hotair--2020-04-19--Top coronavirus hotspot in the U.S. may not be where you think

The country ’ s top coronavirus hotspot is in Sioux Falls , South Dakota .
The Smithfield Foods plant , as of last Wednesday , now tops both Chicago ’ s Cook County Jail and the USS Theodore Roosevelt because of the number of localized cases .
644 people with connections to the plant were infected , including 518 employees , as of Wednesday .
Nine days ago I wrote about this pork processing plant in South Dakota .
At that time , 80 employees had tested positive for the virus , while the employees ’ union said that 120 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In response , the plant , which employs 3700 people , planned to shut down for three days .
During that time , the plan included deep cleaning and sanitizing the processing plant and also installing plexiglass to enhance social distancing practices .
The number of South Dakota residents who have tested positive for the coronavirus is now more than 1,100 and more than half of those cases have a connection with the pork processing plant in Sioux Falls .
As employees became sick , the plant remained open .
Governor Kristi Noem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the request for it from Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken .
She said such an order wouldn ’ t have made a difference and the plant is part of the critical infrastructure business .
“ What we are doing each and every day by getting up and using personal responsibility and taking actions at the local and state level , it is working , ” Noem said .
“ We are flattening our curve in South Dakota.
” “ This plant here is incredibly important , not just to Sioux Falls , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our nation .
It provides our food for us , ” Noem said .
Noem said the Department of Health does a high level of contact tracing with people who test positive for COVID-19 and the state is isolating people in their homes and at hotels , KELO-TV reported .
Governor Noem is taking a hard stance on refusing to issue a stay-at-home order in South Dakota .
Her job as governor is to determine what is the best way forward for her state .
The company has now shut down indefinitely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal leaders and company officials to get it back up and running .
She also announced a comprehensive trial of hydroxychloroquine to see if it is effective in treating COVID-19 .
The CDC is currently assessing conditions and developing an action plan needed to safely reopen the plant .
It has been closed for more than a week .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had staff in Sioux Falls on Thursday touring the Smithfield Foods , Inc. plant .
That step comes three weeks after the first COVID-19 case involving a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Noem said Thursday that the state expects to have a report from the CDC in the coming days , and that it will be released to the public .
The governor also said she ’ s been in close contact with the plant ’ s CEO as well as U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue .
The Sioux Falls plant counts for as much as 4 % to 5 % of pork production in the country .
In North Carolina , Smithfield ’ s Bladen County facility continues to operate .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant .
An employee has tested positive for the coronavirus at the plant in Tar Heel , North Carolina .
This happened just days after Smithfield closed several other plants .
Smithfield closed three meatpacking plants this week , starting with a large facility in Sioux Falls , South Dakota .
The company said Thursday that it would close two other plants in Cudahy , Wisconsin , and Martin City , Missouri , that rely on the Sioux Falls processing plant .
The domino effect is happening now , according to Smithfield CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the food chain .
In a news release , Smithfield CEO Kenneth Sullivan said , “ The closure of our Martin City plant is part of the domino effect underway in our industry .
It highlights the interdependence and interconnectivity of our food supply chain .
Our country is blessed with abundant livestock supplies , but our processing facilities are the bottleneck of our food chain .
“ Without plants like Sioux Falls running , other further processing facilities like Martin City can not function .
This is why our government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and called on us to maintain operations and normal work schedules , ” he said .
It ’ s not just the supply chain of pork products that is being disrupted .
Two of America ’ s largest beef packing companies closed down and will remain closed until April 24 .
JBS USA in Greeley , Colorado employs 6,000 people .
Its Souderton , Pennsylvania , beef production facility closed before the Colorado plant .
National Beef Packing Co. closed its Tama , Iowa , facility until April 20 .
Questions have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese company WH Group Ltd since 2013 , under its CEO , the billionaire Wan Long .
It is the largest pork producer in the world .
The workers , like others who work in the food industry , are deemed essential workers and continue to show up for work , if possible .
They don ’ t have the ability to remain at home and still bring in a paycheck .
The jobs are considered low-paying ones .
The BBC has an in-depth piece on the spread of COVID-19 in the food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is made up largely of immigrants and refugees from places like Myanmar , Ethiopia , Nepal , Congo and El Salvador .
There are 80 different languages spoken in the plant .
Estimates of the mean hourly wage range from $ 14-16 an hour .
Those hours are long , the work is gruelling , and standing on a production line often means being less than a foot away from your co-workers on either side .
The BBC spoke to half a dozen current and former Smithfield employees who say that while they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , deciding between employment and their health has been an impossible choice .
“ I have a lot of bills .
My baby ’ s coming soon – I have to work , ” said one 25-year-old employee whose wife is eight months pregnant .
“ If I get a positive , I ’ m really worried I can ’ t save my wife.
” Meat shortages are occurring in some spots across the country due to disruptions in the food supply chain .
Experts are confident that the problems will correct themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The names of Cudahy , Wisconsin and Martin City , Missouri were corrected from the original version of this article .

The country’s top coronavirus hotspot is in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Smithfield Foods plant, as of last Wednesday, now tops both Chicago’s Cook County Jail and the USS Theodore Roosevelt because of the number of localized cases. 644 people with connections to the plant were infected, including 518 employees, as of Wednesday.
Nine days ago I wrote about this pork processing plant in South Dakota. At that time, 80 employees had tested positive for the virus, while the employees’ union said that 120 were confirmed to have the coronavirus. In response, the plant, which employs 3700 people, planned to shut down for three days. During that time, the plan included deep cleaning and sanitizing the processing plant and also installing plexiglass to enhance social distancing practices.
The number of South Dakota residents who have tested positive for the coronavirus is now more than 1,100 and more than half of those cases have a connection with the pork processing plant in Sioux Falls. As employees became sick, the plant remained open. Governor Kristi Noem is not declaring a stay-at-home order despite the request for it from Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken. She said such an order wouldn’t have made a difference and the plant is part of the critical infrastructure business.
“What we are doing each and every day by getting up and using personal responsibility and taking actions at the local and state level, it is working,” Noem said. “We are flattening our curve in South Dakota.” “This plant here is incredibly important, not just to Sioux Falls, not just to South Dakota, but to our nation. It provides our food for us,” Noem said. Noem said the Department of Health does a high level of contact tracing with people who test positive for COVID-19 and the state is isolating people in their homes and at hotels, KELO-TV reported.
Governor Noem is taking a hard stance on refusing to issue a stay-at-home order in South Dakota. Her job as governor is to determine what is the best way forward for her state. The company has now shut down indefinitely. Noem says she’s working with federal leaders and company officials to get it back up and running. She also announced a comprehensive trial of hydroxychloroquine to see if it is effective in treating COVID-19.
There are several other trials being conducted elsewhere. Noem said Tuesday that the South Dakota trial, which will include 2,000 patients, has already begun after the state received 1.2 million doses of hydroxychloroquine from the federal government. South Dakota’s death toll remained at six on Tuesday, with no new deaths reported in the state. Reported hospitalizations from the disease increased to 45. Of all reported cases, 261 people have recovered.
The CDC is currently assessing conditions and developing an action plan needed to safely reopen the plant. It has been closed for more than a week.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had staff in Sioux Falls on Thursday touring the Smithfield Foods, Inc. plant. That step comes three weeks after the first COVID-19 case involving a Smithfield employee was determined on March 24. Noem said Thursday that the state expects to have a report from the CDC in the coming days, and that it will be released to the public. The governor also said she’s been in close contact with the plant’s CEO as well as U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.
The Sioux Falls plant counts for as much as 4% to 5% of pork production in the country. In North Carolina, Smithfield’s Bladen County facility continues to operate. It is the world’s largest pork processing plant. An employee has tested positive for the coronavirus at the plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina. This happened just days after Smithfield closed several other plants.
Smithfield closed three meatpacking plants this week, starting with a large facility in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The company said Thursday that it would close two other plants in Cudahy, Wisconsin, and Martin City, Missouri, that rely on the Sioux Falls processing plant. The domino effect is happening now, according to Smithfield CEO Kenneth Sullivan, pointing to the bottleneck of the food chain.
In a news release, Smithfield CEO Kenneth Sullivan said, “The closure of our Martin City plant is part of the domino effect underway in our industry. It highlights the interdependence and interconnectivity of our food supply chain. Our country is blessed with abundant livestock supplies, but our processing facilities are the bottleneck of our food chain. “Without plants like Sioux Falls running, other further processing facilities like Martin City cannot function. This is why our government has named food and agriculture critical infrastructure sectors and called on us to maintain operations and normal work schedules,” he said.
It’s not just the supply chain of pork products that is being disrupted. Two of America’s largest beef packing companies closed down and will remain closed until April 24. JBS USA in Greeley, Colorado employs 6,000 people. Its Souderton, Pennsylvania, beef production facility closed before the Colorado plant. National Beef Packing Co. closed its Tama, Iowa, facility until April 20.
Questions have been raised about Smithfield, owned by the Chinese company WH Group Ltd since 2013, under its CEO, the billionaire Wan Long. It is the largest pork producer in the world. The workers, like others who work in the food industry, are deemed essential workers and continue to show up for work, if possible. They don’t have the ability to remain at home and still bring in a paycheck. The jobs are considered low-paying ones. The BBC has an in-depth piece on the spread of COVID-19 in the food processing industry.
The workforce at Smithfield is made up largely of immigrants and refugees from places like Myanmar, Ethiopia, Nepal, Congo and El Salvador. There are 80 different languages spoken in the plant. Estimates of the mean hourly wage range from $14-16 an hour. Those hours are long, the work is gruelling, and standing on a production line often means being less than a foot away from your co-workers on either side. The BBC spoke to half a dozen current and former Smithfield employees who say that while they were afraid to continue going to work, deciding between employment and their health has been an impossible choice. “I have a lot of bills. My baby’s coming soon – I have to work,” said one 25-year-old employee whose wife is eight months pregnant. “If I get a positive, I’m really worried I can’t save my wife.”
Meat shortages are occurring in some spots across the country due to disruptions in the food supply chain. Experts are confident that the problems will correct themselves in the next couple of weeks.
The names of Cudahy, Wisconsin and Martin City, Missouri were corrected from the original version of this article.


