hotair--2020-04-14--Ezekiel Emanuel: There aren't going to be crowds at any event until fall 2021 at the earliest

There ’ s groaning about this quote online today but those of us who ’ ve been following coronavirus news closely surely must see it as a fait accompli by now .
Under what conceivable circumstances would it be safe and responsible to attend a concert or a major sports event before a vaccine for COVID-19 has been administered to enough people to provide herd immunity ?
This is life now .
If the Super Bowl is played next year at all , even in front of empty stands , it ’ ll be a minor miracle .
Emanuel : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done in stages , and it does have to start with more physical distancing at a work site that allows people who are at lower risk to come back .
Certain kinds of construction , or manufacturing or offices , in which you can maintain six-foot distances are more reasonable to start sooner .
Larger gatherings — conferences , concerts , sporting events — when people say they ’ re going to reschedule this conference or graduation event for October 2020 , I have no idea how they think that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things will be the last to return .
Realistically we ’ re talking fall 2021 at the earliest .
Restaurants where you can space tables out , maybe sooner .
In Hong Kong , Singapore and other places , we ’ re seeing resurgences when they open up and allow more activity .
It ’ s going to be this roller coaster , up and down .
Note well : “ At the earliest.
” If the vaccine arrives in fall of next year , which is in line with the timeframe of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be months after that before enough of us have gotten the shot to render crowds completely safe again .
If you missed this post a few weeks ago , read it now for a lesson on what a mass gathering can do to seed an apocalyptic local outbreak .
Northern Italy still hasn ’ t recovered from a single soccer match played in Milan on February 19 .
Coincidentally , there ’ s another story on the wires today about how devastating a large sports-related gathering could have been if fate hadn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would be the San Francisco 49ers ’ Super Bowl victory parade , which would have taken place in mid-February — at a moment when virus was starting to circulate in SF — if the Niners had held on to beat the Chiefs .
Because they didn ’ t , the city was spared and now stands as one of America ’ s major success stories in containing its outbreak .
Public health experts point to mass gatherings as places where highly contagious viruses spread easily , and championship parades are particularly vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of thousands—and potentially millions—of screaming , hugging and beer-sharing fans on crowded streets in major cities .
They ’ re ideal breeding grounds for respiratory illnesses .
And the timing of this Super Bowl parade could ’ ve made it a super-spreading event .
“ It is certainly hard to imagine a more high-risk situation , ” said Dr. Niraj Sehgal , who leads UCSF ’ s Covid-19 command center… It ’ s impossible to know precisely how many people would have packed the streets to fete quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo , coach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 49ers .
But it ’ s possible to offer a rough estimate : a lot of people .
When the Golden State Warriors won their three recent championships , the parades in Oakland attracted reported crowds of between 500,000 to 1.5 million fans .
“ If one person had it and spread it to a number of people at the parade , that could ’ ve had an impact on the epidemic trajectory , ” said Carl Bergstrom , a University of Washington biology professor .
San Francisco ’ s mayor , London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down before most other major American cities did .
Containment in the Bay Area is a key reason why California ’ s epidemic remains so shockingly small .
But mid-February was still early in America ’ s experience with COVID-19 and Breed would have been under immense pressure not to cancel a once-in-a-lifetime party for the Super Bowl champs .
The city might have been brought to its knees if the parade had been held .
That same logic will prevent large crowds for the next 18 months .
No one wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something as enjoyable but ultimately frivolous as sports or concerts when the country will be stuck struggling to limit new infections every day for the sake of keeping people at work .
Even if sports were allowed to let spectators in , odds are that they ’ d never draw enough to make it worthwhile financially .
“ I don ’ t think the marginal customer for a stadium or a concert or a cruise ship is coming back soon , ” said Scott Gottlieb to Vox .
“ I think people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly international travel .
Businesses are going to be more circumspect about bringing together large groups of people.
” There ’ s not enough hydroxychloroquine in America to get pro sports attendance back to what it was before 2022 .
Frankly , I continue not to see how sports will be played even without fans there .
There ’ s too much contact between players in football , basketball , and hockey to avert infection , and once one player is infected , the entire league would screech to a halt as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the one possible exception because contact is minimal , but read this smart SI piece about just how insane the logistical challenge would be for any sport to try to quarantine the entire league so that games could be played safely every day .
Not just the players and coaches but all kinds of support staff , from security to transportation to caterers and so on , would need to be locked down together for months .
No one could go in or out of the bubble without having to stay off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 days .
If so much as one player got infected due to some lapse , the whole league would shut down for weeks .
Imagine how much money might be potentially wasted trying to pull that off only to have it collapse halfway through the season because some idiot snuck out overnight and contracted the bug .
Nothing ’ s going to make it safe to congregate absent a magic bullet of some kind .
A professor at Oxford claimed a few days ago that they ’ re very confident in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six months , but it ’ s not clear from the story what “ ready ” means .
Ready for human trials ?
Ready for manufacture ?
Ready to be administered to the public ?
I haven ’ t read anything anywhere that suggests the vaccine timeline is less than a year realistically .
The most promising pharmaceutical news lately is the idea that vaccines developed for other diseases might provide partial protection against COVID-19 , most notably the BCG vaccine developed years ago for tuberculosis .
Researchers have noticed that children vaccinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to certain other diseases as well , including some respiratory viruses .
Some researchers have noticed that developing countries where children get BCG have had noticeably lower fatality rates from COVID-19 so far .
There ’ s a trial going on right now in Boston to see if BCG can lower the severity of coronavirus infections .
Other researchers believe that the data is being misinterpreted , though , and that the spread is lower in countries where BCG vaccinations are common because the disease hasn ’ t really “ arrived ” there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works against the virus , it ’ d have to work surprisingly well to make local authorities comfortable with holding nonessential mass gatherings again .
What sort of transmission and fatality rates would be “ acceptable ” for a city to greenlight a Taylor Swift concert ?
How many people would need to have gotten the BCG vaccine to make it kinda sorta safe for them to show up ?

