hotair--2020-04-29--Should you get unemployment if you refuse to return to work?

When it comes to federal coronavirus relief efforts , particularly federally enhanced unemployment benefits , we continue to experience a phenomenon that was not just predictable but predicted .
While the original $ 2 trillion dollar relief package was being debated , a number of Republican senators were excoriated for requesting an amendment that would cap unemployment benefits at a maximum equal to the worker ’ s most recent pay scale .
This was apparently deemed “ heartless ” and somehow insulting to the recently unemployed .
It didn ’ t take long for the prediction to play out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in occupations ranging from landscaping to restaurants complaining that their former employees are refusing to come back to work .
Why show up on the job and risk catching the virus when you can earn more money sheltering at home with everyone else , right ?
Now the governments of some states have taken notice of this situation and are pondering action .
This is particularly true in Iowa , where Governor Kim Reynolds ( R ) has drawn a firm line in the sand .
Former employees who decline an offer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be considered as having voluntarily quit , disqualifying them for unemployment insurance benefits .
( Intellectualist ) As states begin to reopen their economies after weeks of stay-at-home orders , some are warning employees that they will lose unemployment benefits if they refuse to return to their jobs , according to The Hill — even if they fear contracting the coronavirus .
In Iowa , Governor Kim Reynolds ( R ) said failing to return to work would be considered a “ voluntary quit , ” which would terminate an employee ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an employer and you offer to bring your employee back to work and they decide not to , that ’ s a voluntary quit , ” Reynolds said Friday .
“ Therefore , they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.
” The governor also said employers should file a report with Iowa Workforce Development if they encounter workers who refuse to come back to their jobs .
Is there an easy , one-size-fits-all solution to this question ?
Probably not .
During previous , more normal times , it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been offered a job – particularly a job they previously accepted and were apparently at least somewhat satisfied with – who refuses it should forfeit their unemployment benefits .
After all , that insurance is intended for people who are unable to find a job , not those who are “ unwilling to work.
” But these aren ’ t normal times .
In at least some cases , it might not simply be the money holding them back from returning to work .
( Or at least not entirely the money .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ places them in close quarters with coworkers or customers and they have no immunity , the fear of contracting COVID-19 is a reasonable cause for hesitating .
If Iowa , Texas and other states are going to institute rules like this ( and I believe they should ) , employers should be able to demonstrate that they ’ ve taken all reasonable precautions to provide as safe of a work environment as is possible for the returning employees .
I ’ m not talking airlocks and filtration like a Level 4 infectious disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reasonable distance between works stations or plexiglass barriers where that ’ s not possible .
Masks and other PPE , along with hand sanitizer should be available .
If you can manage that much and the employees still don ’ t want to return , then the responsibility ( and consequences ) fall on their shoulders .
Of course , a lot of this could have been avoided if the Democrats had listened to reason when approving the federally enhanced employment benefits in the first place .
Most people are now eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that untaxed .
That works out to the equivalent of $ 25 per hour , a full ten dollars per hour above the minimum wage in the most generous of states and cities .
That makes it a lot easier to decide that it ’ s “ too risky ” to go back to work if your job is going to immediately deliver a major pay cut to you .
And Congress should have recognized that reality before voting on the relief package .