hotair--2020-04-19--Solidarity in faith -- before and after: Sunday reflection

On the evening of that first day of the week , when the doors were locked , where the disciples were , for fear of the Jews , Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them , “ Peace be with you.
” When he had said this , he showed them his hands and his side .
The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord .
Jesus said to them again , “ Peace be with you .
As the Father has sent me , so I send you.
” And when he had said this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them , “ Receive the Holy Spirit .
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them , and whose sins you retain are retained.
” Thomas , called Didymus , one of the Twelve , was not with them when Jesus came .
So the other disciples said to him , “ We have seen the Lord.
” But he said to them , “ Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side , I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them .
Jesus came , although the doors were locked , and stood in their midst and said , “ Peace be with you.
” Then he said to Thomas , “ Put your finger here and see my hands , and bring your hand and put it into my side , and do not be unbelieving , but believe.
” Thomas answered and said to him , “ My Lord and my God !
” Jesus said to him , “ Have you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me ?
Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.
” Now , Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book .
But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God , and that through this belief you may have life in his name .
What is faith ?
Faith is trust , freely given , that can not be explained away by certainty .
Our readings today get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as disciples of Christ in a world so assured of its own science-focused perspective , and reminds us that nothing much has changed in that sense for 2000 years .
Quite a few years ago , I acted as a confirmation sponsor for a teenager I ’ d known all his life .
He had dutifully gone through the requirements of the process , and even with some engagement and enthusiasm , more so than some other teenagers might exhibit , anyway .
He was — and is , by the way !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but one question he asked me toward the end of the process floored me .
Why , he wondered , is faith important ?
He meant this in a number of different ways ; in part , he wondered why the Lord left Himself a mystery rather than a scientific and proven certainty .
In another way , he wondered why faith is important when we can just concentrate on the here and now and deal in material reality , which seems overwhelming enough at times ( especially now ) .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t looking for a way out of the process or to start an argument with me .
It was such a good question that it has stuck with me for a couple of decades .
At the time , I explained to him that no one lives completely by scientific certainties and apparent physical realities alone .
We have to have faith in order to live our lives — faith in our friends , faith in our families , faith that people will follow the law rather than ignore it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse and people go insane in a crisis .
Those are qualities that can not be measured or determined to a scientific certainty , but without some faith in those around us , we simply could not operate within any society at all .
In today ’ s readings , we see the before-and-after picture of faith , both in Christ and in the community of Christ ’ s followers .
In our Gospel reading , we have the all-too-applicable story of Doubting Thomas , a passage that convicts us all at one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too easy to put this entirely on Thomas , however .
Just the week before this took place , Peter denied Jesus three times in the public square rather than stand up for him .
All of the disciples fled , except for John , who stood with Mary at the crucifixion .
Until they themselves saw Jesus , all of them had been skeptical when the two women came back to tell them of the empty tomb .
They came together not so much out of faith but out of fear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them next , although friendship was a large part of that impulse too , of course .
When Thomas arrives at first , he is the only disciple not to have had the privilege of seeing the Risen Christ .
He falls back on what he knows rather than what he believes — his trust in his own senses to interpret the world around him .
Thomas is simply a day behind everyone else in that impulse , however .
He will not trust the Lord nor his friends until Christ appears in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with His other disciples , and only then believes in Christ ’ s resurrection .
In our first reading , however , we see this same community of believers — now a church — immediately after Pentecost .
Not only are they living lives of faith in terms of spreading the Gospel , they are demonstrating that faith in their free choice to live communally .
They put their trust in the Lord for their daily bread and their faith in one another as brothers and sisters in Christ .
With the Holy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on just the limits of their five senses and the natural material impulse to reject anything outside of it .
This is the transformative power of faith , as enabled by the welcoming of the Holy Spirit into our hearts .
It reminds us that we are meant for more than just this world , which is a path mankind chose in creation but is not our destination .
If we accept that as true — if we put our faith in the Gospel — then it changes us from material-focused beings to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s image .
And most importantly , it changes our perspective from a self-focused idea of being the center of the universe to a much more humble truth of God at the center of everything .
This is why we need faith , why we crave faith in the core of our beings .
We were built for faith ; we were formed to seek beyond science — not to ignore it or deny it , but to see it for what it truly is .
Science and our senses help us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does not mean that it covers the entire breadth of His work .
When we realize that and put our trust in the Lord , we see His creation and our brothers and sisters very differently — as companions along the journey , eventually to be adopted siblings in God ’ s family .
Faith is what keeps us on the path , even if at times we stumble on it .
Thomas speaks for all of us at times , but that does not mean we can ’ t recognize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front-page image is a detail from “ Doubting Thomas ” by Giovanni Serodine , c.1620s .
Currently on display at the National Museum in Warsaw .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Room entries , click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is John 20:19–31:
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” Now, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.
What is faith? Faith is trust, freely given, that cannot be explained away by certainty. Our readings today get to the heart of our challenges and obstacles as disciples of Christ in a world so assured of its own science-focused perspective, and reminds us that nothing much has changed in that sense for 2000 years.
Quite a few years ago, I acted as a confirmation sponsor for a teenager I’d known all his life. He had dutifully gone through the requirements of the process, and even with some engagement and enthusiasm, more so than some other teenagers might exhibit, anyway. He was — and is, by the way! — an intelligent and inquisitive young man, but one question he asked me toward the end of the process floored me.
Why, he wondered, is faith important? He meant this in a number of different ways; in part, he wondered why the Lord left Himself a mystery rather than a scientific and proven certainty. In another way, he wondered why faith is important when we can just concentrate on the here and now and deal in material reality, which seems overwhelming enough at times (especially now). He was sincere in this question; he wasn’t looking for a way out of the process or to start an argument with me. It was such a good question that it has stuck with me for a couple of decades.
At the time, I explained to him that no one lives completely by scientific certainties and apparent physical realities alone. We have to have faith in order to live our lives — faith in our friends, faith in our families, faith that people will follow the law rather than ignore it, faith that civilization won’t simply collapse and people go insane in a crisis. Those are qualities that cannot be measured or determined to a scientific certainty, but without some faith in those around us, we simply could not operate within any society at all.
In today’s readings, we see the before-and-after picture of faith, both in Christ and in the community of Christ’s followers. In our Gospel reading, we have the all-too-applicable story of Doubting Thomas, a passage that convicts us all at one time or another. It’s too easy to put this entirely on Thomas, however. Just the week before this took place, Peter denied Jesus three times in the public square rather than stand up for him. All of the disciples fled, except for John, who stood with Mary at the crucifixion. Until they themselves saw Jesus, all of them had been skeptical when the two women came back to tell them of the empty tomb. They came together not so much out of faith but out of fear of what the temple authorities might do to them next, although friendship was a large part of that impulse too, of course.
When Thomas arrives at first, he is the only disciple not to have had the privilege of seeing the Risen Christ. He falls back on what he knows rather than what he believes — his trust in his own senses to interpret the world around him. Thomas is simply a day behind everyone else in that impulse, however. He will not trust the Lord nor his friends until Christ appears in physical form, just as He did with His other disciples, and only then believes in Christ’s resurrection.
In our first reading, however, we see this same community of believers — now a church — immediately after Pentecost. Not only are they living lives of faith in terms of spreading the Gospel, they are demonstrating that faith in their free choice to live communally. They put their trust in the Lord for their daily bread and their faith in one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. With the Holy Spirit, they no longer rely solely on just the limits of their five senses and the natural material impulse to reject anything outside of it.
This is the transformative power of faith, as enabled by the welcoming of the Holy Spirit into our hearts. It reminds us that we are meant for more than just this world, which is a path mankind chose in creation but is not our destination. If we accept that as true — if we put our faith in the Gospel — then it changes us from material-focused beings to true spiritual individuals created in God’s image. And most importantly, it changes our perspective from a self-focused idea of being the center of the universe to a much more humble truth of God at the center of everything.
This is why we need faith, why we crave faith in the core of our beings. We were built for faith; we were formed to seek beyond science — not to ignore it or deny it, but to see it for what it truly is. Science and our senses help us to navigate God’s creation, but it does not mean that it covers the entire breadth of His work. When we realize that and put our trust in the Lord, we see His creation and our brothers and sisters very differently — as companions along the journey, eventually to be adopted siblings in God’s family.
Faith is what keeps us on the path, even if at times we stumble on it. Thomas speaks for all of us at times, but that does not mean we can’t recognize the truth in the long run.
The front-page image is a detail from “Doubting Thomas” by Giovanni Serodine, c.1620s. Currently on display at the National Museum in Warsaw. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.