There’s groaning about this quote online today but those of us who’ve been following coronavirus news closely surely must see it as a fait accompli by now.
Under what conceivable circumstances would it be safe and responsible to attend a concert or a major sports event before a vaccine for COVID-19 has been administered to enough people to provide herd immunity?
This is life now. If the Super Bowl is played next year at all, even in front of empty stands, it’ll be a minor miracle.
Emanuel: Yes, restarting the economy has to be done in stages, and it does have to start with more physical distancing at a work site that allows people who are at lower risk to come back. Certain kinds of construction, or manufacturing or offices, in which you can maintain six-foot distances are more reasonable to start sooner. Larger gatherings — conferences, concerts, sporting events — when people say they’re going to reschedule this conference or graduation event for October 2020, I have no idea how they think that’s a plausible possibility. I think those things will be the last to return. Realistically we’re talking fall 2021 at the earliest. Restaurants where you can space tables out, maybe sooner. In Hong Kong, Singapore and other places, we’re seeing resurgences when they open up and allow more activity. It’s going to be this roller coaster, up and down.
Note well: “At the earliest.” If the vaccine arrives in fall of next year, which is in line with the timeframe of 12 to 18 months, it’ll be months after that before enough of us have gotten the shot to render crowds completely safe again.
If you missed this post a few weeks ago, read it now for a lesson on what a mass gathering can do to seed an apocalyptic local outbreak. Northern Italy still hasn’t recovered from a single soccer match played in Milan on February 19. Coincidentally, there’s another story on the wires today about how devastating a large sports-related gathering could have been if fate hadn’t intervened to cancel it. That would be the San Francisco 49ers’ Super Bowl victory parade, which would have taken place in mid-February — at a moment when virus was starting to circulate in SF — if the Niners had held on to beat the Chiefs. Because they didn’t, the city was spared and now stands as one of America’s major success stories in containing its outbreak.
Public health experts point to mass gatherings as places where highly contagious viruses spread easily, and championship parades are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases. They bring together hundreds of thousands—and potentially millions—of screaming, hugging and beer-sharing fans on crowded streets in major cities. They’re ideal breeding grounds for respiratory illnesses. And the timing of this Super Bowl parade could’ve made it a super-spreading event. “It is certainly hard to imagine a more high-risk situation,” said Dr. Niraj Sehgal, who leads UCSF’s Covid-19 command center… It’s impossible to know precisely how many people would have packed the streets to fete quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo, coach Kyle Shanahan and the rest of the 49ers. But it’s possible to offer a rough estimate: a lot of people. When the Golden State Warriors won their three recent championships, the parades in Oakland attracted reported crowds of between 500,000 to 1.5 million fans. “If one person had it and spread it to a number of people at the parade, that could’ve had an impact on the epidemic trajectory,” said Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biology professor.
San Francisco’s mayor, London Breed, has been praised for locking down before most other major American cities did. Containment in the Bay Area is a key reason why California’s epidemic remains so shockingly small. But mid-February was still early in America’s experience with COVID-19 and Breed would have been under immense pressure not to cancel a once-in-a-lifetime party for the Super Bowl champs. The city might have been brought to its knees if the parade had been held.
That same logic will prevent large crowds for the next 18 months. No one wants to risk seeding a new local catastrophe for something as enjoyable but ultimately frivolous as sports or concerts when the country will be stuck struggling to limit new infections every day for the sake of keeping people at work. Even if sports were allowed to let spectators in, odds are that they’d never draw enough to make it worthwhile financially. “I don’t think the marginal customer for a stadium or a concert or a cruise ship is coming back soon,” said Scott Gottlieb to Vox. “I think people are going to be more circumspect about travel, particularly international travel. Businesses are going to be more circumspect about bringing together large groups of people.” There’s not enough hydroxychloroquine in America to get pro sports attendance back to what it was before 2022.
Frankly, I continue not to see how sports will be played even without fans there. There’s too much contact between players in football, basketball, and hockey to avert infection, and once one player is infected, the entire league would screech to a halt as teams were forced to quarantine. Baseball is the one possible exception because contact is minimal, but read this smart SI piece about just how insane the logistical challenge would be for any sport to try to quarantine the entire league so that games could be played safely every day. Not just the players and coaches but all kinds of support staff, from security to transportation to caterers and so on, would need to be locked down together for months. No one could go in or out of the bubble without having to stay off the field in isolation for at least 14 days. If so much as one player got infected due to some lapse, the whole league would shut down for weeks. Imagine how much money might be potentially wasted trying to pull that off only to have it collapse halfway through the season because some idiot snuck out overnight and contracted the bug.
Nothing’s going to make it safe to congregate absent a magic bullet of some kind. A professor at Oxford claimed a few days ago that they’re very confident in their vaccine and might have it ready in six months, but it’s not clear from the story what “ready” means. Ready for human trials? Ready for manufacture? Ready to be administered to the public? I haven’t read anything anywhere that suggests the vaccine timeline is less than a year realistically. The most promising pharmaceutical news lately is the idea that vaccines developed for other diseases might provide partial protection against COVID-19, most notably the BCG vaccine developed years ago for tuberculosis. Researchers have noticed that children vaccinated with BCG seem to be less susceptible to certain other diseases as well, including some respiratory viruses. Some researchers have noticed that developing countries where children get BCG have had noticeably lower fatality rates from COVID-19 so far. There’s a trial going on right now in Boston to see if BCG can lower the severity of coronavirus infections.
Other researchers believe that the data is being misinterpreted, though, and that the spread is lower in countries where BCG vaccinations are common because the disease hasn’t really “arrived” there yet. Even if the vaccine partially works against the virus, it’d have to work surprisingly well to make local authorities comfortable with holding nonessential mass gatherings again. What sort of transmission and fatality rates would be “acceptable” for a city to greenlight a Taylor Swift concert? How many people would need to have gotten the BCG vaccine to make it kinda sorta safe for them to show up?


hotair--2020-04-15--What if we let people self-report symptoms in addition to -- or even in lieu of -- mass testing?

A thought inspired by this story about what business leaders apparently told Trump today .
You want the economy to reopen ?
Then let ’ s see more testing .
Lots more .
In the first phone call convened between President Donald Trump and some members of his newly formed business council , industry leaders reiterated to the President what public health experts and governors have been telling him for weeks : that there would need to be guarantees of ramped-up coronavirus testing before people return to work , according to one person briefed on the discussions .
The call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectors on Wednesday , was the first task force teleconference aimed at devising a strategy for reopening the country .
Ideally we ’ ll have enough testing available by mid-May that we won ’ t need to guess who ’ s sick and who isn ’ t based on how they ’ re feeling on a given day .
But nothing about our predicament is ideal .
There ’ s no reason to believe the feds will be on the ball with testing in May when they blew it at the start of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intermittently even now .
If they can ’ t get up to speed soon , are we supposed to keep the economy shuttered until they can ?
It ’ s not just diagnostic tests they ’ ll need either .
This is a full-spectrum challenge .
The U.S. must be able to perform four categories of tests , Giroir said — testing people with symptoms of the illness to confirm they ’ re infected ; testing their close contacts to control the spread of the virus ; randomly testing asymptomatic people to head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibodies in healthy people , to identify Americans who have already been infected and recovered… Giroir said that if the U.S. was only seeing about 10,000 new cases a day , for example — the current rate is triple or quadruple that number — health authorities would have to perform at least 300,000 tests a month just to confirm those infections .
To contain the disease , another five to 10 additional people should be tested for every positive — as many as 3 million per month… But that doesn ’ t include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asymptomatic people , health workers , law enforcement personnel , or even the ordinary work force as a condition for companies to reopen their workplaces .
It doesn ’ t include contact-trace testing , of people who ’ ve been in contact with confirmed cases — on average , 5 per case , or another 1.5 million tests monthly if there are 10,000 new cases daily .
And it also doesn ’ t include antibody testing .
They ’ ve had trouble providing testing implements like swabs and reagents in the volume required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by commercial labs actually declined by 30 percent last week in the U.S. What are we going to do if we run into another testing glitch a month from now , when businesses are cautiously reopening their doors in the expectation that sick people can be rapidly identified and removed from society ?
A thought : Could we empower people to simply report the symptoms they ’ re having to local authorities in lieu of tests ?
It ’ s an imperfect solution , but a months-long shortfall in testing is also … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , doctors want widespread testing available when the country opens back up for two reasons : 1 .
At a micro level , they want to be able to identify infected people quickly and trace their contacts so that all who are infected can be quarantined .
2 .
At a macro level , they want to be able to spot clusters of infection , new “ hot spots , ” in communities before a small wildfire becomes a forest fire .
Both of those goals could be achieved ( again , imperfectly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a smartphone app that allowed anyone to notify the CDC and the local health department if they woke up with two or more of the now familiar symptoms — fever , dry cough , sore throat , loss of sense of smell , chills , eye pain , chest pressure .
Instead of the authorities having to wait hours or even days until a test was taken and the result processed , they ’ d know immediately that they have a probable COVID case and could act .
If the app were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting similar symptoms in the same small geographic area would alert them to a probable localized outbreak .
This is how the Kinsa system works , right ?
The difference is that Kinsa ’ s data on fevers is relayed automatically by its thermometers to the company ’ s databases .
But it doesn ’ t need to work that way .
It ’ s convenient , but the same process could be performed with analog thermometers by a group of people willing to faithfully type their daily temperature readings into the Kinsa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better if our hypothetical app could quickly notify all of the people with whom the sick person has recently been in contact that they ’ ve been in proximity to someone who ’ s probably infected with COVID-19 .
But guess what : That app is already in the works .
Seems like it ’ d be easy to build a self-reporting feature into it and then have major cultural influencers , starting with Trump , encourage the public to use the app en masse to report symptoms before they get tested .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be warned by the app to self-quarantine until the probable case was either confirmed as infected or cleared by testing .
If speed is important here , nothing ’ s as speedy as self-reporting .
The obvious objection is that we ’ ll have many false positives this way .
Lots of illnesses produce fever and chills , including the good ol ’ flu that ’ ll return in spades this fall .
Many probable cases of COVID won ’ t actually be COVID .
It ’ s a fair point , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our diagnostic testing is also producing inaccurate results .
And not just false positives .
False negatives .
Would you rather have people err on the side of self-quarantine if they have a fever or have them out and about spreading the virus because a diagnostic test incorrectly told them they weren ’ t infected ?
Testing would have a fantastic , unbeatable advantage over self-reporting , though , *if* it ever becomes so ubiquitous that we can test a chunk of asymptomatic people daily too .
Someone who ’ s infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is potentially very dangerous : There may be a lot of asymptomatic carriers out there .
Self-reporting won ’ t work for them .
But unless and until we reach the point where everyone with symptoms is getting tested quickly plus a batch of asymptomatic people ( what criteria would be used to test someone who ’ s not showing any symptoms ? )
, self-reporting seems like an obvious way to make up the shortfall in testing .
It could work in tandem with other strategies to allow community monitoring , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wastewater would also offer a clue as to whether local infections are increasing or decreasing .
Self-reporting seems like an obvious fallback solution , or even supplement , to widespread testing but I haven ’ t heard it discussed amid all the complaints about the testing shortfall .
Why not ?
Is it just because the Apple/Google contact tracing app wasn ’ t officially announced until a few days ago ?
There is some good news about testing out there , by the way .
Antibody tests should be much easier to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sooner than we think .

