COVID-19 rolls across the country .
Trump may change his mind about hunkering down , but governors control this process , and they will inevitably have the last word on this policy .

So much for going back to work in a week or so. Two states critical to Donald Trump’s presidential chances in November just announced shelter in place orders, replacing earlier guidelines for social distancing. “This is not a recommendation,” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer declared, “this is an order,” and it will last at least three weeks:
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer issued Monday a “Stay Home, Stay Safe” executive order to stem the spread of coronavirus. The order requires all Michigan businesses to suspend in-person operations from 12:01 a.m. Tuesday through April 13, unless the operations are part of the “critical infrastructure workforce” or those needed for “minimal basic operations.” Schools also will remain closed through April 13. … “The goal here is simple: Stay home. Stay safe. Save lives,” Whitmer said during a Monday livestreamed press event. “This will be temporary. This intervention is important to buy time so we can create surge capacity in our hospitals, so we can ramp up testing and develop therapeutic drugs that may lower hospitalization and fatality rates. “It’s been observed: If it were possible to wave a magic wand and make all Americans freeze in place for 14 days, six feet away from one another, the whole epidemic would sputter to a halt. It’s on all of us to do our part. “Our ability to safely lift this order will depend on factors like data on COVID-19 infections and the disease’s rate of spread, depend on whether sufficient medical personnel, hospital beds and equipment exists to meet anticipated medical needs and the state’s capacity to test for COVID-19 cases and isolate infected people.”
The Detroit Free Press notes that this is a significant change in position for Whitmer. Just last Thursday, she told the newspaper that she wasn’t even considering a shelter-in-place order. By yesterday, however, Whitmer acknowledged that the situation was “moving fast” after the confirmed cases tripled in 72 hours. Despite some pushback from Republicans over the economic damage the order will do, Whitmer decided to proceed with it. Whitmer had already ordered schools, theaters, bars, and gyms to close and shut down dine-in service at restaurants, which means the economic damage was already significant — and it wasn’t sufficient to stop or slow the spread.
In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers also finally ordered a shelter-in-place, calling it #SaferAtHome in his Twitter announcement. Evers also had earlier discounted the necessity for such a move, and also cited “rapidly evolving” developments on the virus’ spread:
As we’ve worked to respond to and prevent the spread of COVID-19, we've have been careful to listen to public health experts and to be mindful of the effects our proactive steps could and will have on our frontline workers and the most vulnerable in our communities. — Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) March 23, 2020
Gov. Tony Evers on Monday said he is preparing to order Wisconsinites to stay in their homes starting this week to fend off the coronavirus outbreak that is ravaging populations worldwide. The governor’s order will require nearly all workers in the state to work remotely or lose their jobs by closing all workplaces that aren’t deemed essential. Restaurants and bars may stay open but only for delivery and curbside pick-up orders. The Democratic governor made the announcement on Twitter just three days after saying he did not think he would have to issue such an order but that he would do what is scientifically necessary. On Monday, Evers’ spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff said the governor changed course because of a “rapidly evolving” spread of the coronavirus, which has claimed four lives in Wisconsin and infected at least 400 people in the state.
Evers didn’t mention an end date, but the state’s primary is scheduled to take place on April 7. Best guess is that this order will force its postponement, or else force it to take place entirely by mail. Wisconsin Republicans haven’t yet reacted, but over the weekend they praised Evers’ response while warning against a shelter-in-place order as excessive.
With Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois mandating a narrowing of the public square, it seems only a matter of time before we get an order here in Minnesota, too. Governor Tim Walz has been more open to issuing an order than either Whitmer or Evers, and he has been public about his mulling of the necessity of delivering it. If Walz decides to issue the order, now he’ll have to do so from quarantine:
Gov. Tim Walz said Monday he will be quarantined at home for the next two weeks after coming in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. He will continue to oversee the state’s response to the pandemic from the governor’s residence, according to an announcement from Walz’s office. “The most important thing Minnesotans can do to stop the spread of COVID-19 is to stay home,” Walz said in a statement. “I’m using this as an opportunity to lead by example. Though I’m feeling healthy and not showing any symptoms, I’m going to work from home and model the protocol we are asking all Minnesotans to follow.” One of the members of Walz’s security team was found to have the virus Sunday night. The governor was in close proximity to that person late last week, according to a news release.
That’s not the only political leader in Minnesota dealing with a personal connection to the outbreak, although not in the state at the time. Sen. Amy Klobuchar announced earlier in the day that her husband had to be hospitalized with COVID-19:
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar announced Monday that her husband John Bessler has been diagnosed with coronavirus. “While I cannot see him and he is of course cut off from all visitors, our daughter Abigail and I are constantly calling and texting and e-mailing,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “We love him very much and pray for his recovery. He is exhausted and sick but a very strong and resilient person.” Klobuchar said her husband, who works as a law professor in Baltimore, had quarantined himself and stopped going to work after coming down with cold symptoms. After developing a fever and coughing up blood, he sought medical care and was hospitalized in Virginia due to testing that showed “very low oxygen levels.” Bessler, 52, has developed pneumonia and is on oxygen, but does not need a ventilator at this time, according to the statement. He received confirmation that he has coronavirus on Monday morning, five days after taking the test.