hotair--2020-04-19--Twitter is blocked from releasing government surveillance requests

Back in 2014 , Twitter filed a lawsuit seeking the ability to release a “ transparency report ” containing figures concerning how many times the government requested surveillance data on its users .
They had previously submitted a draft of the report to the Justice Department for approval .
The DoJ refused and decided to fight them in court over it .
That legal battle has dragged on for six years now , but this week a federal judge decided to side with Uncle Sam and block the release of that data .
Privacy advocates are crying foul , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ ’ s claim that such a release would pose a grave threat to national security .
( NBC News ) Twitter Inc. will not be able to reveal surveillance requests it received from the U.S. government after a federal judge accepted government arguments that this was likely to harm national security after a near six-year long legal battle .
The social media company had sued the U.S. Department of Justice in 2014 to be allowed to reveal , as part of its “ Draft Transparency Report ” , the surveillance requests it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were being violated by not being allowed to reveal the details .
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the government ’ s request to dismiss Twitter ’ s lawsuit in an eleven page order filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California .
Before anyone starts complaining about the Trump Justice Department , let ’ s keep in mind that this lawsuit began in 2014 .
( Remind me again who was President then ? )
So this is something that four different Attorneys General from both parties have opposed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat .
For their part , Twitter argued that quashing the draft transparency report amounted to the suppression of their right to free speech .
Despite the importance of the point they ’ re making , I ’ ll just point out that it ’ s rather rich to hear a complaint about free speech from the same company that has been banning users right and left for expressing opinions as to the origins of the coronavirus .
But that doesn ’ t totally invalidate their claim .
What ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release of those numbers would pose a grave threat to national security .
The decision references multiple classified declarations from the government but does not offer any specifics as to what they included .
( You can read the full decision here .
It ’ s pretty dense and full of legalese . )
So what is the DoJ ’ s argument here ?
As I understand it , Twitter wasn ’ t looking to release a list of names of users who may have been subject to surveillance .
They just want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times they had received FISA requests or other Justice Department requests for information .
If that ’ s the case , it ’ s tough to see how national security would be compromised , even if they ’ re talking about possibly revealing sources and methods .
If they ’ re worried that we might find out that the government asks companies for our private data , I think that horse has already left the barn .
I suppose this question also revolves around what specific data the government was asking for .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wouldn ’ t need a warrant to view them .
Were they asking for DMs ?
Or was it a case where they were seeking the real names of people with anonymous accounts ?
( That ’ s assuming that Twitter even knows , which isn ’ t a sure thing except in the case of people with blue checkmarks .
We should probably default to respecting a claim of potential grave threats to national security when the Justice Department raises that flag .
But at the same time , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuse to suppress free speech on a whim .
The government certainly could have done a better job explaining why they made this decision .

Back in 2014, Twitter filed a lawsuit seeking the ability to release a “transparency report” containing figures concerning how many times the government requested surveillance data on its users. They had previously submitted a draft of the report to the Justice Department for approval. The DoJ refused and decided to fight them in court over it. That legal battle has dragged on for six years now, but this week a federal judge decided to side with Uncle Sam and block the release of that data. Privacy advocates are crying foul, but the judge was apparently persuaded by the DOJ’s claim that such a release would pose a grave threat to national security. (NBC News)
Twitter Inc. will not be able to reveal surveillance requests it received from the U.S. government after a federal judge accepted government arguments that this was likely to harm national security after a near six-year long legal battle. The social media company had sued the U.S. Department of Justice in 2014 to be allowed to reveal, as part of its “Draft Transparency Report”, the surveillance requests it received. It argued its free-speech rights were being violated by not being allowed to reveal the details. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the government’s request to dismiss Twitter’s lawsuit in an eleven page order filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California.
Before anyone starts complaining about the Trump Justice Department, let’s keep in mind that this lawsuit began in 2014. (Remind me again who was President then?) So this is something that four different Attorneys General from both parties have opposed. Also, judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is a Democrat.
For their part, Twitter argued that quashing the draft transparency report amounted to the suppression of their right to free speech. Despite the importance of the point they’re making, I’ll just point out that it’s rather rich to hear a complaint about free speech from the same company that has been banning users right and left for expressing opinions as to the origins of the coronavirus. But that doesn’t totally invalidate their claim.
What’s not been made clear is precisely why the release of those numbers would pose a grave threat to national security. The decision references multiple classified declarations from the government but does not offer any specifics as to what they included. (You can read the full decision here. It’s pretty dense and full of legalese.)
So what is the DoJ’s argument here? As I understand it, Twitter wasn’t looking to release a list of names of users who may have been subject to surveillance. They just want to publish a list of how many times they had received FISA requests or other Justice Department requests for information. If that’s the case, it’s tough to see how national security would be compromised, even if they’re talking about possibly revealing sources and methods. If they’re worried that we might find out that the government asks companies for our private data, I think that horse has already left the barn.
I suppose this question also revolves around what specific data the government was asking for. Your regular tweets are public, so they wouldn’t need a warrant to view them. Were they asking for DMs? Or was it a case where they were seeking the real names of people with anonymous accounts? (That’s assuming that Twitter even knows, which isn’t a sure thing except in the case of people with blue checkmarks.
We should probably default to respecting a claim of potential grave threats to national security when the Justice Department raises that flag. But at the same time, we can’t allow that to be an excuse to suppress free speech on a whim. The government certainly could have done a better job explaining why they made this decision.