When it comes to federal coronavirus relief efforts, particularly federally enhanced unemployment benefits, we continue to experience a phenomenon that was not just predictable but predicted. While the original $2 trillion dollar relief package was being debated, a number of Republican senators were excoriated for requesting an amendment that would cap unemployment benefits at a maximum equal to the worker’s most recent pay scale. This was apparently deemed “heartless” and somehow insulting to the recently unemployed.
It didn’t take long for the prediction to play out. We’ve already heard from employers in occupations ranging from landscaping to restaurants complaining that their former employees are refusing to come back to work. Why show up on the job and risk catching the virus when you can earn more money sheltering at home with everyone else, right?
Now the governments of some states have taken notice of this situation and are pondering action. This is particularly true in Iowa, where Governor Kim Reynolds (R) has drawn a firm line in the sand. Former employees who decline an offer to get their old jobs back are to be considered as having voluntarily quit, disqualifying them for unemployment insurance benefits. (Intellectualist)
As states begin to reopen their economies after weeks of stay-at-home orders, some are warning employees that they will lose unemployment benefits if they refuse to return to their jobs, according to The Hill — even if they fear contracting the coronavirus. In Iowa, Governor Kim Reynolds (R) said failing to return to work would be considered a “voluntary quit,” which would terminate an employee’s benefits. “If you’re an employer and you offer to bring your employee back to work and they decide not to, that’s a voluntary quit,” Reynolds said Friday. “Therefore, they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.” The governor also said employers should file a report with Iowa Workforce Development if they encounter workers who refuse to come back to their jobs.
Is there an easy, one-size-fits-all solution to this question? Probably not. During previous, more normal times, it would be simple to say that anyone who has been offered a job – particularly a job they previously accepted and were apparently at least somewhat satisfied with – who refuses it should forfeit their unemployment benefits. After all, that insurance is intended for people who are unable to find a job, not those who are “unwilling to work.”
But these aren’t normal times. In at least some cases, it might not simply be the money holding them back from returning to work. (Or at least not entirely the money.) If they have a job that places them in close quarters with coworkers or customers and they have no immunity, the fear of contracting COVID-19 is a reasonable cause for hesitating.
If Iowa, Texas and other states are going to institute rules like this (and I believe they should), employers should be able to demonstrate that they’ve taken all reasonable precautions to provide as safe of a work environment as is possible for the returning employees. I’m not talking airlocks and filtration like a Level 4 infectious disease lab. Just the basics, like a reasonable distance between works stations or plexiglass barriers where that’s not possible. Masks and other PPE, along with hand sanitizer should be available. If you can manage that much and the employees still don’t want to return, then the responsibility (and consequences) fall on their shoulders.
Of course, a lot of this could have been avoided if the Democrats had listened to reason when approving the federally enhanced employment benefits in the first place. Most people are now eligible for $1,000 per week, much of that untaxed. That works out to the equivalent of $25 per hour, a full ten dollars per hour above the minimum wage in the most generous of states and cities. That makes it a lot easier to decide that it’s “too risky” to go back to work if your job is going to immediately deliver a major pay cut to you. And Congress should have recognized that reality before voting on the relief package.


hotair--2020-04-29--Hmmm: Trump orders intel services to probe China, WHO response to COVID-19

It ’ s not exactly a scoop that the US wants answers about how COVID-19 blindsided the US and the world .
Donald Trump told the press on Monday that “ very serious investigations ” had begun into China ’ s actions , and that Trump planned to hold Beijing accountable for damage .
“ We are not happy with China , ” Trump underscored in his response : Q Mr. President , Charlie Spiering from Breitbart News .
And a majority of polls show that Americans blame China for the spread of the coronavirus , and yet they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the world more dependent on their supply chains .
How do you get — how do you hold China accountable and how do you keep our country — how do you incentivize our businesses ?
THE PRESIDENT : Well , Charlie , there are a lot of ways you can hold them accountable .
We ’ re doing very serious investigations , as you probably know .
And we are not happy with China .
We are not happy with that whole situation because we believe it could have been stopped at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped quickly , and it wouldn ’ t have spread all over the world .
And we think that should have happened .
So we ’ ll let you know at the appropriate time , but we are doing serious investigations .
On this point , Trump has been proven correct .
This morning , NBC reports that Trump ordered that intelligence agencies conduct the investigation , and that those will target both China and the World Health Organization .
The orders indicate a specific interest in the research laboratories in Wuhan : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comb through communications intercepts , human source reporting , satellite imagery and other data to establish whether China and the World Health Organization initially hid what they knew about the emerging coronavirus pandemic , current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter told NBC News .
A specific “ tasking ” seeking information about the outbreak ’ s early days was sent last week to the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency , which includes the National Center for Medical Intelligence , an official directly familiar with the matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructions , according to current and former officials familiar with the matter .
… As part of the tasking , intelligence agencies were asked to determine what the WHO knew about two research labs studying coronaviruses in the Chinese province of Wuhan , where the virus was first observed .
NBC News has previously reported that the spy agencies have been investigating the possibility that the virus escaped accidentally from one of the labs , although many experts believe that is unlikely .
Unlikely ?
Maybe , but it ’ s definitely within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reporting on prophetic State Department warnings about the Wuhan Institute of Virology put that explanation squarely in the mainstream of possibilities , even though the media had tried to paint Sen. Tom Cotton as a kook for even mentioning it beforehand .
Furthermore , China won ’ t ever admit to that even if it turned out to be true , which means it ’ s a possibility that outside agencies will have to investigate .
Of course , the leak of those State Department memos could easily be seen as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propaganda efforts over the last few weeks .
The sudden confirmation of an intelligence operation by anonymous sources to NBC is almost certainly just as intentional .
The Xi Jinping regime clearly hasn ’ t paid attention to those signals , and this leak sounds like an escalation , as NBC notes in its report : Looping WHO into this investigation is a clear shot across Beijing ’ s bow .
Not only are they going after China , but also China ’ s best mouthpiece on their COVID-19 operation .
The message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign before we really embarrass you .
In fact , I ’ d bet that the intel communities probably already have enough information to humiliate Xi ’ s government ; otherwise , letting the probes slip out into public would hamper intel agencies ’ ability to operate them .
This is likely just a throat-clearing exercise designed to force Beijing to back off … or suffer the consequences in the public square .