With Whitmer and Evers providing some political cover, expect to see Walz follow suit soon and issue a shelter-in-place order, especially with our own COVID-19 cases doubling over the weekend. We largely haven’t seen flouting of the guidelines here, though, at least not from my perspective in the first-ring suburbs of the Twin Cities. Grocery stores are relatively well stocked and operating orderly, and there isn’t much traffic besides that out here. Many of us have been more or less adopting a shelter-in-place attitude for the last week or more. (My wife is high risk as a transplant patient using immune suppressing medication, so we have tried to strictly adhere to the guidelines.)
This looks as though it will shortly become the norm rather than the exception as COVID-19 rolls across the country. Trump may change his mind about hunkering down, but governors control this process, and they will inevitably have the last word on this policy.


hotair--2020-03-23--No, we're not all going back to work after the 15-day period

In fairness to Trump , he hasn ’ t said that we are .
But tweets like the one below , shortening people ’ s collective time horizon for how long it ’ ll take to get a handle on this , will do more harm than good by creating false hope .
It ’ s like when he touts hydroxychloroquine as a potential magic bullet against the virus .
People need hope from their leaders , and he ’ s right that anecdotal reports about the drug have been encouraging , but he doesn ’ t consider the side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the case of hydroxychloroquine , the side effect is a shortage that ’ s putting lupus patients at risk even though no one ’ s sure if it ’ s effective against COVID-19 yet .
In the case of the 15-day period , the side effect is leading people to believe that a more extended period of isolation in the name of containing the disease is an overreaction and shouldn ’ t be followed .
It ’ s one thousand percent true that shelter-in-place orders can ’ t continue indefinitely .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going through economically right now is a cancer patient getting radiation .
The treatment is horrendous — but it might send the cancer into remission while saving the patient ’ s life .
Needless to say , though , it can ’ t go on forever .
If you give someone a Chernobyl-sized dose of radiation , it ’ ll kill the cancer by killing them .
On the other hand , there ’ s no point in giving a patient a single dose of radiation haphazardly and then telling him “ Good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
You won ’ t have killed the cancer ; all you ’ ll have done is expose him to radiation needlessly , making him sicker for no good reason .
There ’ s a course of treatment .
If you ’ re not going to follow the course , it ’ s foolish to start treatment in the first place .
When I see him retweeting stuff like this , I wonder if he has any handle on what the strategy is or even a solid grasp of what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British coronavirus plan that Boris Johnson had to hurriedly abandon when his advisors realized it would mean hundreds of thousands of deaths and bring the British economy to its knees .
There was no 15-day lockdown in the British plan but the rest of it resembled the tweet above : Lock all the old people away for four months or so and let the healthier younger population carry on more or less as usual , infecting each other and building herd immunity .
Then , once herd immunity is achieved , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to come out .
But the Brits saw two problems there .
One : Even with the elderly in mass quarantine , there ’ d still be so many dire cases of COVID-19 among the “ healthier ” parts of the population that the health-care system would be overwhelmed many times over .
It ’ d be wonderful if coronavirus were as ineffective against adults age 20 to 65 as it seems to be among children , but it isn ’ t .
American newspapers are littered with reports right now of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital treatment .
The Brits projected many thousands of people dying even among the “ healthy ” population before the quarantine for older people ended .
Which brings us to the second problem : Most older people can ’ t manage life without younger people .
Many of them need health care and other forms of assistance that are provided by the rest of the population .
How are they supposed to get that care while the virus is spreading like wildfire among the “ healthy ” group ?
One British epidemiologist said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ plan to quarantine nursing homes , “ Who do you think works at those nursing homes ?
Highly trained gibbons ?
” The weirdest part of the “ let ’ s get back to work ” push is that it seems to imagine that coronavirus containment and economic recovery are a pure either/or choice .
We can either continue to stay at home and watch the economy disintegrate or we can restore the economy ( somewhat ) and accept some higher number of deaths as the price .
( Prolonged economic downturns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all . )
But it ’ s not either/or .
Paint me a portrait of the economy “ recovering ” amid an accelerating outbreak in which the entire labor force is suddenly being infected en masse and unable to come to work .
What sort of lasting economic disruption might be caused by a mass die-off ?
This isn ’ t either/or .
We can have a slower economic catastrophe with fewer deaths by flattening the curve or we can have a faster economic catastrophe with many more deaths by carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to entertain arguments that a higher body count that produces a smaller economic calamity is optimal from the standpoint of general human welfare compared to a lower body count that produces an economic calamity three times as large .
But the higher the body count gets , the stronger those arguments need to be .
As I understand it , this is exactly what the shelter-in-place orders are designed to achieve .
They ’ re not just a random “ pause ” to slow down the disease before we all run back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , turning a flattening curve into a sharp one .
They ’ re a stalling tactic .
More tests , more masks , more drugs , plus more draconian isolation measures for senior citizens once the rest of us have precautions in place .
The sooner all of that happens , the less risk there is in unshuttering businesses .
At the Blaze today , Leon Wolf argues that “ At some point , President Trump will have to have the courage to tell the doctors , ‘ No . '
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences of a profound economic contraction .
That ’ s not just an economic problem , after all .
It ’ s a public health problem too .
Scott Gottlieb , one of the most visible doctors on TV and print during this crisis , published an op-ed yesterday addressing the question , “ How Long Will the Coronavirus Lockdowns Go On ?