hotair--2020-04-19--Hong Kong: Say, this would be a great time to arrest some democracy advocates

Much like conditions here in the United States , Hong Kong has been dealing with the Coronavirus by having people mostly remain at home and practice social distancing protocols .
This has actually produced a beneficial side effect for Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam since there are far fewer protesters gathering in the streets to make life uncomfortable for her .
But this weekend , she decided to follow the old rule about never letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste and took things a step further .
With everyone isolated at home instead of massing in large rowdy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to send the cops to the homes of some of the protest leaders and lock them up .
( Associated Press ) Hong Kong police arrested at least 14 veteran pro-democracy lawmakers , activists and a media tycoon on Saturday on charges of joining unlawful protests last year calling for reforms .
Among those arrested were 81-year-old activist and former lawmaker Martin Lee and democracy advocates Albert Ho , Lee Cheuk-yan and Au Nok-hin .
Police also arrested media tycoon Jimmy Lai , who founded the local newspaper Apple Daily .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislator Yeung Sum and Raphael Wong , chairman of the League of Social Democrats , were also taken into custody .
All of them were charged with taking part in “ unauthorized protests ” last year spanning from August to October .
This isn ’ t the first time that Lam has sent the police out to jail democracy advocates .
Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow , two student leaders of the Umbrella Movement protests of 2014 , were arrested last August .
While there was never any official confirmation , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via direct orders from the CCP .
This incident should serve as an unsubtle reminder that the level of autonomy granted to Hong Kong by the CCP is largely an illusion .
Beijing tolerates a limited amount of free speech and capitalism in Hong Kong , but only so long as they don ’ t see the residents there as being critical of the central Chinese government or flaunting their rules about social behavior too flagrantly .
And when they do , retribution is frequently swift and severe .
The government of Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but those elections are always closely supervised by Beijing .
If they don ’ t like the results , they will simply remove the winners from office on some trumped-up charge and replace them with someone more amenable to the communist agenda .
That ’ s not just some imaginary threat because they ’ ve already done it before .
In 2016 , two pro-democracy candidates were voted into the legislature but they were arrested and their victories were nullified before they could even be sworn in .
They were then replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CCP .
We ’ ve expressed concerns here before about whether or not China would send their troops into Hong Kong to quash the protests , but this incident shows that they probably don ’ t need to .
As long as Beijing has Carrie Lam to do their bidding and they remain in control of the police and the courts , the “ elected ” government of Hong Kong can keep everyone in line .
And as we saw this weekend , if anyone gets too mouthy they ’ ll wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even in the middle of a pandemic .

Much like conditions here in the United States, Hong Kong has been dealing with the Coronavirus by having people mostly remain at home and practice social distancing protocols. This has actually produced a beneficial side effect for Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam since there are far fewer protesters gathering in the streets to make life uncomfortable for her. But this weekend, she decided to follow the old rule about never letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste and took things a step further. With everyone isolated at home instead of massing in large rowdy crowds, it was clearly the perfect time to send the cops to the homes of some of the protest leaders and lock them up. (Associated Press)
Hong Kong police arrested at least 14 veteran pro-democracy lawmakers, activists and a media tycoon on Saturday on charges of joining unlawful protests last year calling for reforms. Among those arrested were 81-year-old activist and former lawmaker Martin Lee and democracy advocates Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan and Au Nok-hin. Police also arrested media tycoon Jimmy Lai, who founded the local newspaper Apple Daily.
In addition to those four, former Democratic legislator Yeung Sum and Raphael Wong, chairman of the League of Social Democrats, were also taken into custody. All of them were charged with taking part in “unauthorized protests” last year spanning from August to October.
This isn’t the first time that Lam has sent the police out to jail democracy advocates. Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow, two student leaders of the Umbrella Movement protests of 2014, were arrested last August. While there was never any official confirmation, it was widely reported that those arrests came about via direct orders from the CCP.
This incident should serve as an unsubtle reminder that the level of autonomy granted to Hong Kong by the CCP is largely an illusion. Beijing tolerates a limited amount of free speech and capitalism in Hong Kong, but only so long as they don’t see the residents there as being critical of the central Chinese government or flaunting their rules about social behavior too flagrantly. And when they do, retribution is frequently swift and severe.
The government of Hong Kong is technically elected by the people, but those elections are always closely supervised by Beijing. If they don’t like the results, they will simply remove the winners from office on some trumped-up charge and replace them with someone more amenable to the communist agenda. That’s not just some imaginary threat because they’ve already done it before. In 2016, two pro-democracy candidates were voted into the legislature but they were arrested and their victories were nullified before they could even be sworn in. They were then replaced by two people who were approved by the CCP.
We’ve expressed concerns here before about whether or not China would send their troops into Hong Kong to quash the protests, but this incident shows that they probably don’t need to. As long as Beijing has Carrie Lam to do their bidding and they remain in control of the police and the courts, the “elected” government of Hong Kong can keep everyone in line. And as we saw this weekend, if anyone gets too mouthy they’ll wind up being relocated to less comfortable quarters, even in the middle of a pandemic.


hotair--2020-04-19--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

There ’ s only one small silver lining to a full-spectrum national disaster — a much meatier guest list on the weekly Sunday shows .
This morning brings us the vice president of the United States , the Speaker of the House , the Senate minority leader , the Secretary of the Treasury , and an array of governors puzzling out how to balance restarting the economy with preventing a second wave of infection .
Mike Pence will chat with “ Meet the Press ” and “ Fox News Sunday ” about the new federal benchmarks for reopening for business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LIBERATING ” states like Michigan and Minnesota when they haven ’ t met those benchmarks yet .
Nancy Pelosi will follow him on “ Fox News Sunday ” to berate Trump about the lack of testing needed to safely reopen and to show off the many varieties of tasty frozen treats in her well-stocked refrigerator as working-class Americans starve .
Meanwhile , Chuck Schumer will talk to “ State of the Union ” about testing and the heinous Democratic roadblock of refunding the Paycheck Protection Program .
How many small businesses should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haggle with McConnell over their policy wishlist ?
Schumer will tell us , followed by Steve Mnuchin to make the case for , uh , not letting small businesses die .
The governors booked this morning are more interesting since they ’ re on the front lines of the debate over reopening .
Notably , the three Republicans who have been most outspoken in resisting Trump ’ s demands to end the lockdown orders sooner rather than later are all scheduled to react to the new benchmarks .
It ’ s obvious why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the media loves a good “ red-on-red ” brawl .
It ’ s less obvious why the governors themselves would want to risk making themselves targets for Trump .
Whatever the reason , Charlie Baker of Massachusetts will appear on “ Face the Nation , ” Larry Hogan of Maryland will speak to “ State of the Union , ” and Mike DeWine of Ohio will chat with “ Meet the Press.
” DeWine has already said he ’ ll reopen parts of his state on May 1 but hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s in a much tougher position politically than Baker and Hogan , whose home states are reliably blue .
All three will be asked about Trump ’ s “ LIBERATE ” tweets on Friday , as will the fourth governor booked this morning : That ’ s Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan , who ’ s become Trump ’ s top foil among purple-state governors .
She ’ ll talk to “ Meet the Press ” and “ State of the Union ” about what she imagines Trump ’ s calls for “ liberation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees for easing restrictions in her state .
Deborah Birx will also be on , appearing on “ Face the Nation ” to try to maintain the illusion that Trump ’ s going to give even a moment ’ s thought to his own benchmarks while pressuring governors to reopen .
The full line-up is at the AP .