It’s not exactly a scoop that the US wants answers about how COVID-19 blindsided the US and the world. Donald Trump told the press on Monday that “very serious investigations” had begun into China’s actions, and that Trump planned to hold Beijing accountable for damage. “We are not happy with China,” Trump underscored in his response:
Q Mr. President, Charlie Spiering from Breitbart News. And a majority of polls show that Americans blame China for the spread of the coronavirus, and yet they’re taking advantage of the crisis to make the world more dependent on their supply chains. How do you get — how do you hold China accountable and how do you keep our country — how do you incentivize our businesses? THE PRESIDENT: Well, Charlie, there are a lot of ways you can hold them accountable. We’re doing very serious investigations, as you probably know. And we are not happy with China. We are not happy with that whole situation because we believe it could have been stopped at the source, it could have been stopped quickly, and it wouldn’t have spread all over the world. And we think that should have happened. So we’ll let you know at the appropriate time, but we are doing serious investigations.
On this point, Trump has been proven correct. This morning, NBC reports that Trump ordered that intelligence agencies conduct the investigation, and that those will target both China and the World Health Organization. The orders indicate a specific interest in the research laboratories in Wuhan:
The White House has ordered intelligence agencies to comb through communications intercepts, human source reporting, satellite imagery and other data to establish whether China and the World Health Organization initially hid what they knew about the emerging coronavirus pandemic, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter told NBC News. A specific “tasking” seeking information about the outbreak’s early days was sent last week to the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which includes the National Center for Medical Intelligence, an official directly familiar with the matter said. The CIA has received similar instructions, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter. … As part of the tasking, intelligence agencies were asked to determine what the WHO knew about two research labs studying coronaviruses in the Chinese province of Wuhan, where the virus was first observed. NBC News has previously reported that the spy agencies have been investigating the possibility that the virus escaped accidentally from one of the labs, although many experts believe that is unlikely.
Unlikely? Maybe, but it’s definitely within the parameters of possibility. Josh Rogin’s reporting on prophetic State Department warnings about the Wuhan Institute of Virology put that explanation squarely in the mainstream of possibilities, even though the media had tried to paint Sen. Tom Cotton as a kook for even mentioning it beforehand. Furthermore, China won’t ever admit to that even if it turned out to be true, which means it’s a possibility that outside agencies will have to investigate.
Of course, the leak of those State Department memos could easily be seen as a brushback pitch to China over its propaganda efforts over the last few weeks. The sudden confirmation of an intelligence operation by anonymous sources to NBC is almost certainly just as intentional. The Xi Jinping regime clearly hasn’t paid attention to those signals, and this leak sounds like an escalation, as NBC notes in its report:
The move coincides with a public effort by the White House, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump’s political allies to focus attention on China’s inability to contain the virus shortly after it emerged. As NBC News previously reported, U.S. intelligence officials have said China initially failed to disclose the seriousness of the outbreak, robbing the rest of the world of information that might have led to earlier containment efforts.
Looping WHO into this investigation is a clear shot across Beijing’s bow. Not only are they going after China, but also China’s best mouthpiece on their COVID-19 operation. The message here is clear — stop the propaganda campaign before we really embarrass you. In fact, I’d bet that the intel communities probably already have enough information to humiliate Xi’s government; otherwise, letting the probes slip out into public would hamper intel agencies’ ability to operate them. This is likely just a throat-clearing exercise designed to force Beijing to back off … or suffer the consequences in the public square.