” It depends on whether a particular city or state is a hot spot , he points out , but tests , masks , and drugs are an absolute prerequisite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population tactics are blunt instruments , necessary for isolating hot spots like New York and Seattle .
Other places may be able to rely more on individual interventions , which cause less disruption and economic damage .
Yet every state should be taking steps such as encouraging social distancing and preparing to expand hospital capacity .
Some states and cities that haven ’ t seen as many cases yet—such as New Orleans—have been too slow to take the threat seriously .
For this to work , the U.S. will need widespread testing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus is spreading .
Testing capacity has increased significantly in the past few weeks thanks to relentless efforts from public , academic and private labs such as Quest and LabCorp .
Producers of testing kits are also working overtime .
A new test developed by Cepheid can be deployed in a doctor ’ s office… Another step : serological surveillance , which means blood tests to detect antibodies developed to fight the novel coronavirus .
These antibodies confer immunity and can reveal whether a person has been exposed .
If a sizable portion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , authorities can be more confident in relying on less invasive measures .
Once deployed , serological tests are cheap , straightforward , and easy to scale .
Trump doesn ’ t think long-term , though .
If he did , he wouldn ’ t have been touting the small number of confirmed cases in the U.S. three weeks ago .
He thinks short-term , in response to news cycles , and the news lately has been consumed with apocalyptic unemployment numbers coming this week and an unprecedented economic contraction in the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently depending upon what he ’ s hearing from experts and what Fox News and other members of his cheering section are telling him privately .
It was just six days ago , remember , after being lobbied by Tucker Carlson to take the virus more seriously , that Trump talked about the virus potentially “ washing through ” America all the way into July or August .
Steve Mnuchin was on TV as recently as yesterday projecting that widespread lockdowns could last 10-12 weeks , into June , with more assistance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses manage until then .
Now , this morning , there are reports of him talking privately about reopening the country for business sooner than doctors advise , potentially destroying the gains that have been made to slow the spread of the disease from the past week of aggressive social distancing .
There ’ s no strategy in any of that .
It ’ s just box-checking .
“ Doctors told me to shut things down , so I did .
Then my base told me to open things up , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubtless helped spread the foolish willingness among some of his fans to end lockdown measures before it ’ s advisable by happy-talking the potential danger and suggesting that the spreading panic was Democratic/media alarmism designed to wound him .
Now he ’ s stuck in a feedback loop : He told his fans not to overreact , then doctors warned him that the country would melt down if he didn ’ t react , now he ’ s acted and his fans are telling him not to overreact , so he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done and the doctors will panic , etc .
Here ’ s what ’ s going to happen .
Next week he ’ ll start chattering about how the 15-day period is up and it ’ s time for Americans to start working again .
Every epidemiologist in the country will summarily freak out , insisting it ’ s way too early .
Trump will waver , but for reasons of pure face-saving will insist that *some* people need to go back to work ASAP .
Americans won ’ t know what to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ?
Governors , especially governors in red states , won ’ t know what to do either .
Keep things locked down like the doctors say or show partisan loyalty by reopening for business ?
Partisanship among average joes will get extremely stupid and dangerous , with Democrats wanting to self-isolate and Republicans insisting that it ’ s time to chill out and start working .
There ’ s just one wrinkle : The scenes out of New York City during this same period will be very , very bad .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for business today , it ’ s entirely possible ( or likely ) that the reports there will be so grim by next weekend that a sustained lockdown past the 15 days becomes a smart move even for someone like him who thinks short-term , in order to quell rising public panic .
And even if he ’ s still not convinced a week from now , there are fortunately some people in his orbit who remain admirably clear-eyed about the situation .
Steve Bannon was on Fox Business yesterday insisting that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow the virus ’ s spread as swiftly as possible : “ Whether it takes two weeks or four weeks , we get through this hard and fast.
” Lindsey Graham is entirely right here : Correct .
It ’ s not an either/or question .
You don ’ t either get a hold on the virus or have a functioning economy .
You get a hold on the virus in order to have a functioning economy .
Here ’ s the president ’ s old friend , Joe Scarborough , also grasping @ @ @

In fairness to Trump, he hasn’t said that we are. But tweets like the one below, shortening people’s collective time horizon for how long it’ll take to get a handle on this, will do more harm than good by creating false hope. It’s like when he touts hydroxychloroquine as a potential magic bullet against the virus. People need hope from their leaders, and he’s right that anecdotal reports about the drug have been encouraging, but he doesn’t consider the side effects of the things he says. In the case of hydroxychloroquine, the side effect is a shortage that’s putting lupus patients at risk even though no one’s sure if it’s effective against COVID-19 yet. In the case of the 15-day period, the side effect is leading people to believe that a more extended period of isolation in the name of containing the disease is an overreaction and shouldn’t be followed.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1241935285916782593
It’s one thousand percent true that shelter-in-place orders can’t continue indefinitely. My favorite analogy for what we’re going through economically right now is a cancer patient getting radiation. The treatment is horrendous — but it might send the cancer into remission while saving the patient’s life. Needless to say, though, it can’t go on forever. If you give someone a Chernobyl-sized dose of radiation, it’ll kill the cancer by killing them. On the other hand, there’s no point in giving a patient a single dose of radiation haphazardly and then telling him “Good luck” and sending him on his way. You won’t have killed the cancer; all you’ll have done is expose him to radiation needlessly, making him sicker for no good reason. There’s a course of treatment. If you’re not going to follow the course, it’s foolish to start treatment in the first place.