A thought inspired by this story about what business leaders apparently told Trump today. You want the economy to reopen? Then let’s see more testing. Lots more.
In the first phone call convened between President Donald Trump and some members of his newly formed business council, industry leaders reiterated to the President what public health experts and governors have been telling him for weeks: that there would need to be guarantees of ramped-up coronavirus testing before people return to work, according to one person briefed on the discussions. The call, one of a series with various sectors on Wednesday, was the first task force teleconference aimed at devising a strategy for reopening the country.
Ideally we’ll have enough testing available by mid-May that we won’t need to guess who’s sick and who isn’t based on how they’re feeling on a given day.
But nothing about our predicament is ideal. There’s no reason to believe the feds will be on the ball with testing in May when they blew it at the start of the epidemic and are bedeviled by it intermittently even now. If they can’t get up to speed soon, are we supposed to keep the economy shuttered until they can?
It’s not just diagnostic tests they’ll need either. This is a full-spectrum challenge.
The U.S. must be able to perform four categories of tests, Giroir said — testing people with symptoms of the illness to confirm they’re infected; testing their close contacts to control the spread of the virus; randomly testing asymptomatic people to head off new outbreaks; and testing for antibodies in healthy people, to identify Americans who have already been infected and recovered… Giroir said that if the U.S. was only seeing about 10,000 new cases a day, for example — the current rate is triple or quadruple that number — health authorities would have to perform at least 300,000 tests a month just to confirm those infections. To contain the disease, another five to 10 additional people should be tested for every positive — as many as 3 million per month… But that doesn’t include a wide range of other testing — asymptomatic people, health workers, law enforcement personnel, or even the ordinary work force as a condition for companies to reopen their workplaces. It doesn’t include contact-trace testing, of people who’ve been in contact with confirmed cases — on average, 5 per case, or another 1.5 million tests monthly if there are 10,000 new cases daily. And it also doesn’t include antibody testing.
They’ve had trouble providing testing implements like swabs and reagents in the volume required by labs, enough so that testing by commercial labs actually declined by 30 percent last week in the U.S. What are we going to do if we run into another testing glitch a month from now, when businesses are cautiously reopening their doors in the expectation that sick people can be rapidly identified and removed from society?
A thought: Could we empower people to simply report the symptoms they’re having to local authorities in lieu of tests? It’s an imperfect solution, but a months-long shortfall in testing is also … highly imperfect.
As I understand it, doctors want widespread testing available when the country opens back up for two reasons:
1. At a micro level, they want to be able to identify infected people quickly and trace their contacts so that all who are infected can be quarantined.
2. At a macro level, they want to be able to spot clusters of infection, new “hot spots,” in communities before a small wildfire becomes a forest fire.
Both of those goals could be achieved (again, imperfectly) with self-reporting. Imagine if there were a smartphone app that allowed anyone to notify the CDC and the local health department if they woke up with two or more of the now familiar symptoms — fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of sense of smell, chills, eye pain, chest pressure. Instead of the authorities having to wait hours or even days until a test was taken and the result processed, they’d know immediately that they have a probable COVID case and could act. If the app were widely available, a cluster of people reporting similar symptoms in the same small geographic area would alert them to a probable localized outbreak.
This is how the Kinsa system works, right? The difference is that Kinsa’s data on fevers is relayed automatically by its thermometers to the company’s databases. But it doesn’t need to work that way. It’s convenient, but the same process could be performed with analog thermometers by a group of people willing to faithfully type their daily temperature readings into the Kinsa app.
It’d be even better if our hypothetical app could quickly notify all of the people with whom the sick person has recently been in contact that they’ve been in proximity to someone who’s probably infected with COVID-19. But guess what: That app is already in the works. Seems like it’d be easy to build a self-reporting feature into it and then have major cultural influencers, starting with Trump, encourage the public to use the app en masse to report symptoms before they get tested. All contacts of a probable case could be warned by the app to self-quarantine until the probable case was either confirmed as infected or cleared by testing. If speed is important here, nothing’s as speedy as self-reporting.
The obvious objection is that we’ll have many false positives this way. Lots of illnesses produce fever and chills, including the good ol’ flu that’ll return in spades this fall. Many probable cases of COVID won’t actually be COVID. It’s a fair point, but let me gently remind you that much of our diagnostic testing is also producing inaccurate results. And not just false positives. False negatives. Would you rather have people err on the side of self-quarantine if they have a fever or have them out and about spreading the virus because a diagnostic test incorrectly told them they weren’t infected?
Testing would have a fantastic, unbeatable advantage over self-reporting, though, *if* it ever becomes so ubiquitous that we can test a chunk of asymptomatic people daily too. Someone who’s infected but not (yet) experiencing symptoms is potentially very dangerous:
1/3 New study shows that people with #COVID19 may be most infectious before their symptoms develop. The authors estimate that – on average – about 44% of secondary cases were infected from people who had not yet developed symptoms. https://t.co/C4KEeP1cMz — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) April 15, 2020
There may be a lot of asymptomatic carriers out there. Self-reporting won’t work for them. But unless and until we reach the point where everyone with symptoms is getting tested quickly plus a batch of asymptomatic people (what criteria would be used to test someone who’s not showing any symptoms?), self-reporting seems like an obvious way to make up the shortfall in testing. It could work in tandem with other strategies to allow community monitoring, too. For instance, testing of local wastewater would also offer a clue as to whether local infections are increasing or decreasing.
Self-reporting seems like an obvious fallback solution, or even supplement, to widespread testing but I haven’t heard it discussed amid all the complaints about the testing shortfall. Why not? Is it just because the Apple/Google contact tracing app wasn’t officially announced until a few days ago?
There is some good news about testing out there, by the way. Antibody tests should be much easier to come by than they have been, and sooner than we think.


hotair--2020-04-15--Fox News: Multiple sources claim the coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab <span class='red'>(Update

Fox News: Multiple sources claim the coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab (Update: CNN has a different take)