hotair--2020-04-29--Romney: The first phase of this coronavirus response wasn't a great moment of American leadership

This is why they call him a RINO .
A real Republican would have shrugged off the CDC ’ s testing catastrophe in February and the president ’ s weeks-long habit of muttering semi-lucidly as the virus spread that it was going to go away soon .
Sixty thousand dead in less than two months , with Trump bellowing sporadically at a frightened public as the body count about getting back to work , and Romney ’ s going to take a beating from the usual suspects for daring to suggest that that was sub-optimal .
Meh .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off criticism of Trump after his vote to remove him in February .
I thought he ’ d lie low , not wanting to antagonize Republicans in Utah who don ’ t like seeing one of their senators make trouble for the president .
Instead we find him saying stuff like this and joining bipartisan efforts in the Senate to push back on Trump ’ s removal of the intelligence community IG .
I guess there ’ s no sense trying to maintain a pretense of cordiality towards the administration after you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The speed of our response looked slow compared to other people .
That first phase will not stand out as a great moment in American leadership , ” Romney said , referring to the onset of the coronavirus outbreak , adding , “ We didn ’ t look real strong , and that ’ s kind of an understatement.
” … “ It ’ s hard to say to all 50 governors , you guys all do your thing , ” Romney said .
“ I think the federal coordination has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney also seemed to criticize Trump ’ s advisers , saying he would be surrounding himself with “ real experts in crisis management … people who have dealt with this more than I have.
” He added , “ The key to leadership is recognizing you ’ re not the smartest guy in the room.
” “ I ’ m not blaming this administration , ” he said at one point , which is funny because it kind of sounds like he ’ s blaming this administration .
You know Romney , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people : I can ’ t help but feel that he ’ s not going to be invited to CPAC again next year .
But don ’ t worry : Diamond & Silk definitely will be .
Here ’ s a few minutes from his comments yesterday .
He raised a good point at one part when he was talking about experts in crisis management : Why not bring Chris Christie aboard ?
Christie ’ s been pushing out op-eds intermittently about how to manage the crisis , which I take it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House job .
Trump could do worse than to hire a smart , if flawed , former executive with lots of government experience , so what ’ s the hold-up ?
Is Prince Jared still holding a grudge over Christie having sent his father to prison ?
Nothing says “ good leadership ” like letting your unqualified son-in-law block potentially useful hires in a national crisis due to a personal vendetta .

This is why they call him a RINO. A real Republican would have shrugged off the CDC’s testing catastrophe in February and the president’s weeks-long habit of muttering semi-lucidly as the virus spread that it was going to go away soon.
Sixty thousand dead in less than two months, with Trump bellowing sporadically at a frightened public as the body count about getting back to work, and Romney’s going to take a beating from the usual suspects for daring to suggest that that was sub-optimal. Meh.
It’s interesting to find him not backing off criticism of Trump after his vote to remove him in February. I thought he’d lie low, not wanting to antagonize Republicans in Utah who don’t like seeing one of their senators make trouble for the president. Instead we find him saying stuff like this and joining bipartisan efforts in the Senate to push back on Trump’s removal of the intelligence community IG. I guess there’s no sense trying to maintain a pretense of cordiality towards the administration after you’ve voted to oust its leader.
“The speed of our response looked slow compared to other people. That first phase will not stand out as a great moment in American leadership,” Romney said, referring to the onset of the coronavirus outbreak, adding, “We didn’t look real strong, and that’s kind of an understatement.”… “It’s hard to say to all 50 governors, you guys all do your thing,” Romney said. “I think the federal coordination has been less than my personal style.”… Romney also seemed to criticize Trump’s advisers, saying he would be surrounding himself with “real experts in crisis management … people who have dealt with this more than I have.” He added, “The key to leadership is recognizing you’re not the smartest guy in the room.”
“I’m not blaming this administration,” he said at one point, which is funny because it kind of sounds like he’s blaming this administration. You know Romney, though — always out of touch with the American people:
Who Americans prefer to handle the coronavirus crisis, per NPR/Marist poll pic.twitter.com/iSrOrLc1oI — Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) April 29, 2020
I can’t help but feel that he’s not going to be invited to CPAC again next year. But don’t worry: Diamond & Silk definitely will be.
Here’s a few minutes from his comments yesterday. He raised a good point at one part when he was talking about experts in crisis management: Why not bring Chris Christie aboard? Christie’s been pushing out op-eds intermittently about how to manage the crisis, which I take it are his way of auditioning for a White House job. Trump could do worse than to hire a smart, if flawed, former executive with lots of government experience, so what’s the hold-up? Is Prince Jared still holding a grudge over Christie having sent his father to prison? Nothing says “good leadership” like letting your unqualified son-in-law block potentially useful hires in a national crisis due to a personal vendetta.