When I see him retweeting stuff like this, I wonder if he has any handle on what the strategy is or even a solid grasp of what’s going on.
That sounds suspiciously like the British coronavirus plan that Boris Johnson had to hurriedly abandon when his advisors realized it would mean hundreds of thousands of deaths and bring the British economy to its knees. There was no 15-day lockdown in the British plan but the rest of it resembled the tweet above: Lock all the old people away for four months or so and let the healthier younger population carry on more or less as usual, infecting each other and building herd immunity. Then, once herd immunity is achieved, it’ll be safe for the old people to come out.
But the Brits saw two problems there. One: Even with the elderly in mass quarantine, there’d still be so many dire cases of COVID-19 among the “healthier” parts of the population that the health-care system would be overwhelmed many times over. It’d be wonderful if coronavirus were as ineffective against adults age 20 to 65 as it seems to be among children, but it isn’t. American newspapers are littered with reports right now of healthy younger people needing some form of hospital treatment. The Brits projected many thousands of people dying even among the “healthy” population before the quarantine for older people ended. Which brings us to the second problem: Most older people can’t manage life without younger people. Many of them need health care and other forms of assistance that are provided by the rest of the population. How are they supposed to get that care while the virus is spreading like wildfire among the “healthy” group? One British epidemiologist said, after being asked about the Brits’ plan to quarantine nursing homes, “Who do you think works at those nursing homes? Highly trained gibbons?”
The weirdest part of the “let’s get back to work” push is that it seems to imagine that coronavirus containment and economic recovery are a pure either/or choice. We can either continue to stay at home and watch the economy disintegrate or we can restore the economy (somewhat) and accept some higher number of deaths as the price. (Prolonged economic downturns have a body count all their own, after all.) But it’s not either/or. Paint me a portrait of the economy “recovering” amid an accelerating outbreak in which the entire labor force is suddenly being infected en masse and unable to come to work. What sort of lasting economic disruption might be caused by a mass die-off?
This isn’t either/or. We can have a slower economic catastrophe with fewer deaths by flattening the curve or we can have a faster economic catastrophe with many more deaths by carrying on as usual. I’m willing to entertain arguments that a higher body count that produces a smaller economic calamity is optimal from the standpoint of general human welfare compared to a lower body count that produces an economic calamity three times as large. But the higher the body count gets, the stronger those arguments need to be.
As I understand it, this is exactly what the shelter-in-place orders are designed to achieve. They’re not just a random “pause” to slow down the disease before we all run back to work and start re-infecting each other, turning a flattening curve into a sharp one. They’re a stalling tactic.
Whitmer: “This will be temporary. This intervention is important to buy time so we can create surge capacity in our hospitals, so we can ramp up testing and develop therapeutic drugs that may lower hospitalization and fatality rates." https://t.co/SqFnLAjEnD — Melissa Nann Burke (@nannburke) March 23, 2020
More tests, more masks, more drugs, plus more draconian isolation measures for senior citizens once the rest of us have precautions in place. The sooner all of that happens, the less risk there is in unshuttering businesses. At the Blaze today, Leon Wolf argues that “At some point, President Trump will have to have the courage to tell the doctors, ‘No.'” But the doctors are well aware of the consequences of a profound economic contraction. That’s not just an economic problem, after all. It’s a public health problem too.
To me, the most interesting thing in this interview with Dr. Fauci is that he does not think it's at all unreasonable to consider the longterm economic harm of indefinite shutdowns. https://t.co/xldDCfC9eX pic.twitter.com/lOWdWFlFqL — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) March 23, 2020
Scott Gottlieb, one of the most visible doctors on TV and print during this crisis, published an op-ed yesterday addressing the question, “How Long Will the Coronavirus Lockdowns Go On?” It depends on whether a particular city or state is a hot spot, he points out, but tests, masks, and drugs are an absolute prerequisite to containing the spread nationwide.
The population tactics are blunt instruments, necessary for isolating hot spots like New York and Seattle. Other places may be able to rely more on individual interventions, which cause less disruption and economic damage. Yet every state should be taking steps such as encouraging social distancing and preparing to expand hospital capacity. Some states and cities that haven’t seen as many cases yet—such as New Orleans—have been too slow to take the threat seriously. For this to work, the U.S. will need widespread testing to know where and to what extent the virus is spreading. Testing capacity has increased significantly in the past few weeks thanks to relentless efforts from public, academic and private labs such as Quest and LabCorp. Producers of testing kits are also working overtime. A new test developed by Cepheid can be deployed in a doctor’s office… Another step: serological surveillance, which means blood tests to detect antibodies developed to fight the novel coronavirus. These antibodies confer immunity and can reveal whether a person has been exposed. If a sizable portion of a local community has some protection, authorities can be more confident in relying on less invasive measures. Once deployed, serological tests are cheap, straightforward, and easy to scale.