There’s only one small silver lining to a full-spectrum national disaster — a much meatier guest list on the weekly Sunday shows. This morning brings us the vice president of the United States, the Speaker of the House, the Senate minority leader, the Secretary of the Treasury, and an array of governors puzzling out how to balance restarting the economy with preventing a second wave of infection.
Mike Pence will chat with “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday” about the new federal benchmarks for reopening for business and why Trump is screeching about “LIBERATING” states like Michigan and Minnesota when they haven’t met those benchmarks yet. Nancy Pelosi will follow him on “Fox News Sunday” to berate Trump about the lack of testing needed to safely reopen and to show off the many varieties of tasty frozen treats in her well-stocked refrigerator as working-class Americans starve. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer will talk to “State of the Union” about testing and the heinous Democratic roadblock of refunding the Paycheck Protection Program. How many small businesses should be allowed to die while Chuck and Nancy haggle with McConnell over their policy wishlist? Schumer will tell us, followed by Steve Mnuchin to make the case for, uh, not letting small businesses die.
The governors booked this morning are more interesting since they’re on the front lines of the debate over reopening. Notably, the three Republicans who have been most outspoken in resisting Trump’s demands to end the lockdown orders sooner rather than later are all scheduled to react to the new benchmarks. It’s obvious why the Sunday shows would want them on; the media loves a good “red-on-red” brawl. It’s less obvious why the governors themselves would want to risk making themselves targets for Trump. Whatever the reason, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts will appear on “Face the Nation,” Larry Hogan of Maryland will speak to “State of the Union,” and Mike DeWine of Ohio will chat with “Meet the Press.” DeWine has already said he’ll reopen parts of his state on May 1 but hasn’t been specific about details. He’s in a much tougher position politically than Baker and Hogan, whose home states are reliably blue.
All three will be asked about Trump’s “LIBERATE” tweets on Friday, as will the fourth governor booked this morning: That’s Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, who’s become Trump’s top foil among purple-state governors. She’ll talk to “Meet the Press” and “State of the Union” about what she imagines Trump’s calls for “liberation” might entail and the timeline she sees for easing restrictions in her state.
Deborah Birx will also be on, appearing on “Face the Nation” to try to maintain the illusion that Trump’s going to give even a moment’s thought to his own benchmarks while pressuring governors to reopen. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-04-20--Biden caves to special interest group in exchange for endorsement

Joe Biden scored two big endorsements ( for Democrats ) on Monday .
Both the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC weighed in with their support of Biden ’ s presidential bid .
While neither endorsement is particularly unusual , given both always endorse Democrat candidates , it is interesting that both waited until there is no other choice before offering their official endorsements .
In order to get the endorsement nailed down from the League of Conservation Voters ( LCV ) Action Fund , Biden is moving even more left than he already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes of environmental alarmists .
His campaign promises have been tweaked and Biden is agreeing to “ meaningfully engage ” with more voices of the climate change movement .
That is nebulous language but it appears to have satisfied the activists .
“ I outlined a bold plan to lead a clean energy revolution and fight for environmental justice .
But the best policy work is continuous , creative , and keeps reaching for greater ambition and impact .
In the months ahead , expanding this plan will be one of my key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement while accepting an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters ( LCV ) Action Fund .
“ I have asked my campaign to commence a process to meaningfully engage with more voices from the climate movement — including environmental justice leaders and worker organizations , and collaborate on additional policies in areas ranging from environmental justice to new , concrete goals we can achieve within a decade , to more investments in a clean energy economy , ” he added .
The LCV members want Biden to agree to ramp up his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy sooner than 2050 .
They also want him to commit to rejecting new permits for fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines .
LCV Action Fund ’ s senior vice president of government affairs , Tiernan Sittenfeld said that Biden will “ immediately ” put the United States on track for 100 percent clean energy and “ restore America ’ s global climate leadership ” .
The part about climate leadership would no doubt be true of a Biden presidency .
He has already proven to be a fan of meaningless global climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which Obama was happy to commit the United States yet it couldn ’ t even get passed in Congress .
Carol Browner , LCV Board Chair , is pleased , too .
Browner , you may remember , was the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration .
She was a willing partner in Al Gore ’ s fanaticism on the subject .
Her statement says Biden “ will work tirelessly starting on day one as president and every day to protect our environment and the health of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Just days ago , LCV Victory Fund announced preparations have begun for a $ 14 million ad campaign against President Trump .
The ads will target a narrow band of swing voters who they think will be receptive to their message .
Biden is counting on these special interest groups to spend big bucks on campaign advertising because it ’ s already been proven that Biden is less than a stellar fundraiser .
Based on polling and analytic modeling , the group identified 1.5 million voters in six battleground states — Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — who it thinks could be persuaded to vote in November in part , they hope , based on messages about clean water and air or the climate .
LCV Victory Fund , the league ’ s super PAC , will inundate those voters throughout the late spring and early summer with recurring digital ads and direct mail literature — the literature will arrive at voters ’ mailboxes over six times before the parties ’ national conventions in August .
The issue of climate change , though , isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues according to Gallup polling , as ranked by voter enthusiasm .
It doesn ’ t rank high in the most enthusiastic of Democrat voters , so good luck with that “ narrow band ” of swing voters .
The endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus ( CBC ) PAC fits in with the push to appeal to black voters .
The Biden campaign is being pressured by black leaders like Rep. James Clyburn to increase hiring of African-American campaign staff to go and get out the black vote for November .
Clyburn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the overwhelming support of black voters and get out enough of them to bring about a victory in November .
Obama level black votes will likely not happen for Sleepy Joe , even if Barack and Michelle Obama campaign for him .
He ’ s still just an old white swamp creature with forty years in elected office with not much to hang his hat on as any kind of legislative success .
What if Anita Hill decided to make headlines with her continued refusal to completely forgive him for his behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far she hasn ’ t been willing to support him .
That may carry some weight with female African-American voters , who are the majority of Democrat voters .
“ There ’ s no question that Joe Biden is badly needed by this country , ” CBC PAC Chairman Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York said in an interview with The Associated Press .
“ His leadership , his experience , his understanding on how to get things done and his ability to work and pull people together is needed now more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a healer and not a divider , and that ’ s Joe Biden.
” The CBC PAC endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .
When asked what will be the road map to winning the election this time after Democrats suffered a bitter defeat , Meeks said it ’ s simple : Listen to black women , who are among the Democratic Party ’ s most loyal voting bloc .
“ Black women over-performed in 2016 , and had we listened to them , we might not have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Meeks said .
But Meeks said he ’ s confident Biden will be able to drum up support among key demographics .
In the end , rollouts of endorsements don ’ t end up meaning very much in a presidential election , especially if they are ones that would be expected anyway .
These two endorsements fall in that category .
Neither is unexpected or out of the ordinary for a Democrat presidential candidate .