Fox News has an exclusive report based on anonymous sources who claim the coronavirus originated from a Wuhan research laboratory .
COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan laboratory not as a bioweapon , but as part of China ’ s effort to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States , multiple sources who have been briefed on the details of early actions by China ’ s government and seen relevant materials tell Fox News .
This may be the “ costliest government coverup of all time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The sources believe the initial transmission of the virus was bat-to-human , and that “ patient zero ” worked at the laboratory , then went into the population in Wuhan… Documents detail early efforts by doctors at the lab and early efforts at containment .
The Wuhan wet market initially identified as a possible point of origin never sold bats , and the sources tell Fox News that blaming the wet market was an effort by China to deflect blame from the laboratory , along with the country ’ s propaganda efforts targeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the wet market never sold bats is in line with a since retracted Chinese research paper which claimed exactly that .
This afternoon , Fox News ’ White House correspondent John Roberts was even more specific about what the sources were saying when he asked President Trump a question about the story .
“ Multiple sources are telling Fox News today that the United States government now has high confidence that while the coronavirus is a naturally occurring virus it emanated from a virology lab in Wuhan , ” Roberts said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lax safety protocols an intern was infected who later infected her boyfriend and then went to the wet market in Wuhan where it began to spread .
Does that correspond with what you have heard from officials ?
” “ Well , I don ’ t want to say that , John , but I will tell you , more and more we ’ re hearing the story and we ’ ll see , ” Trump replied adding , “ We are doing a very thorough investigation of this horrible situation.
” Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d ever discussed “ State Department concerns about lax safety protocols ” with President Xi Jinping .
That was apparently a reference to State Department cables which a Washington Post reporter described yesterday as expressing concern about lax security at a Wuhan viral laboratory .
“ I don ’ t want to discuss what I talked to him about the laboratory , ” Trump said , saying it was inappropriate .
You can watch the exchange in the clip below .
Several things jump out to me .
First , Trump did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
I ’ m not suggesting he knew the question was coming but he certainly didn ’ t seem unfamiliar with the content of the claim being made about the origin of the virus .
He reacted as if he ’ d heard this before .
Second , Trump refused to discuss what he ’ d talked about with President Xi Jinping but the way he did it was the opposite of a denial .
In fact , he more or less confirmed that the laboratory was a topic of conversation at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer any detail .
I don ’ t know if that was accidental but it certainly invites more questions .
Third , the language John Roberts used in his question is the analytic confidence language used by U.S. intelligence agencies .
His use of that language here suggests the anonymous sources are speaking on the basis of an analytic report from the CIA , NSA or other agency .
The Fox News story notes that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was asked about the possibility the virus came from a lab just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter , Jennifer Griffin ) .
I wrote about that here .
Gen. Milley replied , “ It should be no surprise to you that we ’ ve take a keen interest in that and we ’ ve had a lot of intelligence take a hard look at that.
” That fact that intel agencies were looking hard at this jibes with the idea that Fox News is getting this , directly or otherwise , from those agencies .
However , there ’ s a possible disconnect between what Fox News is reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I would just say at this point it ’ s inconclusive although the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural , but we don ’ t know for certain , ” Milley said .
That could be taken to rule out the idea of an engineered ( unnatural ) virus , but the question Milley was asked was whether this virus could have been released by a lab in Wuhan “ accidentally.
” So in that context he seemed to be suggesting that the weight of evidence supported the idea it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wet market not in a lab .
Did something change between yesterday and today or was Milley answer imprecise ?
Someone is leaking a lot of this information to reporters .
We ’ ll have to wait and see what it ’ s based on .
But obviously if it ’ s true that China knew this came from a lab and intentionally covered up the source , that would explain why they have been so energetic in trying to fuzz up the origins of the virus .
Update : CNN reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a lab accident but that this hasn ’ t been corroborated : US intelligence and national security officials say the United States government is looking into the possibility that the novel coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory rather than a market , according to multiple sources familiar with the matter who caution it is premature to draw any conclusions… An intelligence official familiar with the government analysis said a theory US intelligence officials are investigating is that the virus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan , China , and was accidentally released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN that US intelligence hasn ’ t been able to corroborate the theory but is trying to discern whether someone was infected in the lab through an accident or poor handling of materials and may have then infected others .
This sounds more like what Gen. Milley said Tuesday .
But this version has none of the specific detail mentioned by John Roberts in his question to the president , i.e .
the intern who became infected and passed it to his girlfriend .
So where is that story coming from ?
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loop or are Roberts ’ sources offering some kind of example of what might have happened ?

Fox News has an exclusive report based on anonymous sources who claim the coronavirus originated from a Wuhan research laboratory.
COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan laboratory not as a bioweapon, but as part of China’s effort to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States, multiple sources who have been briefed on the details of early actions by China’s government and seen relevant materials tell Fox News. This may be the “costliest government coverup of all time,” one of the sources said. The sources believe the initial transmission of the virus was bat-to-human, and that “patient zero” worked at the laboratory, then went into the population in Wuhan… Documents detail early efforts by doctors at the lab and early efforts at containment. The Wuhan wet market initially identified as a possible point of origin never sold bats, and the sources tell Fox News that blaming the wet market was an effort by China to deflect blame from the laboratory, along with the country’s propaganda efforts targeting the U.S. and Italy.
The claim that the wet market never sold bats is in line with a since retracted Chinese research paper which claimed exactly that.
This afternoon, Fox News’ White House correspondent John Roberts was even more specific about what the sources were saying when he asked President Trump a question about the story.
“Multiple sources are telling Fox News today that the United States government now has high confidence that while the coronavirus is a naturally occurring virus it emanated from a virology lab in Wuhan,” Roberts said. He added, “That because of lax safety protocols an intern was infected who later infected her boyfriend and then went to the wet market in Wuhan where it began to spread. Does that correspond with what you have heard from officials?”
“Well, I don’t want to say that, John, but I will tell you, more and more we’re hearing the story and we’ll see,” Trump replied adding, “We are doing a very thorough investigation of this horrible situation.”
Roberts pressed Trump by asking if he’d ever discussed “State Department concerns about lax safety protocols” with President Xi Jinping. That was apparently a reference to State Department cables which a Washington Post reporter described yesterday as expressing concern about lax security at a Wuhan viral laboratory.
“I don’t want to discuss what I talked to him about the laboratory,” Trump said, saying it was inappropriate.
You can watch the exchange in the clip below. Several things jump out to me. First, Trump did not sound even a little surprised by the question. I’m not suggesting he knew the question was coming but he certainly didn’t seem unfamiliar with the content of the claim being made about the origin of the virus. He reacted as if he’d heard this before.
Second, Trump refused to discuss what he’d talked about with President Xi Jinping but the way he did it was the opposite of a denial. In fact, he more or less confirmed that the laboratory was a topic of conversation at some point, he just refused to offer any detail. I don’t know if that was accidental but it certainly invites more questions.
Third, the language John Roberts used in his question is the analytic confidence language used by U.S. intelligence agencies. His use of that language here suggests the anonymous sources are speaking on the basis of an analytic report from the CIA, NSA or other agency.
The Fox News story notes that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was asked about the possibility the virus came from a lab just yesterday (by a different Fox News reporter, Jennifer Griffin). I wrote about that here. Gen. Milley replied, “It should be no surprise to you that we’ve take a keen interest in that and we’ve had a lot of intelligence take a hard look at that.” That fact that intel agencies were looking hard at this jibes with the idea that Fox News is getting this, directly or otherwise, from those agencies.
However, there’s a possible disconnect between what Fox News is reporting today and what Gen. Milley said yesterday. “I would just say at this point it’s inconclusive although the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural, but we don’t know for certain,” Milley said.
That could be taken to rule out the idea of an engineered (unnatural) virus, but the question Milley was asked was whether this virus could have been released by a lab in Wuhan “accidentally.” So in that context he seemed to be suggesting that the weight of evidence supported the idea it had arisen naturally, i.e. in a wet market not in a lab. Did something change between yesterday and today or was Milley answer imprecise?
Someone is leaking a lot of this information to reporters. We’ll have to wait and see what it’s based on. But obviously if it’s true that China knew this came from a lab and intentionally covered up the source, that would explain why they have been so energetic in trying to fuzz up the origins of the virus.
Update: Here’s Bret Baier’s report on this.
Update: CNN reports intel agencies are looking into the possibility of a lab accident but that this hasn’t been corroborated:
US intelligence and national security officials say the United States government is looking into the possibility that the novel coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory rather than a market, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter who caution it is premature to draw any conclusions… An intelligence official familiar with the government analysis said a theory US intelligence officials are investigating is that the virus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and was accidentally released to the public. Other sources told CNN that US intelligence hasn’t been able to corroborate the theory but is trying to discern whether someone was infected in the lab through an accident or poor handling of materials and may have then infected others.
This sounds more like what Gen. Milley said Tuesday. But this version has none of the specific detail mentioned by John Roberts in his question to the president, i.e. the intern who became infected and passed it to his girlfriend. So where is that story coming from? Are CNN’s sources not fully in the loop or are Roberts’ sources offering some kind of example of what might have happened?


hotair--2020-04-15--NYT: Say, has anyone noticed that an absent Congress has allowed Trump to run things on his own?