Trump doesn’t think long-term, though. If he did, he wouldn’t have been touting the small number of confirmed cases in the U.S. three weeks ago. He thinks short-term, in response to news cycles, and the news lately has been consumed with apocalyptic unemployment numbers coming this week and an unprecedented economic contraction in the second quarter. He also changes his mind frequently depending upon what he’s hearing from experts and what Fox News and other members of his cheering section are telling him privately. It was just six days ago, remember, after being lobbied by Tucker Carlson to take the virus more seriously, that Trump talked about the virus potentially “washing through” America all the way into July or August. Steve Mnuchin was on TV as recently as yesterday projecting that widespread lockdowns could last 10-12 weeks, into June, with more assistance to come from Congress to help people and businesses manage until then. Now, this morning, there are reports of him talking privately about reopening the country for business sooner than doctors advise, potentially destroying the gains that have been made to slow the spread of the disease from the past week of aggressive social distancing.
There’s no strategy in any of that. It’s just box-checking. “Doctors told me to shut things down, so I did. Then my base told me to open things up, so I did.” The irony is that he doubtless helped spread the foolish willingness among some of his fans to end lockdown measures before it’s advisable by happy-talking the potential danger and suggesting that the spreading panic was Democratic/media alarmism designed to wound him. Now he’s stuck in a feedback loop: He told his fans not to overreact, then doctors warned him that the country would melt down if he didn’t react, now he’s acted and his fans are telling him not to overreact, so he’ll try to undo what he’s done and the doctors will panic, etc.
Here’s what’s going to happen. Next week he’ll start chattering about how the 15-day period is up and it’s time for Americans to start working again. Every epidemiologist in the country will summarily freak out, insisting it’s way too early. Trump will waver, but for reasons of pure face-saving will insist that *some* people need to go back to work ASAP. Americans won’t know what to do. Listen to Fauci or to Trump? Governors, especially governors in red states, won’t know what to do either. Keep things locked down like the doctors say or show partisan loyalty by reopening for business? Partisanship among average joes will get extremely stupid and dangerous, with Democrats wanting to self-isolate and Republicans insisting that it’s time to chill out and start working. There’s just one wrinkle: The scenes out of New York City during this same period will be very, very bad. As much as Trump may want to reopen for business today, it’s entirely possible (or likely) that the reports there will be so grim by next weekend that a sustained lockdown past the 15 days becomes a smart move even for someone like him who thinks short-term, in order to quell rising public panic.
And even if he’s still not convinced a week from now, there are fortunately some people in his orbit who remain admirably clear-eyed about the situation. Steve Bannon was on Fox Business yesterday insisting that we need a “full shutdown” to slow the virus’s spread as swiftly as possible: “Whether it takes two weeks or four weeks, we get through this hard and fast.” Lindsey Graham is entirely right here:
There is no functioning economy unless we control the virus. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 23, 2020
Correct. It’s not an either/or question. You don’t either get a hold on the virus or have a functioning economy. You get a hold on the virus in order to have a functioning economy.
Here’s the president’s old friend, Joe Scarborough, also grasping the problem.


hotair--2020-03-23--Madonna: You know what's great about the coronavirus...

I guess this is what happens when Madonna isn ’ t invited to sing Imagine with a bunch of other celebrities .
Yesterday she released her own video of thoughts about the virus and , no kidding , her big takeaway is that there ’ s something almost admirable about coronavirus .
“ That ’ s the thing about Covid-19 , ” Madonna says in the video posted to Instagram Sunday , “ it doesn ’ t care about how rich you are , how famous you are , how funny you are , how smart you are , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what amazing stories you can tell.
” “ It ’ s the great equalizer and what ’ s terrible about it is what ’ s great about it , ” she added .
“ What ’ s terrible about it is that it ’ s has made us all equal in many ways and what ’ s wonderful about it is that it ’ s made us all equal in many ways … Like I used to say at the end of ‘ Human Nature ’ every night , we are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ship goes down , we ’ re all going down together.
” The first thing that ’ s weird about this is something you might not notice right away .
This video isn ’ t shot by Madonna holding her phone up in front of herself .
And the camera isn ’ t propped up on a tripod either , it ’ s moving .
Someone is in there filming this .
So clearly Madonna is not social distancing , even in her bathtub .
Also , did you notice the piano @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m guessing she added that later which just emphasizes that this is a carefully crafted product .
It makes me wonder how many takes of this she did before she got it right .
Of course she ’ s not wrong about coronavirus being indiscriminate , but what is the point of saying so from a marble bathtub full of rose petals next to faucets that look like they were hand-polished by an entire team of domestic workers ?
She ’ s clearly flaunting her wealth even as she says it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain poignancy to this if you look at it biographically .
Madonna got her start as the “ Material Girl ” in the mid-1980s .
Her brand was to shock and titillate .
She was very self-consciously looking to cash in on her sex appeal .
And it worked .
She became very rich and very famous and eventually moved away from that early image and became religious after a fashion .
But this end-of-all-things video makes her out to be a rich woman who , having left the real world far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone else .
And she sort of enjoys that feeling once again .
There ’ s an implied story here about fame as a kind of self-isolation .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s the “ Rosebud ” moment from Citizen Kane , but there ’ s something there that might be interesting .
The problem is that , whatever coronavirus means to Madonna , she really doesn ’ t face the same risks as everyone else .