hotair--2020-04-29--Women's groups remain silent on Joe Biden allegations

Earlier this month , Mother Jones contacted “ eight national organizations that advocate for sexual violence survivors ” and asked them for a comment about the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden .
Not one of them responded .
Today you can add 10 “ women ’ s groups ” to that list .
The Daily Beast asked the 10 groups for a comment and none of them would offer one .
The Daily Beast contacted 10 top national pro-women organizations for this story , including Emily ’ s List , Planned Parenthood Action Fund , NARAL Pro-Choice America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most organizations did not respond to a detailed request for comment about the allegation by Tara Reade , a former staff assistant in Biden ’ s Senate office who has accused the former vice president of forcibly penetrating her with his fingers in the early 1990s .
Others replied and did not provide a statement .
One prominent women ’ s political group cited a scheduling conflict and asked to be kept “ in mind for other opportunities !
” When pressed if the following day would work better , an associate said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict .
I ’ m sure that will get straightened out , probably right after the election .
The DB also contacted a couple of outspoken advocates for women , Patricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem , both of whom have expressed some regret about the way they were instrumental in defending Bill Clinton in the 1990s .
Ireland , who was the leader of the National Organization for Women ( NOW ) during the Clinton administration told the Washington Post in 2017 she wished she ’ d been more supportive of Paula Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guardian she wouldn ’ t write the same defense of Clinton now that she had written in the 1990s : “ We have to believe women .
I wouldn ’ t write the same thing now because there ’ s probably more known about other women now .
I ’ m not sure , ” she said on the red carpet of an annual comedy benefit for the Ms Foundation for Women , of which she is a founder .
“ What you write in one decade you don ’ t necessarily write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m glad I wrote it in that decade.
” The Daily Beast asked both Ireland and Steinem for comment and neither responded .
In Steinem ’ s case that may actually be an improvement .
She ’ s gone from actively defending Clinton to silently defending Biden .
Maybe by the time the next Democratic candidate is accused of sexual assault she ’ ll be ready to say something negative about it .
The silence of these groups really confirms what conservatives have said all along about them .
They are political entities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their outrage over actual issues and incidents is extremely selective .
For example , during the Kavanaugh confirmation , Planned Parenthood was saying this : And they kept it going into 2019 : Planned Parenthood produced this video last year advising people how to best respond to women who allege they were victims of sexual assault .
Step one is “ Say : ‘ I believe you . '
” Later the clip advises that people should ask “ How can I support you ?
” So Planned Parenthood has already failed taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade .
NARAL is no different .
They put out the same social media posts about Dr. Ford often featuring the # BelieveSurvivors hashtag : But Dr. Ford ’ s story alone should have been enough to keep Kavanaugh off the court .
So how does that work with Tara Reade and the White House ?
How not to respond to allegations according to NARAL .
Isn ’ t silence a form of dismissal ?
They also kept this going into late 2019 .
I won ’ t belabor this too much longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s List : I could keep going but I think you get the point .
These groups had plenty to say about believing survivors as recently as 7-8 months ago .
Suddenly they have all gone silent .