Joe Biden scored two big endorsements (for Democrats) on Monday. Both the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC weighed in with their support of Biden’s presidential bid. While neither endorsement is particularly unusual, given both always endorse Democrat candidates, it is interesting that both waited until there is no other choice before offering their official endorsements.
In order to get the endorsement nailed down from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Action Fund, Biden is moving even more left than he already has done in order to secure the votes of environmental alarmists. His campaign promises have been tweaked and Biden is agreeing to “meaningfully engage” with more voices of the climate change movement. That is nebulous language but it appears to have satisfied the activists.
“I outlined a bold plan to lead a clean energy revolution and fight for environmental justice. But the best policy work is continuous, creative, and keeps reaching for greater ambition and impact. In the months ahead, expanding this plan will be one of my key objectives,” Biden said in a statement while accepting an endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Action Fund. “I have asked my campaign to commence a process to meaningfully engage with more voices from the climate movement — including environmental justice leaders and worker organizations, and collaborate on additional policies in areas ranging from environmental justice to new, concrete goals we can achieve within a decade, to more investments in a clean energy economy,” he added.
The LCV members want Biden to agree to ramp up his original campaign aspiration of 100% clean energy sooner than 2050. They also want him to commit to rejecting new permits for fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines. LCV Action Fund’s senior vice president of government affairs, Tiernan Sittenfeld said that Biden will “immediately” put the United States on track for 100 percent clean energy and “restore America’s global climate leadership”. The part about climate leadership would no doubt be true of a Biden presidency. He has already proven to be a fan of meaningless global climate change agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement to which Obama was happy to commit the United States yet it couldn’t even get passed in Congress.
Carol Browner, LCV Board Chair, is pleased, too. Browner, you may remember, was the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. She was a willing partner in Al Gore’s fanaticism on the subject. Her statement says Biden “will work tirelessly starting on day one as president and every day to protect our environment and the health of our communities and to combat the climate crisis.”
Just days ago, LCV Victory Fund announced preparations have begun for a $14 million ad campaign against President Trump. The ads will target a narrow band of swing voters who they think will be receptive to their message. Biden is counting on these special interest groups to spend big bucks on campaign advertising because it’s already been proven that Biden is less than a stellar fundraiser.
Based on polling and analytic modeling, the group identified 1.5 million voters in six battleground states — Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — who it thinks could be persuaded to vote in November in part, they hope, based on messages about clean water and air or the climate. LCV Victory Fund, the league’s super PAC, will inundate those voters throughout the late spring and early summer with recurring digital ads and direct mail literature — the literature will arrive at voters’ mailboxes over six times before the parties’ national conventions in August.
The issue of climate change, though, isn’t even in the top ten issues according to Gallup polling, as ranked by voter enthusiasm. It doesn’t rank high in the most enthusiastic of Democrat voters, so good luck with that “narrow band” of swing voters.
The endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) PAC fits in with the push to appeal to black voters. The Biden campaign is being pressured by black leaders like Rep. James Clyburn to increase hiring of African-American campaign staff to go and get out the black vote for November. Clyburn realizes that the Democrat candidate has to have the overwhelming support of black voters and get out enough of them to bring about a victory in November. Obama level black votes will likely not happen for Sleepy Joe, even if Barack and Michelle Obama campaign for him. He’s still just an old white swamp creature with forty years in elected office with not much to hang his hat on as any kind of legislative success. What if Anita Hill decided to make headlines with her continued refusal to completely forgive him for his behavior during the Clarence Thomas hearing? So far she hasn’t been willing to support him. That may carry some weight with female African-American voters, who are the majority of Democrat voters.
“There’s no question that Joe Biden is badly needed by this country,” CBC PAC Chairman Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York said in an interview with The Associated Press. “His leadership, his experience, his understanding on how to get things done and his ability to work and pull people together is needed now more than ever. We need someone that is a healer and not a divider, and that’s Joe Biden.” The CBC PAC endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. When asked what will be the road map to winning the election this time after Democrats suffered a bitter defeat, Meeks said it’s simple: Listen to black women, who are among the Democratic Party’s most loyal voting bloc. “Black women over-performed in 2016, and had we listened to them, we might not have the person that’s there now,” Meeks said. But Meeks said he’s confident Biden will be able to drum up support among key demographics.
In the end, rollouts of endorsements don’t end up meaning very much in a presidential election, especially if they are ones that would be expected anyway. These two endorsements fall in that category. Neither is unexpected or out of the ordinary for a Democrat presidential candidate.


hotair--2020-04-20--Georgia governor: We're (partially) reopening for business -- this Friday

I feel about this the way I feel about Sweden ’ s no-lockdowns experiment .
Glad that someone ’ s doing it , so we can see how much better or worse it is than the standard model , annnnnnd glad that I ’ m not personally participating in it .
Not sure I follow his logic on which businesses can open and which can ’ t , though .
Restaurants are okay ( if proper social distancing protocols are followed ) but not bars ?
Some Georgia businesses including gyms , hair and nail salons and bowling alleys will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state moves toward reopening its economy .
Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R ) said Monday those businesses will be required to stagger shifts , keep workspaces six feet apartment and screen workers for respiratory illnesses and fevers .
Workers may also have to wear masks and gloves when “ appropriate.
” Theaters , private social clubs and restaurants will be allowed to reopen April 27 and will be required to follow the same requirements .
Bars and nightclubs will remain closed .
It ’ s impossible for staff to keep their distance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes Amanda Carpenter .
Shouldn ’ t those logically be among the last to reopen ?
Brian Kemp is one of three governors to announce partial reopenings today .
Coincidentally , they ’ re all Republicans and all from red southern states .
No doubt the president will speak warmly of them at today ’ s briefing .
( As I write this , it has yet to begin . )
Should he speak warmly of them , though , given what the federal guidelines that he promulgated late last week have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what states should look to in deciding whether to reopen : I can ’ t find Georgia ’ s data on ILIs or hospital capacity but their data on new cases is available at the Department of Public Health website .
They ’ ve had encouraging results — over the past five days , not 14 .
The curve of new cases has flattened , but only very recently .
It hasn ’ t actually declined .
There ’ s a discrepancy between the data on the DPH site and the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DPH , today ’ s deaths are the smallest number yet for Georgia , just four in all .
At the Tracking Project site there were 46 new deaths , an increase from Saturday and Sunday .
A week ago there were 31 new deaths from Sunday to Monday .
Today ’ s number tops that .
Pretty clearly , Kemp isn ’ t following the federal guidelines .
But then , Trump isn ’ t following them either .
The odds of the president praising Kemp ecstatically for moving too early versus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy are 100 to zero .
I ’ d guesstimate that if there ’ s a new outbreak we should see case counts beginning to rise by mid-May and a bump in deaths by the end of the month .
Hopefully , because of Kemp ’ s insistence that businesses take proper precautions , that bump will only be very slight .
We ’ ll have a sense of how much “ pent-up demand ” there is among consumers for retail services like restaurants sooner .
A new online poll from YouGov suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably much less than most businesses need to live off of .
YouGov asked , “ If restaurants in your area reopened in for sit-down dining in May , how comfortable , if at all , would you be visiting these restaurants ?
” A little more than a third nationally are at least somewhat inclined to take a chance .
That percentage in Georgia should grow after a few weeks as people on the fence look around and don ’ t see any spike in cases .
Whether the trend persists will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the month .
And for the “ not comfortable at all ” crowd , it may be much longer before they reemerge regardless of what the data looks like .
Twenty-eight percent is … a lot of demand to withdraw from the service industry .
Exit question : Didn ’ t this guy find out only recently that asymptomatic people are infectious ?

I feel about this the way I feel about Sweden’s no-lockdowns experiment. Glad that someone’s doing it, so we can see how much better or worse it is than the standard model, annnnnnd glad that I’m not personally participating in it.
Not sure I follow his logic on which businesses can open and which can’t, though. Restaurants are okay (if proper social distancing protocols are followed) but not bars?
Some Georgia businesses including gyms, hair and nail salons and bowling alleys will be allowed to open Friday as the state moves toward reopening its economy. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) said Monday those businesses will be required to stagger shifts, keep workspaces six feet apartment and screen workers for respiratory illnesses and fevers. Workers may also have to wear masks and gloves when “appropriate.” Theaters, private social clubs and restaurants will be allowed to reopen April 27 and will be required to follow the same requirements. Bars and nightclubs will remain closed.
It’s impossible for staff to keep their distance in barber shops and nail salons, notes Amanda Carpenter. Shouldn’t those logically be among the last to reopen?
Brian Kemp is one of three governors to announce partial reopenings today. Coincidentally, they’re all Republicans and all from red southern states. No doubt the president will speak warmly of them at today’s briefing. (As I write this, it has yet to begin.) Should he speak warmly of them, though, given what the federal guidelines that he promulgated late last week have to say? Here’s the part about what states should look to in deciding whether to reopen:
I can’t find Georgia’s data on ILIs or hospital capacity but their data on new cases is available at the Department of Public Health website. They’ve had encouraging results — over the past five days, not 14.
The curve of new cases has flattened, but only very recently. It hasn’t actually declined.
There’s a discrepancy between the data on the DPH site and the data at the COVID Tracking Project. At DPH, today’s deaths are the smallest number yet for Georgia, just four in all. At the Tracking Project site there were 46 new deaths, an increase from Saturday and Sunday. A week ago there were 31 new deaths from Sunday to Monday. Today’s number tops that. Pretty clearly, Kemp isn’t following the federal guidelines.
But then, Trump isn’t following them either. The odds of the president praising Kemp ecstatically for moving too early versus criticizing him for departing from his own policy are 100 to zero.
I’d guesstimate that if there’s a new outbreak we should see case counts beginning to rise by mid-May and a bump in deaths by the end of the month. Hopefully, because of Kemp’s insistence that businesses take proper precautions, that bump will only be very slight. We’ll have a sense of how much “pent-up demand” there is among consumers for retail services like restaurants sooner. A new online poll from YouGov suggests that there’s some, but probably much less than most businesses need to live off of. YouGov asked, “If restaurants in your area reopened in for sit-down dining in May, how comfortable, if at all, would you be visiting these restaurants?”
A little more than a third nationally are at least somewhat inclined to take a chance. That percentage in Georgia should grow after a few weeks as people on the fence look around and don’t see any spike in cases. Whether the trend persists will depend on whether a spike comes later in the month. And for the “not comfortable at all” crowd, it may be much longer before they reemerge regardless of what the data looks like. Twenty-eight percent is … a lot of demand to withdraw from the service industry.
Exit question: Didn’t this guy find out only recently that asymptomatic people are infectious?