Yes , she could get infected but you can bet she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toilet paper at the bodega down the street .
She has people for that .
And if she wants Chinese food , she doesn ’ t have to deal with takeout or delivery , she probably has a chef or , at a minimum , a well-stocked kitchen .
Honestly , what would have been far more interesting to me than this weird clip would be Madonna describing in detail how she has responded to the coronavirus in her own home .
What is the current number of staff ?
Has she reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except the cameraperson ) to stay home ?
Is she paying them while they stay away ?
Who is doing her shopping ?
Who is preparing the rose petals for her bath ?
Do the people still working in the house wear gloves and masks ?
The real story is probably a lot more interesting than the Sunset Blvd .
moment she was going for here .
If she wanted to actually be revealing about her life she could have done that without getting naked in the bathtub .
Here ’ s the @ @

I guess this is what happens when Madonna isn’t invited to sing Imagine with a bunch of other celebrities. Yesterday she released her own video of thoughts about the virus and, no kidding, her big takeaway is that there’s something almost admirable about coronavirus.
“That’s the thing about Covid-19,” Madonna says in the video posted to Instagram Sunday, “it doesn’t care about how rich you are, how famous you are, how funny you are, how smart you are, where you live, how old you are, what amazing stories you can tell.” “It’s the great equalizer and what’s terrible about it is what’s great about it,” she added. “What’s terrible about it is that it’s has made us all equal in many ways and what’s wonderful about it is that it’s made us all equal in many ways … Like I used to say at the end of ‘Human Nature’ every night, we are all in the same boat. And if the ship goes down, we’re all going down together.”
The first thing that’s weird about this is something you might not notice right away. This video isn’t shot by Madonna holding her phone up in front of herself. And the camera isn’t propped up on a tripod either, it’s moving. Someone is in there filming this. So clearly Madonna is not social distancing, even in her bathtub.
Also, did you notice the piano soundtrack of slightly disturbing music? I’m guessing she added that later which just emphasizes that this is a carefully crafted product. It makes me wonder how many takes of this she did before she got it right.
Of course she’s not wrong about coronavirus being indiscriminate, but what is the point of saying so from a marble bathtub full of rose petals next to faucets that look like they were hand-polished by an entire team of domestic workers? She’s clearly flaunting her wealth even as she says it doesn’t matter.
Maybe there is a certain poignancy to this if you look at it biographically. Madonna got her start as the “Material Girl” in the mid-1980s. Her brand was to shock and titillate. She was very self-consciously looking to cash in on her sex appeal. And it worked. She became very rich and very famous and eventually moved away from that early image and became religious after a fashion. But this end-of-all-things video makes her out to be a rich woman who, having left the real world far behind suddenly finds herself as vulnerable as everyone else. And she sort of enjoys that feeling once again. There’s an implied story here about fame as a kind of self-isolation. I’m not saying it’s the “Rosebud” moment from Citizen Kane, but there’s something there that might be interesting.
The problem is that, whatever coronavirus means to Madonna, she really doesn’t face the same risks as everyone else. Yes, she could get infected but you can bet she’s not risking her health to squabble over toilet paper at the bodega down the street. She has people for that. And if she wants Chinese food, she doesn’t have to deal with takeout or delivery, she probably has a chef or, at a minimum, a well-stocked kitchen.
Honestly, what would have been far more interesting to me than this weird clip would be Madonna describing in detail how she has responded to the coronavirus in her own home. What is the current number of staff? Has she reduced hours? Has she told everyone (except the cameraperson) to stay home? Is she paying them while they stay away? Who is doing her shopping? Who is preparing the rose petals for her bath? Do the people still working in the house wear gloves and masks?
The real story is probably a lot more interesting than the Sunset Blvd. moment she was going for here. If she wanted to actually be revealing about her life she could have done that without getting naked in the bathtub. Here’s the clip:
https://twitter.com/Madonna/status/1241768707631841281


hotair--2020-03-23--Open thread: Will Senate get past cloture on $2 trillion COVID-19 bailout,

Open thread: Will Senate get past cloture on $2 trillion COVID-19 bailout, or will Dems hold out for "an expansion of wind and solar tax cuts"? McConnell to Schumer: Explain why airline carbon footprint is more important; Schumer: "We're very close"; Update: Same day voting? Update: Blocked again

The Senate gavels back into session now , the day after Chuck Schumer led a Democratic obstruction on a coronavirus relief package .
The timing was a concession by Mitch McConnell to Schumer after yesterday ’ s debacle , in the hope that a deal could get cut before the next attempt to push the shell bill past cloture in order to expedite the eventual agreement on the $ 2 trillion CARES Act .
Negotiations continued overnight and this morning , but thus far no signs of a breakthrough have emerged .
Can Congress actually function in a crisis ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus they put on the crisis itself .
According to a senior Republican Capitol Hill aide , Nancy Pelosi returned to Washington to add some hobby horses to the bill .
Among them were : • An increase in collective bargaining power for unions • An expansion of wind and solar tax cuts What do those have to do with the coronavirus crisis , one might ask .
Republicans certainly did , and they ’ re correct to do so .
These have nothing at all to do with the crisis at hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Democrats ’ special interest groups .
The condition on aid to airlines will likely force them to decline the loans , the aide noted , resulting in massive layoffs or at least furloughs .