You mean the same Congress that just three months ago seemed obsessed with the argument that Donald Trump was a dangerous dictator who couldn ’ t be trusted with his office ?
Yes , some of us have noticed .
While doctors and nurses , police officers and firefighters , and even grocery workers and restaurant workers risk their lives and health to provide essential services , members of Congress have acted as though constitutional governance is a non-essential business — and have abdicated their role to contribute to leadership in a crisis .
At any rate , both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now begun to consider the implications of an AWOL Congress in a national emergency .
The pressure to find ways to get the job done remotely have begun to escalate : With Congress sidelined by the coronavirus pandemic and unable to return to the Capitol , House and Senate leaders are under increasing pressure from a bipartisan array of current and former lawmakers to shift to remote legislating , including using a secure online system to conduct votes .
… Good-government advocates see the moves as an imperative .
Without a way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no way to conduct oversight or act as a check on President Trump , who was impeached on charges of abuse of power and this week declared he had “ total ” authority to supersede governors ’ decisions about whether to reopen their states .
“ The choice is remote Congress or no Congress , ” said Daniel Schuman , the policy director of Demand Progress , a progressive organization that advocates government transparency and accountability .
“ And if you have no Congress , you have what our founders feared most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no legislative check.
” If that ’ s the case , then the answer will remain no Congress , at least for the next few weeks .
Even though the House has been studying this idea for weeks , and both chambers off and on since 9/11 , Roll Call points out that remote voting would require a change of rules .
And to change the rules , members have to show up under the current rules first : House Democratic leaders appear to be accelerating the consideration of options for remote voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to proceed may still come too late for use during the coronavirus pandemic .
“ We can ’ t do any of them right now because the rules will have to be modified , ” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer told reporters on a conference call Wednesday .
“ There will have to be agreement between the parties.
” House rules do not allow for the chamber to vote remotely or for committees to conduct formal hearings or business meetings without a physical presence .
A rules change would require lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution adopting remote work procedures — unless there were unanimous consent among members , which is unlikely .
So what ?
Call them back now .
They should have settled this rule change at the end of last month , when they had to come back to Congress to pass the CARES Act .
They should have stayed put at that point and done the jobs for which they asked constituents to elect them .
With aid running out to small businesses and a pressing need for follow-up legislation , Congress should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch , as well as all of the people working on the front lines risking infection themselves .
But even if they came back strictly to enable remote voting , that would be sufficient .
There ’ s no reason for them to leave their homes if they can work effectively from them .
However , if you think they ’ re just sheltering in place and pining to actually do their jobs , here ’ s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chuck Schumer from yesterday , criticizing FEMA for not agreeing to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can stage photo ops on the streets of New York City — sans masks !
— then they can bloody well get back to Capitol Hill and get back to work , at least long enough to arrange for remote voting and committee hearings .
So can the rest of their colleagues .
Any of them who don ’ t feel that their jobs are essential enough to take the same risks as grocery store workers and postal carriers are hereby invited to resign and put their uselessness into retirement .
Governors can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and intestinal fortitude .
Meanwhile , Nancy Pelosi sent a 90-second demonstration yesterday ( at about the same time as the AOC-Schumer stunt ! )
on what seems to be more important to her than her job as the funds run out on the small business rescue package .
Those are twin $ 5K fridges in which she ’ s hoarding her frozen goodies .
Meanwhile , 17 million people have lost their jobs while Pelosi refuses to do hers .
At least Trump ’ s still showing up , for crying out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indeed .
Update : I have a new theme song for this session of Congress :

You mean the same Congress that just three months ago seemed obsessed with the argument that Donald Trump was a dangerous dictator who couldn’t be trusted with his office? Yes, some of us have noticed. While doctors and nurses, police officers and firefighters, and even grocery workers and restaurant workers risk their lives and health to provide essential services, members of Congress have acted as though constitutional governance is a non-essential business — and have abdicated their role to contribute to leadership in a crisis.
At any rate, both the New York Times and Roll Call have now begun to consider the implications of an AWOL Congress in a national emergency. The pressure to find ways to get the job done remotely have begun to escalate:
With Congress sidelined by the coronavirus pandemic and unable to return to the Capitol, House and Senate leaders are under increasing pressure from a bipartisan array of current and former lawmakers to shift to remote legislating, including using a secure online system to conduct votes. … Good-government advocates see the moves as an imperative. Without a way to meet remotely, the House and Senate have no way to conduct oversight or act as a check on President Trump, who was impeached on charges of abuse of power and this week declared he had “total” authority to supersede governors’ decisions about whether to reopen their states. “The choice is remote Congress or no Congress,” said Daniel Schuman, the policy director of Demand Progress, a progressive organization that advocates government transparency and accountability. “And if you have no Congress, you have what our founders feared most, which is an executive branch with no legislative check.”
If that’s the case, then the answer will remain no Congress, at least for the next few weeks. Even though the House has been studying this idea for weeks, and both chambers off and on since 9/11, Roll Call points out that remote voting would require a change of rules. And to change the rules, members have to show up under the current rules first:
House Democratic leaders appear to be accelerating the consideration of options for remote voting and hearings, but any decisions on how to proceed may still come too late for use during the coronavirus pandemic. “We can’t do any of them right now because the rules will have to be modified,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer told reporters on a conference call Wednesday. “There will have to be agreement between the parties.” House rules do not allow for the chamber to vote remotely or for committees to conduct formal hearings or business meetings without a physical presence. A rules change would require lawmakers to be in Washington to pass a resolution adopting remote work procedures — unless there were unanimous consent among members, which is unlikely.
So what? Call them back now. They should have settled this rule change at the end of last month, when they had to come back to Congress to pass the CARES Act. They should have stayed put at that point and done the jobs for which they asked constituents to elect them. With aid running out to small businesses and a pressing need for follow-up legislation, Congress should be working every bit as hard as the executive branch, as well as all of the people working on the front lines risking infection themselves.
But even if they came back strictly to enable remote voting, that would be sufficient. There’s no reason for them to leave their homes if they can work effectively from them. However, if you think they’re just sheltering in place and pining to actually do their jobs, here’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chuck Schumer from yesterday, criticizing FEMA for not agreeing to their funding priorities:
I’m standing near Elmhurst Hospital in Queens with @RepAOC Elmhurst is on the frontlines The toll here is heartbreaking—with families paying the ultimate price FEMA must approve our request for help for NY families faced with overwhelming funeral/burial costs they can't afford pic.twitter.com/9UsVXlo41l — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 14, 2020
WATCH: @AOC and @chuckschumer are called out for "staging a photo op" (without masks) in the zip code with the most #COVID19 cases in America. Meanwhile, Schumer and Senate Democrats continue to block critical aid for small businesses and workers. pic.twitter.com/9Hwg7vevyW — America Rising (@AmericaRising) April 15, 2020
If AOC and Schumer can stage photo ops on the streets of New York City — sans masks! — then they can bloody well get back to Capitol Hill and get back to work, at least long enough to arrange for remote voting and committee hearings. So can the rest of their colleagues. Any of them who don’t feel that their jobs are essential enough to take the same risks as grocery store workers and postal carriers are hereby invited to resign and put their uselessness into retirement. Governors can appoint replacements with more sense of duty and intestinal fortitude.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi sent a 90-second demonstration yesterday (at about the same time as the AOC-Schumer stunt!) on what seems to be more important to her than her job as the funds run out on the small business rescue package. Those are twin $5K fridges in which she’s hoarding her frozen goodies. Meanwhile, 17 million people have lost their jobs while Pelosi refuses to do hers. At least Trump’s still showing up, for crying out loud. Let them eat ice cream, indeed.
We all have found our ways to keep our spirits up during these trying times. Mine just happens to fill up my freezer. #LateLateShow pic.twitter.com/dqA32d5lU1 — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) April 14, 2020
Update: I have a new theme song for this session of Congress:


hotair--2020-04-15--Will schools reopen in the fall and if so what kind of school will students attend?