Earlier this month, Mother Jones contacted “eight national organizations that advocate for sexual violence survivors” and asked them for a comment about the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden. Not one of them responded. Today you can add 10 “women’s groups” to that list. The Daily Beast asked the 10 groups for a comment and none of them would offer one.
The Daily Beast contacted 10 top national pro-women organizations for this story, including Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women. Most organizations did not respond to a detailed request for comment about the allegation by Tara Reade, a former staff assistant in Biden’s Senate office who has accused the former vice president of forcibly penetrating her with his fingers in the early 1990s. Others replied and did not provide a statement. One prominent women’s political group cited a scheduling conflict and asked to be kept “in mind for other opportunities!” When pressed if the following day would work better, an associate said it would not, citing another scheduling conflict.
I’m sure that will get straightened out, probably right after the election. The DB also contacted a couple of outspoken advocates for women, Patricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem, both of whom have expressed some regret about the way they were instrumental in defending Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Ireland, who was the leader of the National Organization for Women (NOW) during the Clinton administration told the Washington Post in 2017 she wished she’d been more supportive of Paula Jones:
“I wish I had done more to be supportive of her,” said Patricia Ireland, a longtime president of the National Organization for Women, who is now a lawyer in Florida. “For Paula Jones, there were nice distinctions that people made: She didn’t work for him, he didn’t have the power to hire or fire her. But that ignores the reality that he was a very powerful man.”
Similarly, Gloria Steinem told the Guardian she wouldn’t write the same defense of Clinton now that she had written in the 1990s:
“We have to believe women. I wouldn’t write the same thing now because there’s probably more known about other women now. I’m not sure,” she said on the red carpet of an annual comedy benefit for the Ms Foundation for Women, of which she is a founder. “What you write in one decade you don’t necessarily write in the next. But I’m glad I wrote it in that decade.”
The Daily Beast asked both Ireland and Steinem for comment and neither responded. In Steinem’s case that may actually be an improvement. She’s gone from actively defending Clinton to silently defending Biden. Maybe by the time the next Democratic candidate is accused of sexual assault she’ll be ready to say something negative about it.
The silence of these groups really confirms what conservatives have said all along about them. They are political entities aligned with Democrats first and foremost. Their outrage over actual issues and incidents is extremely selective. For example, during the Kavanaugh confirmation, Planned Parenthood was saying this:
Today, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will share her story of sexual assault at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh under oath with the Senate Judiciary Committee. We stand with survivors of sexual assault. We believe survivors. #KavanaughHearings #BelieveSurvivors pic.twitter.com/qrwfigs2a2 — Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) September 27, 2018
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is strong, brave, and resilient. She is a hero. #KavanaughHearings #BelieveSurvivors — Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) September 27, 2018
And they kept it going into 2019:
Let’s work together to create a culture of consent, and support sexual assault survivors. #IAsk #MeToo pic.twitter.com/W3Bu5vSqsA — Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) April 12, 2019
One year ago today, Dr. Blasey Ford spoke her truth with millions of people watching. Thank you for your bravery and for standing up for what's right. Today and every day, we believe survivors — and we've got your back. #BelieveSurvivors pic.twitter.com/c2VlCyD96U — Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) September 27, 2019
We believe Deborah Ramirez, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and all survivors of sexual assault. Millions of women and countless survivors were watching a year ago, and we are still watching today. #BelieveSurvivors, always. pic.twitter.com/ah9iFQizMw — Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) September 16, 2019
Planned Parenthood produced this video last year advising people how to best respond to women who allege they were victims of sexual assault. Step one is “Say: ‘I believe you.'” Later the clip advises that people should ask “How can I support you?” So Planned Parenthood has already failed taking its own advice with regard to Tara Reade.
To all survivors: we believe you, and we’ve got your back. Here’s how you can support someone who has shared their experience of sexual assault: https://t.co/ZVYsVHsSu6 #MeToo — Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) September 16, 2019
NARAL is no different. They put out the same social media posts about Dr. Ford often featuring the #BelieveSurvivors hashtag:
The graphic allegations of Julie Swetnick are horrifying to read. We believe her, just as we believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez. #BelieveSurvivors #StopKavanaugh pic.twitter.com/Mh1b1G6n0m — NARAL (@NARAL) September 26, 2018
But Dr. Ford’s story alone should have been enough to keep Kavanaugh off the court. So how does that work with Tara Reade and the White House?
Tomorrow's hearing is an insult to women everywhere—Dr. Blasey Ford’s story should've been enough to deny Brett Kavanaugh his undeserved promotion. In the face of Senate Republicans’ anti-woman agenda, people across the country are standing up to say that they #BelieveSurvivors. pic.twitter.com/yuPjImH3DO — NARAL (@NARAL) September 27, 2018
How not to respond to allegations according to NARAL. Isn’t silence a form of dismissal?
“77% of assaults go unreported. Like Dr. Blasey Ford, too many people who speak up about an experience of sexual assault suffer further hurt and humiliation by having their story dismissed, their integrity doubted, or their motives questioned.” https://t.co/sxgAhVtdq2 #MeToo — NARAL (@NARAL) October 13, 2018
They also kept this going into late 2019.
“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter." One year ago today, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford gave her brave and haunting testimony in front of the world. We believed her then, and we believe her now. We believe survivors. pic.twitter.com/mE5mk9aoFj — NARAL (@NARAL) September 27, 2019
I won’t belabor this too much longer but the same is true of Emily’s List:
We are standing in solidarity with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and all survivors of sexual assault. We believe women. We #BelieveSurvivors. pic.twitter.com/8zAaV10iuz — EMILY's List (@emilyslist) September 24, 2018
We believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
We believe Deborah Ramirez.
We #BelieveSurvivors. pic.twitter.com/3xEgdnQoaS — EMILY's List (@emilyslist) September 24, 2018
In 2019:
One year ago today, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford showcased her bravery in front of America. We believe her. We believe women. We believe survivors. pic.twitter.com/XFTes6WuYA — EMILY's List (@emilyslist) September 27, 2019
I could keep going but I think you get the point. These groups had plenty to say about believing survivors as recently as 7-8 months ago. Suddenly they have all gone silent.