This , as Guy Benson points out , is not a denial either : That ’ s not to say that Republicans don ’ t have a few other questions to answer , either .
Democrats took issue with a lack of oversight and transparency on bailout-cash distribution , which certainly sounds like a legitimate concern for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congressional Democrats have demanded the legislation include guardrails to prevent firms that receive the emergency aid from firing their workers or stripping them of their health care , among other asks by labor groups .
They also are balking at giving Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin so much authority to determine which firms receive the assistance .
Section 4003 of the legislation accounts for $ 500 billion for “ emergency relief and taxpayer protections.
” Of that money , $ 50 billion would go to passenger airlines , $ 8 billion to cargo airlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to national security , and $ 425 billion for businesses , cities and states .
The bill doesn ’ t give much more information than that in terms of who would qualify for loans and loan guarantees , leaving much of it up to Mnuchin .
Congressional aides in both parties say they will not budge on the issue , although top party leaders huddled in emergency meetings Sunday to resolve this impasse and others , and talks remained fluid .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) said the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation , calling it “ pretty solidly bipartisan ” despite Democratic anger over the bailout provisions and others .
… “ There ’ s too much money with no oversight , ” Sen. Jon Tester ( D-Mont . )
told reporters Sunday .
After what happened to the money in the 2009 ’ s $ 850 billion stimulus package , that ’ s a big concern .
The money needs to be distributed rapidly , which means Congress probably can ’ t be trusted with it , but they should have robust oversight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There should be enough rules in place to make sure we ’ re not funding another Cash for Clunkers or Solyndra , just to name a couple of the many lowlights of Porkulus , or stuffing money into corporations ’ pockets just so they can buy back their own stock rather than keeping people employed .
In the early absence of any reason to have confidence in Congress , the Fed tried to keep market psychology from running amok .
They rolled out a $ 300 billion liquidity operation designed to keep businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Reserve on Monday announced aggressive new emergency measures to support the economy and ensure that credit flows to households and businesses as the country faces the prospect of a deep downturn from the coronavirus pandemic .
The central bank is committing to buy as many U.S. government bonds and mortgage-backed securities as needed “ to support smooth market functioning.
” … The Fed is launching three emergency lending facilities , including two that will buy corporate debt .
The third is a revival of an emergency program the central bank created during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to banks against collateral that includes bundled student loans , auto loans , credit card loans and small-business loans .
These facilities are designed to support $ 300 billion in new credit , and the Treasury Department will kick in $ 30 billion to help cover losses .
The Fed also said it will soon start up a program designed “ to support lending to eligible small-and medium sized businesses , complementing efforts ” by the Small Business Administration .
Thus far , it doesn ’ t appear to be enough to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least they ’ re not stampeding either : We can expect Congress to do the right thing , as usual after exhausting all other possibilities .
The final agreement will likely have better controls and transparency , but hopefully dispense with pork and the hobby-horse demands .
If Congress can ’ t meet this crisis responsibly , they can kiss whatever ’ s left of their credibility good-bye .
Update : I ’ m guessing this means they haven ’ t come to an agreement yet … Update : Schumer complained about getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but says “ we are very close ” to getting an agreement today : Meanwhile , Pelosi has dropped a 1200-page behemoth after complaining about the GOP ’ s supposedly bloated bill : Update : Pelosi ’ s bill is not exactly focused on the crisis : What in the hell … ?
Update : Rep. Dan Crenshaw confirms the earlier report from the GOP aide , and minces no words in his contempt over it : Update : The GOP picked up a couple of votes this time around , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says he ’ s still negotiating with the White House and that cloture is premature on the shell bill .
If they ’ re looking for solar-tax credits , they clearly still have not seen the political light on how this will all look in November .

McConnell to Schumer: Explain why airline carbon footprint is more important; Schumer: "We're very close"; Update: Same day voting? Update: Blocked again
The Senate gavels back into session now, the day after Chuck Schumer led a Democratic obstruction on a coronavirus relief package. The timing was a concession by Mitch McConnell to Schumer after yesterday’s debacle, in the hope that a deal could get cut before the next attempt to push the shell bill past cloture in order to expedite the eventual agreement on the $2 trillion CARES Act. Negotiations continued overnight and this morning, but thus far no signs of a breakthrough have emerged.
Can Congress actually function in a crisis? That might depend on just how much focus they put on the crisis itself. According to a senior Republican Capitol Hill aide, Nancy Pelosi returned to Washington to add some hobby horses to the bill. Among them were:
An increase in collective bargaining power for unions
Heightened fuel emissions standards for airlines
An expansion of wind and solar tax cuts
What do those have to do with the coronavirus crisis, one might ask. Republicans certainly did, and they’re correct to do so. These have nothing at all to do with the crisis at hand, but everything to do with pandering to Democrats’ special interest groups. The condition on aid to airlines will likely force them to decline the loans, the aide noted, resulting in massive layoffs or at least furloughs.