Major cities like Los Angeles and New York , plus about half the states have already announced that schools will not be reopening this spring .
But as pressure builds to reopen the economy , there are still some doubts about whether or not schools will be able to open up in the fall for the 2020-2021 school year : President Trump has said repeatedly he wants to open the country for business as soon as possible , often mentioning May 1 as a goal .
Yet epidemiologists are warning that the coronavirus , which has already killed more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be a threat to public health for many months .
Fauci , who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and who has become the medical community ’ s leading spokesman on the pandemic , has suggested schools may be able to open in the fall if current efforts to “ flatten the curve ” are successful .
He was nothing if not indefinite .
“ You know , it is unpredictable , but you can get a feel for it if we start talking about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Fauci said at a White House briefing .
“ How we respond and what kind of a rebound we see or don ’ t see , I think is going to have a lot of influence probably more immediately on things like summer camps than it does in the fall.
” Fauci may be right , but there ’ s also a possibility that we could pass the current infection peaks in the next month or so and then find ourselves facing a new surge in infections once the economy starts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are planning for the worst case so they don ’ t get caught flat-footed again like they did this spring .
Today the College Board , which administers the SAT , announced that it had contingency plans in place on the chance that schools are not able to reopen in the fall .
In Indiana , schools are preparing for the same possibility : Schools in Washington state hope to be open in the fall but are also thinking about how to be ready if they are not : California ’ s Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall with some attempts made to allow for more social distancing .
But not everyone is sure that will work : That could mean having students split the school day into morning and afternoon shifts , he said , or staggering lunch , gym and recess to limit the size of gatherings .
Newsom said “ we need to get our kids back to school ; I need to get my kids back to school ” but that the state would be “ very , very vigilant ” in how they do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Association of California School Administrators , said that while socially distanced schools would be hard to accommodate for any district , some lack the facility space to even give it a fair shot .
“ On the bright side , folks are encouraged that we ’ re at least talking about having school in person in the fall .
That hasn ’ t been a given , ” Zazueta said .
“ We do appreciate that the governor is talking about this early but folks are going to be reluctant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still some density .
With just the nature of schools , no matter what we put in place , we ’ re talking about kids here .
The notion of physically distancing is not going to go well.
” Government schools are a unique problem because until they are open , many parents can ’ t leave home to go to work .
So until schools open for younger kids , the economy is really still on hold .
On the other hand , students are legally required to show up to K-12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone is obligated to send their kids .
The battle between those parents who are eager to get back to work and those who are worried about the risk of kids bringing home the virus ( for instance , people who live with an elderly parent at home ) is going to be intense .
Colleges are a different situation because students are adults and no one is required to go .
The NY Times published a story today suggesting colleges are very worried that a lot of students may not return in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practicality or finances : For years , Claire McCarville dreamed of going to college in New York or Los Angeles , and was thrilled last month to get accepted to selective schools in both places .
But earlier this month , she sent a $ 300 deposit to Arizona State University , a 15-minute drive from her home in Phoenix .
“ It made more sense , ” she said , “ in light of the virus.
” … Some institutions are projecting $ 100 million losses for the spring , and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial hit in the fall , when some are planning for the possibility of having to continue remote classes .
Administrators anticipate that students grappling with the financial and psychological impacts of the virus could choose to stay closer to home , go to less expensive schools , take a year off or not go to college at all .
A higher education trade group has predicted a 15 percent drop in enrollment nationwide , amounting to a $ 23 billion revenue loss… Small institutions like Hampshire College in Amherst , Mass.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big ones .
Hampshire ’ s president , Ed Wingenbach , has put together a working group that is considering shorter units of study that would allow students to cycle in and out of remote learning if the virus comes and goes .
“ If we ’ re looking at remote learning in the fall , ” he said , “ I think it ’ s more likely students will take a gap year or semester , and that will have a different impact on revenue.
” To sum all of this up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful optimism that schools will be reopening in the fall but beneath that there ’ s also some awareness that the situation could change and distance learning may need to continue for some part of the fall semester .
All of that will be dependent on how the country gets through the first peaks of the virus and whether or not we ’ re facing a second wave this summer .

Major cities like Los Angeles and New York, plus about half the states have already announced that schools will not be reopening this spring. But as pressure builds to reopen the economy, there are still some doubts about whether or not schools will be able to open up in the fall for the 2020-2021 school year:
President Trump has said repeatedly he wants to open the country for business as soon as possible, often mentioning May 1 as a goal. Yet epidemiologists are warning that the coronavirus, which has already killed more than 22,000 people in the United States, will be a threat to public health for many months. Fauci, who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and who has become the medical community’s leading spokesman on the pandemic, has suggested schools may be able to open in the fall if current efforts to “flatten the curve” are successful. He was nothing if not indefinite. “You know, it is unpredictable, but you can get a feel for it if we start talking about the things where the curve goes down,” Fauci said at a White House briefing. “How we respond and what kind of a rebound we see or don’t see, I think is going to have a lot of influence probably more immediately on things like summer camps than it does in the fall.”
Fauci may be right, but there’s also a possibility that we could pass the current infection peaks in the next month or so and then find ourselves facing a new surge in infections once the economy starts to open up. Some schools and institutions are planning for the worst case so they don’t get caught flat-footed again like they did this spring. Today the College Board, which administers the SAT, announced that it had contingency plans in place on the chance that schools are not able to reopen in the fall.
“We know students and educators are worried about how the coronavirus may disrupt the college admissions process, and we want to do all we can to help alleviate that anxiety during this very demanding time,” College Board CEO David Coleman said during a press call Wednesday. “In the unfortunate and unlikely possibility that schools do not open this fall, the College Board will be ready to provide a digital SAT at home.”
In Indiana, schools are preparing for the same possibility:
A growing number of Indiana educators are beginning to prepare for remote instruction to go into the next academic year. Schools that were caught off guard and initially focused on triaging the immediate needs posed by building closures are now recognizing that they could be shut down indefinitely. As a result, districts are making massive investments in technology with the aim of ensuring all students have computers or tablets by the fall. And community leaders are raising funds to train teachers in a bid to improve the quality of the instruction that happens online.
Schools in Washington state hope to be open in the fall but are also thinking about how to be ready if they are not:
Although school is expected to open this fall, [schools chief Chris] Reykdal, standing next to Inslee during the news conference, urged educators to prepare for the possibility that schools could remain closed beyond this school year. “We know we have to be significantly better at this distance model in case we find ourselves in that reality.”
California’s Governor is talking about opening the schools next fall with some attempts made to allow for more social distancing. But not everyone is sure that will work:
That could mean having students split the school day into morning and afternoon shifts, he said, or staggering lunch, gym and recess to limit the size of gatherings. Newsom said “we need to get our kids back to school; I need to get my kids back to school” but that the state would be “very, very vigilant” in how they do so, including deep cleanings… Edgar Zazueta, with the Association of California School Administrators, said that while socially distanced schools would be hard to accommodate for any district, some lack the facility space to even give it a fair shot. “On the bright side, folks are encouraged that we’re at least talking about having school in person in the fall. That hasn’t been a given,” Zazueta said. “We do appreciate that the governor is talking about this early but folks are going to be reluctant to go into places where there’s still some density. With just the nature of schools, no matter what we put in place, we’re talking about kids here. The notion of physically distancing is not going to go well.”
Government schools are a unique problem because until they are open, many parents can’t leave home to go to work. So until schools open for younger kids, the economy is really still on hold. On the other hand, students are legally required to show up to K-12 schools. So once they reopen, everyone is obligated to send their kids. The battle between those parents who are eager to get back to work and those who are worried about the risk of kids bringing home the virus (for instance, people who live with an elderly parent at home) is going to be intense.
Colleges are a different situation because students are adults and no one is required to go. The NY Times published a story today suggesting colleges are very worried that a lot of students may not return in the fall, either for reasons of practicality or finances:
For years, Claire McCarville dreamed of going to college in New York or Los Angeles, and was thrilled last month to get accepted to selective schools in both places. But earlier this month, she sent a $300 deposit to Arizona State University, a 15-minute drive from her home in Phoenix. “It made more sense,” she said, “in light of the virus.”… Some institutions are projecting $100 million losses for the spring, and many are now bracing for an even bigger financial hit in the fall, when some are planning for the possibility of having to continue remote classes. Administrators anticipate that students grappling with the financial and psychological impacts of the virus could choose to stay closer to home, go to less expensive schools, take a year off or not go to college at all. A higher education trade group has predicted a 15 percent drop in enrollment nationwide, amounting to a $23 billion revenue loss… Small institutions like Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., are more vulnerable to financial setbacks than big ones. Hampshire’s president, Ed Wingenbach, has put together a working group that is considering shorter units of study that would allow students to cycle in and out of remote learning if the virus comes and goes. “If we’re looking at remote learning in the fall,” he said, “I think it’s more likely students will take a gap year or semester, and that will have a different impact on revenue.”
To sum all of this up, there’s a lot of hopeful optimism that schools will be reopening in the fall but beneath that there’s also some awareness that the situation could change and distance learning may need to continue for some part of the fall semester. All of that will be dependent on how the country gets through the first peaks of the virus and whether or not we’re facing a second wave this summer.