hotair--2020-04-20--USC-LA County: Antibody testing suggests 4% of LA County has had the virus

Earlier this month researchers from the University of Southern California ’ s Keck School of Medicine set up drive-thru testing sites in six locations around LA County .
The researchers used a proprietary database they say is “ representative ” of the entire county and gave people an antibody test .
What they found is that far more people in LA County have had the virus than are aware of it .
The research is unfinished and hasn ’ t been peer reviewed yet but LA County public health published the early results which show that around 4 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based on results of the first round of testing , the research team estimates that approximately 4.1 % of the county ’ s adult population has antibody to the virus .
Adjusting this estimate for statistical margin of error implies about 2.8 % to 5.6 % of the county ’ s adult population has antibody to the virus- which translates to approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have had the infection .
That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in early April .
The number of COVID-related deaths in the county has now surpassed 600 .
“ We haven ’ t known the true extent of COVID-19 infections in our community because we have only tested people with symptoms , and the availability of tests has been limited , ” said lead investigator Neeraj Sood , a USC professor of public policy at USC Price School for Public Policy and senior fellow at USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics .
“ The estimates also suggest that we might have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health strategies.
” The results have important implications for public health efforts to control the local epidemic .
“ These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others , ” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer , director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health .
“ These findings underscore the importance of expanded polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) testing to diagnose those with infection so they can be isolated and quarantined , while also maintaining the broad social distancing interventions.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower risk of death among those with infection than was previously thought , the number of COVID-related deaths each day continues to mount , highlighting the need for continued vigorous prevention and control efforts , ” said Dr. Paul Simon , chief science officer at L.A. County Department of Public Health and co-lead on the study .
The press release doesn ’ t do the math but if 4.1 % of the county has had the virus , that ’ s roughly 324,000 people who ’ ve had it .
With a current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that means a death rate of something like .19 percent .
Of course it could be higher or lower if you use the higher or lower estimate for how many people have had it .
The good news is that a lot of people may have had this with few if any symptoms .
The bad news is that even the best case LA County is only slightly over 5 percent .
To achieve herd immunity we probably have to get to 80 to 95 percent .
So if we assume around 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 4 percent now , we still have a long way to go .
That could mean another 11,000+ deaths and many thousands more hospitalizations before we get there .
And if you assume the virus has been spreading in LA for perhaps two months to get us to 4 percent , we may have many months to go before we hit 80 % recovered and immune .
Finally , we still don ’ t know how long immunity to COVID lasts .
That ’ s critical because you can ’ t assume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re immune for life .
In fact , that ’ s probably not the case .
STAT published a piece today about what we know about COVID immunity thus far : Scientists who have looked at antibodies to other coronaviruses — both the common-cold causing foursome and SARS and MERS — found they persisted for at least a few years , indicating people were protected from reinfection for at least that long .
From then , protection might start to wane , not drop off completely .
The experience with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has encouraged what Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch summed up as the “ educated guess ” in a recent column in the New York Times : “ After being infected with SARS-CoV-2 , most individuals will have an immune response , some better than others .
That response , it may be assumed , will offer some protection over the medium term — at least a year — and then its effectiveness might decline.
” … The challenge , as the National Academies report highlighted , is that no one knew about this virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means they haven ’ t been able to study what happens to people who recover from Covid-19 — and if and how long they are protected — for more than a short period of time .
“ One key uncertainty arises from the fact that we are early in this outbreak and survivors from the first weeks of infection in China are , at most , only three months since recovery , ” the report said .
So while we ’ re adding up people who ’ ve had COVID as we hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to subtract those whose immunity is waning .
Update : I meant to link to this piece Allahpundit wrote Saturday about antibody test results from several places including Wuhan , the Netherlands , Massachusetts and King County , Washington .
The ranges vary widely but some are in the same range of 2-3 percent , not that different than this USC study .

Earlier this month researchers from the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine set up drive-thru testing sites in six locations around LA County. The researchers used a proprietary database they say is “representative” of the entire county and gave people an antibody test. What they found is that far more people in LA County have had the virus than are aware of it. The research is unfinished and hasn’t been peer reviewed yet but LA County public health published the early results which show that around 4 percent of people have already had the virus:
Based on results of the first round of testing, the research team estimates that approximately 4.1% of the county’s adult population has antibody to the virus. Adjusting this estimate for statistical margin of error implies about 2.8% to 5.6% of the county’s adult population has antibody to the virus- which translates to approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have had the infection. That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the county by the time of the study in early April. The number of COVID-related deaths in the county has now surpassed 600. “We haven’t known the true extent of COVID-19 infections in our community because we have only tested people with symptoms, and the availability of tests has been limited,” said lead investigator Neeraj Sood, a USC professor of public policy at USC Price School for Public Policy and senior fellow at USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. “The estimates also suggest that we might have to recalibrate disease prediction models and rethink public health strategies.” The results have important implications for public health efforts to control the local epidemic. “These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health. “These findings underscore the importance of expanded polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing to diagnose those with infection so they can be isolated and quarantined, while also maintaining the broad social distancing interventions.”… “Though the results indicate a lower risk of death among those with infection than was previously thought, the number of COVID-related deaths each day continues to mount, highlighting the need for continued vigorous prevention and control efforts,” said Dr. Paul Simon, chief science officer at L.A. County Department of Public Health and co-lead on the study.
The press release doesn’t do the math but if 4.1% of the county has had the virus, that’s roughly 324,000 people who’ve had it. With a current death toll of 617 as of today that means a death rate of something like .19 percent. Of course it could be higher or lower if you use the higher or lower estimate for how many people have had it.
The good news is that a lot of people may have had this with few if any symptoms. The bad news is that even the best case LA County is only slightly over 5 percent. To achieve herd immunity we probably have to get to 80 to 95 percent. So if we assume around 80 percent needed, and LA County is at 4 percent now, we still have a long way to go. That could mean another 11,000+ deaths and many thousands more hospitalizations before we get there. And if you assume the virus has been spreading in LA for perhaps two months to get us to 4 percent, we may have many months to go before we hit 80% recovered and immune.
Finally, we still don’t know how long immunity to COVID lasts. That’s critical because you can’t assume that once you’ve had it you’re immune for life. In fact, that’s probably not the case. STAT published a piece today about what we know about COVID immunity thus far:
Scientists who have looked at antibodies to other coronaviruses — both the common-cold causing foursome and SARS and MERS — found they persisted for at least a few years, indicating people were protected from reinfection for at least that long. From then, protection might start to wane, not drop off completely. The experience with other viruses, including the other coronaviruses, has encouraged what Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch summed up as the “educated guess” in a recent column in the New York Times: “After being infected with SARS-CoV-2, most individuals will have an immune response, some better than others. That response, it may be assumed, will offer some protection over the medium term — at least a year — and then its effectiveness might decline.”… The challenge, as the National Academies report highlighted, is that no one knew about this virus until a few months ago. That means they haven’t been able to study what happens to people who recover from Covid-19 — and if and how long they are protected — for more than a short period of time. “One key uncertainty arises from the fact that we are early in this outbreak and survivors from the first weeks of infection in China are, at most, only three months since recovery,” the report said.
So while we’re adding up people who’ve had COVID as we hope to reach herd immunity, we also have to subtract those whose immunity is waning.
Update: I meant to link to this piece Allahpundit wrote Saturday about antibody test results from several places including Wuhan, the Netherlands, Massachusetts and King County, Washington. The ranges vary widely but some are in the same range of 2-3 percent, not that different than this USC study.