This, as Guy Benson points out, is not a denial either:
Notice that this is not a denial of what Dems are seeking, according to my source. It’s a “they’re doing it too!” response. Speaking of which: If Republicans are pushing ancillary stuff…they should stop! This is *not the time.* https://t.co/QeK8RL45oQ — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) March 23, 2020
That’s not to say that Republicans don’t have a few other questions to answer, either. Democrats took issue with a lack of oversight and transparency on bailout-cash distribution, which certainly sounds like a legitimate concern for a two trillion dollar deluge of cash:
Congressional Democrats have demanded the legislation include guardrails to prevent firms that receive the emergency aid from firing their workers or stripping them of their health care, among other asks by labor groups. They also are balking at giving Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin so much authority to determine which firms receive the assistance. Section 4003 of the legislation accounts for $500 billion for “emergency relief and taxpayer protections.” Of that money, $50 billion would go to passenger airlines, $8 billion to cargo airlines, $17 billion for companies deemed important to national security, and $425 billion for businesses, cities and states. The bill doesn’t give much more information than that in terms of who would qualify for loans and loan guarantees, leaving much of it up to Mnuchin. Congressional aides in both parties say they will not budge on the issue, although top party leaders huddled in emergency meetings Sunday to resolve this impasse and others, and talks remained fluid. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the Senate would move to vote Monday on the legislation, calling it “pretty solidly bipartisan” despite Democratic anger over the bailout provisions and others. … “There’s too much money with no oversight,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) told reporters Sunday.
After what happened to the money in the 2009’s $850 billion stimulus package, that’s a big concern. The money needs to be distributed rapidly, which means Congress probably can’t be trusted with it, but they should have robust oversight over whoever does make those decisions. There should be enough rules in place to make sure we’re not funding another Cash for Clunkers or Solyndra, just to name a couple of the many lowlights of Porkulus, or stuffing money into corporations’ pockets just so they can buy back their own stock rather than keeping people employed.
In the early absence of any reason to have confidence in Congress, the Fed tried to keep market psychology from running amok. They rolled out a $300 billion liquidity operation designed to keep businesses running in the short term:
The Federal Reserve on Monday announced aggressive new emergency measures to support the economy and ensure that credit flows to households and businesses as the country faces the prospect of a deep downturn from the coronavirus pandemic. The central bank is committing to buy as many U.S. government bonds and mortgage-backed securities as needed “to support smooth market functioning.” … The Fed is launching three emergency lending facilities, including two that will buy corporate debt. The third is a revival of an emergency program the central bank created during the 2008 financial crisis that will lend to banks against collateral that includes bundled student loans, auto loans, credit card loans and small-business loans. These facilities are designed to support $300 billion in new credit, and the Treasury Department will kick in $30 billion to help cover losses. The Fed also said it will soon start up a program designed “to support lending to eligible small-and medium sized businesses, complementing efforts” by the Small Business Administration.
Thus far, it doesn’t appear to be enough to keep investors from going negative, but at least they’re not stampeding either:
Wall Street turned briefly positive Monday morning after a new round of emergency action from the Federal Reserve, before sinking into the red at the open. The Dow Jones Industrial Average opened with a loss of around 350 points, with the S&P 500 down by around 2 percent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq lower by 1.25 percent. Stocks slid despite “extensive new measures to support the economy” announced by the Federal Reserve. The central bank said Monday it would inject billions more into the financial system, boost credit flow for businesses and consumers, and provide $300 billion in new financing.
We can expect Congress to do the right thing, as usual after exhausting all other possibilities. The final agreement will likely have better controls and transparency, but hopefully dispense with pork and the hobby-horse demands. If Congress can’t meet this crisis responsibly, they can kiss whatever’s left of their credibility good-bye.
Update: I’m guessing this means they haven’t come to an agreement yet …
.@senatemajldr McConnell shredding Dems: I’d like to see Senate Democrats tell NYC doctors and nurses, who are literally overrun as we speak, that they’re filibustering hospital funding and more masks because they want to argue with the airlines over their carbon footprint.. pic.twitter.com/BKc0rIJGKU — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) March 23, 2020
Update: Schumer complained about getting “a Republican-only bill” yesterday, but says “we are very close” to getting an agreement today:
Sen. Chuck Schumer on massive economic stimulus package in response to coronavirus crisis: "We're very close to reaching a deal, very close. And our goal is to reach a deal today." https://t.co/9qDnZ7gBga pic.twitter.com/9X4c6pT9vM — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) March 23, 2020
Meanwhile, Pelosi has dropped a 1200-page behemoth after complaining about the GOP’s supposedly bloated bill:
https://twitter.com/KevinWGlass/status/1242119063792484358
Update: Pelosi’s bill is not exactly focused on the crisis:
Same day voter registration, a long-time Dem wishlist item, very relevant to addressing those businesses and working families about to go under from #COVID19. pic.twitter.com/KizGbEYq9O — Rachel Bovard (@rachelbovard) March 23, 2020
What in the hell …?
Update: Rep. Dan Crenshaw confirms the earlier report from the GOP aide, and minces no words in his contempt over it:
I can confirm this. This is what Democrats torpedoed the rescue package for. This will go down as one of the most cynical, disgusting, malevolent actions in history. Millions are losing jobs while they play these games. https://t.co/SUCtYxmXGo — Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) March 23, 2020
Update: The GOP picked up a couple of votes this time around, but the cloture vote still failed 49-46. Schumer says he’s still negotiating with the White House and that cloture is premature on the shell bill. If they’re looking for solar-tax credits, they clearly still have not seen the political light on how this will all look in November.