hotair--2020-01-07--CA Dem: Let's impeach Trump again

CA Dem: Let's impeach Trump again

Say , did you hear about the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump ?
No… not that one .
That ’ s old news by now .
I ’ m talking about the new one .
This time the alleged high crime and/or misdemeanor would be starting a war with Iran without congressional approval .
The mastermind behind this latest brainstorm is California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna , bringing up the suggestion during an interview on MSNBC .
( How appropriate . )
As our friend Jim Gereghty points out over at National Review , even if Khanna can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go along with this scheme , it ’ s unlikely to make any difference in the long run .
Congressman Ro Khanna ( D. , Calif. ) declared on MSNBC today that any further military action ordered by the president that is not sanctioned by Congress is a “ potentially impeachable offense.
” Somehow , I don ’ t think that will be much of a deterrent to the president .
And here we see the unintended consequence of the Democrats ’ decision to move forward with impeachment with no support across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been impeached on two counts ; there ’ s not much difference about adding a third .
Democrats in the House of Representatives can impeach the president every month if they like .
Perhaps they will .
How seriously the rest of the Democrats take this idea will depend largely on a couple of factors .
First of all , unless Trump starts directing additional military strikes – particularly aiming at the interior of Iran itself – there likely won ’ t be much of an appetite for this scheme .
And even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since abdicated its sole power of declaring war .
On top of that , the War Powers Act of 1973 is the closest they ever came to reining in the President ’ s power in such matters and it ’ s full of loopholes .
The act does say that the President can ’ t take us to war without the “ consent ” of Congress .
But in cases of a “ national emergency ” , he ( or she ) doesn ’ t even have to notify Congress until 48 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ emergency ” specifically includes cases where there ’ s been “ an attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions , or its armed forces.
” So the long and the short of this is that if Iran launches some sort of retaliatory strike that hits any of our troops or any of our “ possessions ” in Iraq ( an ally ) , Trump is already in the clear to launch an offensive .
Then he tosses it back into the lap of Congress and dares the House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the Iranian offensive .
How do you suppose that ’ s going to play in the heartland ?
It ’ s also unlikely that Khanna will generate much support for a second bite at the impeachment apple among Democrats because most of them seem to be suffering from impeachment exhaustion .
Of course , Khanna has been pushing for impeachment pretty much since Trump was elected .
He ’ s the one who suggested that the House should simply skip the second phase of the previous impeachment hearings and move straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consider is the likelihood that the current impeachment trial may kick into gear just as several Democratic Senators need to be in Iowa and New Hampshire for the primaries .
Another round of impeachment action could result in a second trial even deeper into the nomination process , leaving Sanders , Warren and Klobuchar on the bench when they need to be out on the campaign trail .
I somehow expect that the Dem leadership won ’ t be thrilled with the prospect of going through this entire dance again .

Say, did you hear about the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump? No… not that one. That’s old news by now. I’m talking about the new one. This time the alleged high crime and/or misdemeanor would be starting a war with Iran without congressional approval. The mastermind behind this latest brainstorm is California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, bringing up the suggestion during an interview on MSNBC. (How appropriate.) As our friend Jim Gereghty points out over at National Review, even if Khanna can get a significant number of his Democratic colleagues to go along with this scheme, it’s unlikely to make any difference in the long run.
Congressman Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) declared on MSNBC today that any further military action ordered by the president that is not sanctioned by Congress is a “potentially impeachable offense.” Somehow, I don’t think that will be much of a deterrent to the president. And here we see the unintended consequence of the Democrats’ decision to move forward with impeachment with no support across party lines. President Trump has already been impeached on two counts; there’s not much difference about adding a third. Democrats in the House of Representatives can impeach the president every month if they like. Perhaps they will.
How seriously the rest of the Democrats take this idea will depend largely on a couple of factors. First of all, unless Trump starts directing additional military strikes – particularly aiming at the interior of Iran itself – there likely won’t be much of an appetite for this scheme. And even if he does, Congress has long since abdicated its sole power of declaring war. On top of that, the War Powers Act of 1973 is the closest they ever came to reining in the President’s power in such matters and it’s full of loopholes.
The act does say that the President can’t take us to war without the “consent” of Congress. But in cases of a “national emergency”, he (or she) doesn’t even have to notify Congress until 48 hours after the first strike. And said “emergency” specifically includes cases where there’s been “an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
So the long and the short of this is that if Iran launches some sort of retaliatory strike that hits any of our troops or any of our “possessions” in Iraq (an ally), Trump is already in the clear to launch an offensive. Then he tosses it back into the lap of Congress and dares the House Democrats to forbid him the power to stand up to the Iranian offensive. How do you suppose that’s going to play in the heartland?
It’s also unlikely that Khanna will generate much support for a second bite at the impeachment apple among Democrats because most of them seem to be suffering from impeachment exhaustion. Of course, Khanna has been pushing for impeachment pretty much since Trump was elected. He’s the one who suggested that the House should simply skip the second phase of the previous impeachment hearings and move straight to a vote.
The other factor to consider is the likelihood that the current impeachment trial may kick into gear just as several Democratic Senators need to be in Iowa and New Hampshire for the primaries. Another round of impeachment action could result in a second trial even deeper into the nomination process, leaving Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar on the bench when they need to be out on the campaign trail. I somehow expect that the Dem leadership won’t be thrilled with the prospect of going through this entire dance again.


hotair--2020-01-07--The Hill: McConnell's got the votes to dictate Senate trial rules

And he got them from Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski .
Despite the bombshell from John Bolton , Mitch McConnell pledged not to budge from his position that the Senate should adopt the same rules package that got 100 votes in 1999 for Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial .
Thanks to the simple majority requirement for setting the rules , Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can ’ t force him to do otherwise : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer ’ s ( N.Y. ) demands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Two key moderate senators , Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) , on Monday evening backed McConnell ’ s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses .
Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Getting both Collins and Murkowski is some coup for McConnell , although maybe Murkowski ’ s the bigger surprise .
Mitt Romney had already hinted that he ’ d just follow McConnell ’ s lead , but both Murkowski and Collins had made public remarks signaling at least some willingness to consider witness testimony in the trial .
One has to wonder why they made this decision last night , rather than a couple of days after Bolton ’ s declaration of his willingness to testify .
It ’ s not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Friday ; why not let McConnell spend a day or two dialing down the heat first ?
Probably for the same reason that Schumer and Pelosi haven ’ t actually addressed the substance of McConnell ’ s proposal .
No one has yet offered an explanation of why the rules that governed Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial — adopted unanimously — can not apply in this instance equally .
Those rules don ’ t foreclose the calling of witnesses , but allow for the Senate to decide after the presentment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not they ’ re necessary .
That worked out well in 1999 , or at least worked out to be a reasonable process .
Clinton got acquitted , so Democrats certainly seemed happy enough with them at the time .
Sauce for the gander means they should be happy with them now — unless this is a partisan exercise rather than a hygienic one .
And to this point , not one Democrat has made a rational argument for why they ’ re insufficient , except insofar as the House impeachment is much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The articles are a melange of hearsay and speculation thanks to the hyperpartisan rush to get through a half-assed “ investigation ” rather than take the process seriously and solemnly .
Speaking of which , Pelosi ’ s game of hide-and-go-seek may have backfired with Murkowski , who derided the tactic : The Alaska senator also said questions about whether former national security adviser John Bolton and other key witnesses should testify should be discussed only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to ?
So do you have any interesting news for me on that ?
Like when we might be able to get articles ?
” she said .
Ouch , baby , very ouch .
Regarding Bolton , Murkowski went even further , fully backing McConnell ’ s position that his offer could only be considered once the Senate received the case .
“ I don ’ t think there is any decision on Bolton , ” she said , “ because we don ’ t have the articles.
” If Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there doesn ’ t appear to be any reason for them to change their minds now — it ’ s game , set , and match for McConnell .
Schumer and Pelosi will deride McConnell ’ s rules as hopelessly partisan , all while still avoiding the big question their tactics raise : why should Bill Clinton have gotten different rules than Donald Trump ?