hotair--2020-04-29--Team Biden to Dems on Reade accusations: Tell the world Reade's lying so we don't have to; <span cla

Team Biden to Dems on Reade accusations: Tell the world Reade's lying so we don't have to; NYT: Biden campaign misrepresenting our reporting

Did Joe Biden pass on “ a golden opportunity ” to deal with allegations of sexual assault of his former Senate aide ?
If so , it ’ s by design , not an accident .
Yesterday evening , CNN ’ s Chris Cillizza argued that Biden should have confronted the allegations head-on during a virtual town hall earlier in the day , saying that the friendly setting would have been “ perfect ” for the presumptive nominee to get ahead of the story : Biden , who used the town hall to tout a newly announced endorsement from 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the accusations and none of the pre-written questions from the audience , which were read by former Olympic figure skater Michelle Kwan , didn ’ t bring the topic up either .
That is a missed opportunity — and a miscalculation by Biden and his team .
… Biden ’ s own campaign pledges run directly counter to the line he is trying to hold .
In one of his best speeches of the campaign to date — following a sweeping victory in the March 10 primaries — Biden pledged that “ this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot .
The character of the candidates , the character of the nation is on the ballot.
” If he truly means those words , then simply pointing to the fact that more than a dozen women have accused President Donald Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior just wouldn ’ t be enough .
Given all of that , ignoring this seems like a choice with a very small chance of succeeding , politically speaking , not to mention the obvious hypocrisy when you consider that Biden had framed this election as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team appear to be playing by an old set of campaign rules in which starving a story of oxygen kills it .
That is not the political or media environment we live in now .
It is impossible to cut off all oxygen to a story like this one .
There are just too many outlets covering this stuff — not to mention Twitter , YouTube and all of the rest of the self-publishing tools available to people .
The “ obvious hypocrisy ” doesn ’ t just belong to Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden campaign has a strategic response designed to prevent Biden himself from ever addressing this issue .
Instead , Team Biden wants other Democrats to act as surrogates to serve up a united front of denial — based on spinning a New York Times report on Reade : While Joe Biden has remained publicly silent about a sexual assault allegation made against him , his presidential campaign has sought to coordinate and unify Democratic messaging on the matter , advising surrogates earlier this month to say that the allegation “ did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points among top Democratic supporters shortly after the New York Times published a story earlier this month about the allegation by Tara Reade , a former staff assistant in Biden ’ s Senate office who says he assaulted her in 1993 .
… “ Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed , ” the talking points read , according to a copy sent to two Democratic operatives .
“ In this case , a thorough review by the New York Times has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not happen.
” “ Here ’ s the bottom line , ” they read .
“ Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life : 36 years in the Senate ; 7 Senate campaigns , 2 previous presidential runs , two vice presidential campaigns , and 8 years in the White House .
There has never been a complaint , allegation , hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.
” Stacey Abrams is sticking to that script , almost verbatim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point out , though , the New York Times article does not say that “ this incident did not happen.
” Their analysis two weeks ago did say that their investigation “ found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden , ” which is not the same thing .
Furthermore , that article precedes two more witnesses who came forward over the last few days to say that Reade told them about Biden ’ s assault contemporaneously — one of whom plans to vote for Biden anyway , even though she believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this ” is working overtime in their denial at the end .
The same New York Times article reminds readers that seven other women came forward with Reade a year ago to specifically allege that Biden does have a pattern of sexual harassment , including unwanted touching , although none of them accused Biden of rape : Last year , Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing , hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable .
Ms. Reade told The Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her neck , wrapped his fingers in her hair and touched her in ways that made her uncomfortable .
… The seven other women who had complained about Mr. Biden told the Times this month that they did not have any new information about their experiences to add , but several said they believed Ms. Reade ’ s account .
Plus these denials ask us to deny what everyone else sees in Biden ’ s behavior .
His rep as a creeper comes to Biden honestly , and the evidence has been captured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That doesn ’ t mean that Reade ’ s allegation is automatically true .
However , that ’ s the standard Biden himself insisted be applied with Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford , even though no one could ever establish that the two had ever been in the same room together at any time .
The hypocrisy of this denial campaign , effectively branding his former Senate aide Reade a liar by proxy , may be outstripped by its cravenness .
Other Democrats should be especially wary of becoming his surrogates on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with this effort .
Update : Hoo boy .
Looks like the NYT isn ’ t happy about Biden ’ s use of its earlier reporting : Talk about backfire .
That in itself made the story much more reportable for other major outlets .