hotair--2020-04-20--Phase 4 COVID-19 relief emerges: $500 billion state, local bailout

While leaders on Capitol Hill thrash about on replenishing their own program to protect small-business workers , a bipartisan group in the Senate have begun work on Phase 4 of COVID-19 pandemic relief .
The new focus for federal cash will fall on state and local governments that have seen revenue streams dry up as businesses shut down .
Senators Bob Menendez ( D-NJ ) and Bill Cassidy ( R-LA ) have crafted a $ 500 billion bailout package that attempts to provide baseline cash while adjusting for both population and outbreak size .
Perhaps we should be surprised that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is .
The ask matches that from the National Governors Association and is designed to quiet rising criticism from governors over the CARES Act , which only provided nominal funding in this direction : A Republican and a Democrat in the Senate are proposing a $ 500 billion fund for state and local governments as part of the next comprehensive rescue package from Congress , to aid parts of the country reeling from the coronavirus pandemic .
… Menendez and Cassidy said they ’ re answering the call from the National Governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much larger “ stabilization fund ” for states .
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan , the NGA ’ s chairman , and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo , its vice-chairman , said on April 11 that without at least $ 500 billion , states would have to curtail essential services .
The pair are Republican and Democrat , respectively .
The federal stimulus approved in March provides $ 150 billion for municipalities ’ virus expenses but doesn ’ t address budget shortfalls and only helps states and cities with populations greater than 500,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only cities with over 1 million residents .
The “ doesn ’ t address budget shortfalls ” is a big red flag here , and what moves this from relief to a bailout .
One can understand why the federal government would provide subsidies earmarked for COVID-19 abatement efforts .
Not only are those resources urgently needed , they also involve a truly interstate issue — tamping down the spread of the pandemic from hot spots like New York , New Jersey , and Louisiana into less-hard-hit neighboring states .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal issue , especially to the degree in which they don ’ t have anything to do with the present crisis .
Funding those actions puts taxpayers in more fiscally responsible states on the hook for budget decisions over which they have no control .
In the acute crisis , though , that argument won ’ t fly in either the Senate or the House .
At least it ’ s not a repeal of the state and local tax ( SALT ) deduction cap , as some governors demanded .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can hope so , and politically it ’ s almost impossible at the moment to deny the funds .
Axios and Bloomberg report that the money would go out in three tranches , in an attempt to spread the assistance widely while focusing on the greatest emergent needs : This sounds reasonable in theory , but it sets up some interesting incentives .
The first tranche is the most straightforward , simply based on the relatively fixed metric of population distribution .
The second tranche gets more complicated , however ; at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total infections ?
Does it count “ recovered ” infections or only active cases ?
Do we count all infections , starting back to the beginning of March , or only those identified at or after the passage of the bill ?
There are good arguments either way , but given that this bill is sponsored by senators from two hot spots , I ’ m guessing that it will count all cases from the beginning of time for splitting funds .
That will leave states on the upswing of cases with perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least .
The conditions on the third tranche are even more curious .
Like it or not , responsive or not , that incentivizes governors to issue more draconian measures .
There are obvious counterincentives in play as well — we ’ re starting to see them now — but the incentive for harsher shutdown parameters undeniably exists .
( And for that matter , the second tranche also seems like a bit of a reward for jurisdictions that acted irresponsibly lax in the beginning , like New York City and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like a way to get more cash to the Northeast and Michigan especially .
Finally , don ’ t expect this to remain at $ 500 billion once Nancy “ Ice Cream ” Pelosi takes a whack at it .
While Congress remains out of session , Pelosi will press to add in all sorts of spending from her 2020 agenda , including carveouts for SEIU and AFSCME , if she doesn ’ t succeed in getting them while replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program .
This is nothing more than a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go off the deep end , eventually .

While leaders on Capitol Hill thrash about on replenishing their own program to protect small-business workers, a bipartisan group in the Senate have begun work on Phase 4 of COVID-19 pandemic relief. The new focus for federal cash will fall on state and local governments that have seen revenue streams dry up as businesses shut down. Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) have crafted a $500 billion bailout package that attempts to provide baseline cash while adjusting for both population and outbreak size.
Perhaps we should be surprised that the price tag is as low as it is. The ask matches that from the National Governors Association and is designed to quiet rising criticism from governors over the CARES Act, which only provided nominal funding in this direction:
A Republican and a Democrat in the Senate are proposing a $500 billion fund for state and local governments as part of the next comprehensive rescue package from Congress, to aid parts of the country reeling from the coronavirus pandemic. … Menendez and Cassidy said they’re answering the call from the National Governors Association a week ago to establish a much larger “stabilization fund” for states. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, the NGA’s chairman, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, its vice-chairman, said on April 11 that without at least $500 billion, states would have to curtail essential services. The pair are Republican and Democrat, respectively. The federal stimulus approved in March provides $150 billion for municipalities’ virus expenses but doesn’t address budget shortfalls and only helps states and cities with populations greater than 500,000. The Federal Reserve announced loans to states and only cities with over 1 million residents.
The “doesn’t address budget shortfalls” is a big red flag here, and what moves this from relief to a bailout. One can understand why the federal government would provide subsidies earmarked for COVID-19 abatement efforts. Not only are those resources urgently needed, they also involve a truly interstate issue — tamping down the spread of the pandemic from hot spots like New York, New Jersey, and Louisiana into less-hard-hit neighboring states. However, states’ budget crises are not a federal issue, especially to the degree in which they don’t have anything to do with the present crisis. Funding those actions puts taxpayers in more fiscally responsible states on the hook for budget decisions over which they have no control.
In the acute crisis, though, that argument won’t fly in either the Senate or the House. At least it’s not a repeal of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, as some governors demanded. It’s a one-off, or at least we can hope so, and politically it’s almost impossible at the moment to deny the funds.
Axios and Bloomberg report that the money would go out in three tranches, in an attempt to spread the assistance widely while focusing on the greatest emergent needs:
The first tranche would be allocated proportionally based on states’ percentage of the total U.S. population, with all states and D.C. set to receive at least $1.25 billion. Cities and counties with populations above 50,000 would also be eligible for specific aid.
The second tranche would be allocated based on the state’s share of the total number of U.S. infections.
The third would be based on the state’s loss of revenue resulting from shutdowns and stay-at-home orders.
This sounds reasonable in theory, but it sets up some interesting incentives. The first tranche is the most straightforward, simply based on the relatively fixed metric of population distribution. The second tranche gets more complicated, however; at what point will Congress measure percentage of total infections? Does it count “recovered” infections or only active cases? Do we count all infections, starting back to the beginning of March, or only those identified at or after the passage of the bill? There are good arguments either way, but given that this bill is sponsored by senators from two hot spots, I’m guessing that it will count all cases from the beginning of time for splitting funds. That will leave states on the upswing of cases with perhaps fewer resources to prepare, relatively speaking at least.
The conditions on the third tranche are even more curious. Like it or not, responsive or not, that incentivizes governors to issue more draconian measures. There are obvious counterincentives in play as well — we’re starting to see them now — but the incentive for harsher shutdown parameters undeniably exists. (And for that matter, the second tranche also seems like a bit of a reward for jurisdictions that acted irresponsibly lax in the beginning, like New York City and New Orleans.) Here too, this looks like a way to get more cash to the Northeast and Michigan especially.
Finally, don’t expect this to remain at $500 billion once Nancy “Ice Cream” Pelosi takes a whack at it. While Congress remains out of session, Pelosi will press to add in all sorts of spending from her 2020 agenda, including carveouts for SEIU and AFSCME, if she doesn’t succeed in getting them while replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program. This is nothing more than a $500 billion springboard from which Congress will go off the deep end, eventually.