And he got them from Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Despite the bombshell from John Bolton, Mitch McConnell pledged not to budge from his position that the Senate should adopt the same rules package that got 100 votes in 1999 for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Thanks to the simple majority requirement for setting the rules, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can’t force him to do otherwise:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer’s (N.Y.) demands to require additional witnesses testify at the start of President Trump’s impeachment trial. Two key moderate senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell’s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses. Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team present their opening arguments.
Getting both Collins and Murkowski is some coup for McConnell, although maybe Murkowski’s the bigger surprise. Mitt Romney had already hinted that he’d just follow McConnell’s lead, but both Murkowski and Collins had made public remarks signaling at least some willingness to consider witness testimony in the trial. One has to wonder why they made this decision last night, rather than a couple of days after Bolton’s declaration of his willingness to testify. It’s not as if the trial will start on Thursday or Friday; why not let McConnell spend a day or two dialing down the heat first?
Probably for the same reason that Schumer and Pelosi haven’t actually addressed the substance of McConnell’s proposal. No one has yet offered an explanation of why the rules that governed Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial — adopted unanimously — cannot apply in this instance equally. Those rules don’t foreclose the calling of witnesses, but allow for the Senate to decide after the presentment of the articles by House managers whether or not they’re necessary. That worked out well in 1999, or at least worked out to be a reasonable process. Clinton got acquitted, so Democrats certainly seemed happy enough with them at the time.
Sauce for the gander means they should be happy with them now — unless this is a partisan exercise rather than a hygienic one. And to this point, not one Democrat has made a rational argument for why they’re insufficient, except insofar as the House impeachment is much more inadequate than Clinton’s. The articles are a melange of hearsay and speculation thanks to the hyperpartisan rush to get through a half-assed “investigation” rather than take the process seriously and solemnly.
Speaking of which, Pelosi’s game of hide-and-go-seek may have backfired with Murkowski, who derided the tactic:
The Alaska senator also said questions about whether former national security adviser John Bolton and other key witnesses should testify should be discussed only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. “We don’t have anything to get to? So do you have any interesting news for me on that? Like when we might be able to get articles?” she said.
Ouch, baby, very ouch. Regarding Bolton, Murkowski went even further, fully backing McConnell’s position that his offer could only be considered once the Senate received the case. “I don’t think there is any decision on Bolton,” she said, “because we don’t have the articles.”
If Collins and Murkowski stick to those positions — and there doesn’t appear to be any reason for them to change their minds now — it’s game, set, and match for McConnell. Schumer and Pelosi will deride McConnell’s rules as hopelessly partisan, all while still avoiding the big question their tactics raise: why should Bill Clinton have gotten different rules than Donald Trump?


hotair--2020-01-07--Here we go. The Iran - North Korea connection

All eyes are on Iran after the elimination of high-value terror target Qassem Soleimani , and not without reason .
What they decide to do ( or perhaps more importantly , not do ) will no doubt have a major impact on how President Trump decides to move forward from here .
The media has been highlighting the various responses of other world leaders , paying particular attention to those who are either condemning the strike or at least “ urging restraint.
” But largely lost in this ongoing conversation is the response – or at least until now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea .
The hermit regime has been mostly silent about the event , even on its own state-run news agency outlets .
But now that seems to be changing .
As the AP reports this morning , Kim Jong-un appears to be preparing to use Soleimani ’ s death as a card to play in his own negotiations with both the United States and Russia .
The U.S. strike that killed Iran ’ s top military commander may have had an indirect casualty : a diplomatic solution to denuclearizing North Korea .
Experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Tehran will diminish already fading hopes for such an outcome and inspire North Korea ’ s decision-makers to tighten their hold on the weapons they see , perhaps correctly , as their strongest guarantee of survival .
North Korea ’ s initial reaction to the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani has been cautious .
The country ’ s state media was silent for several days before finally on Monday issuing a brief report on the attack that didn ’ t even mention Soleimani ’ s name .
It appears that Kim Jong-un @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vest when the news of Soleimani ’ s removal first broke .
As the AP report notes , the only mention of the event on the North ’ s media outlets didn ’ t even mention his name .
But behind the scenes , Kim and his advisors were undoubtedly waiting to see how Russia and China would react before he wound up getting out over his skis .
His answer came quickly enough .
On Friday , both Russia and China issued statements condemning the operation .
China chose to go with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restraint ” on all sides , “ particularly for the United States.
” Russia went several steps further , describing the move as “ an adventurist step ” and praising Soleimani ’ s “ devotion to Iran ’ s national interests.
” So what does this have to do with North Korea ?
As we previously discussed here , Kim Jong-un is obviously close to throwing in the towel on his negotiations with President Trump .
All he ’ s interested in is sanctions relief , and Trump isn ’ t putting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and China have gone to the UN calling for sanctions relief and are widely believed to already be sending aid to Kim in violation of existing sanctions .
So with a budding relationship with both Moscow and Beijing already developing and the apparent willingness of Russia and China to accept North Korea as a nuclear power ( as long as they ’ re on the same team ) , Kim ’ s options have suddenly expanded .
If he comes out and condemns the Soleimani operation , that places him squarely in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea can then claim that the American “ assassination ” of a foreign “ leader ” is proof that he has to be able to hang on to his nukes to avoid a similar incident of “ American imperialism ” against him .
The international diplomacy picture is becoming increasingly complicated and not in a good way .
Don ’ t be at all shocked if you see the ties between some of the more powerful and antagonistic countries in the world solidifying this month .
And if Kim Jong-un announces that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s resuming nuclear testing , you ’ ll know which direction the wind is blowing .

All eyes are on Iran after the elimination of high-value terror target Qassem Soleimani, and not without reason. What they decide to do (or perhaps more importantly, not do) will no doubt have a major impact on how President Trump decides to move forward from here. The media has been highlighting the various responses of other world leaders, paying particular attention to those who are either condemning the strike or at least “urging restraint.” But largely lost in this ongoing conversation is the response – or at least until now, the lack of one – from North Korea.
The hermit regime has been mostly silent about the event, even on its own state-run news agency outlets. But now that seems to be changing. As the AP reports this morning, Kim Jong-un appears to be preparing to use Soleimani’s death as a card to play in his own negotiations with both the United States and Russia.
The U.S. strike that killed Iran’s top military commander may have had an indirect casualty: a diplomatic solution to denuclearizing North Korea. Experts say the escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran will diminish already fading hopes for such an outcome and inspire North Korea’s decision-makers to tighten their hold on the weapons they see, perhaps correctly, as their strongest guarantee of survival. North Korea’s initial reaction to the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani has been cautious. The country’s state media was silent for several days before finally on Monday issuing a brief report on the attack that didn’t even mention Soleimani’s name.
It appears that Kim Jong-un was playing his cards close to the vest when the news of Soleimani’s removal first broke. As the AP report notes, the only mention of the event on the North’s media outlets didn’t even mention his name. But behind the scenes, Kim and his advisors were undoubtedly waiting to see how Russia and China would react before he wound up getting out over his skis.
His answer came quickly enough. On Friday, both Russia and China issued statements condemning the operation. China chose to go with a soft condemnation, calling for “restraint” on all sides, “particularly for the United States.” Russia went several steps further, describing the move as “an adventurist step” and praising Soleimani’s “devotion to Iran’s national interests.”
So what does this have to do with North Korea? As we previously discussed here, Kim Jong-un is obviously close to throwing in the towel on his negotiations with President Trump. All he’s interested in is sanctions relief, and Trump isn’t putting it on the table. But both Russia and China have gone to the UN calling for sanctions relief and are widely believed to already be sending aid to Kim in violation of existing sanctions.
So with a budding relationship with both Moscow and Beijing already developing and the apparent willingness of Russia and China to accept North Korea as a nuclear power (as long as they’re on the same team), Kim’s options have suddenly expanded. If he comes out and condemns the Soleimani operation, that places him squarely in the corner of Team Russia. And North Korea can then claim that the American “assassination” of a foreign “leader” is proof that he has to be able to hang on to his nukes to avoid a similar incident of “American imperialism” against him.
The international diplomacy picture is becoming increasingly complicated and not in a good way. Don’t be at all shocked if you see the ties between some of the more powerful and antagonistic countries in the world solidifying this month. And if Kim Jong-un announces that his talks with Trump are over and he’s resuming nuclear testing, you’ll know which direction the wind is blowing.