Did Joe Biden pass on “a golden opportunity” to deal with allegations of sexual assault of his former Senate aide? If so, it’s by design, not an accident. Yesterday evening, CNN’s Chris Cillizza argued that Biden should have confronted the allegations head-on during a virtual town hall earlier in the day, saying that the friendly setting would have been “perfect” for the presumptive nominee to get ahead of the story:
Biden, who used the town hall to tout a newly announced endorsement from 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, never mentioned the accusations and none of the pre-written questions from the audience, which were read by former Olympic figure skater Michelle Kwan, didn’t bring the topic up either. That is a missed opportunity — and a miscalculation by Biden and his team. … Biden’s own campaign pledges run directly counter to the line he is trying to hold. In one of his best speeches of the campaign to date — following a sweeping victory in the March 10 primaries — Biden pledged that “this election is the one that has character on the ballot. The character of the candidates, the character of the nation is on the ballot.” If he truly means those words, then simply pointing to the fact that more than a dozen women have accused President Donald Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior just wouldn’t be enough. Given all of that, ignoring this seems like a choice with a very small chance of succeeding, politically speaking, not to mention the obvious hypocrisy when you consider that Biden had framed this election as a moral choice. Biden and his team appear to be playing by an old set of campaign rules in which starving a story of oxygen kills it. That is not the political or media environment we live in now. It is impossible to cut off all oxygen to a story like this one. There are just too many outlets covering this stuff — not to mention Twitter, YouTube and all of the rest of the self-publishing tools available to people.
The “obvious hypocrisy” doesn’t just belong to Joe Biden. Later last night, BuzzFeed reported that the Biden campaign has a strategic response designed to prevent Biden himself from ever addressing this issue. Instead, Team Biden wants other Democrats to act as surrogates to serve up a united front of denial — based on spinning a New York Times report on Reade:
While Joe Biden has remained publicly silent about a sexual assault allegation made against him, his presidential campaign has sought to coordinate and unify Democratic messaging on the matter, advising surrogates earlier this month to say that the allegation “did not happen.” The Biden campaign circulated talking points among top Democratic supporters shortly after the New York Times published a story earlier this month about the allegation by Tara Reade, a former staff assistant in Biden’s Senate office who says he assaulted her in 1993. … “Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed,” the talking points read, according to a copy sent to two Democratic operatives. “In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.” “Here’s the bottom line,” they read. “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”
Stacey Abrams is sticking to that script, almost verbatim:
Video: On CNN, Stacey Abrams bashes Tara Reade — "I believe that women deserve to be heard….But I also believe that those allegations have to be investigated by credible sources. The New York Times did a deep investigation and they found that the accusation was not credible" pic.twitter.com/mi1QwJfiME — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2020
As Ruby Cramer and Rosie Gray point out, though, the New York Times article does not say that “this incident did not happen.” Their analysis two weeks ago did say that their investigation “found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,” which is not the same thing. Furthermore, that article precedes two more witnesses who came forward over the last few days to say that Reade told them about Biden’s assault contemporaneously — one of whom plans to vote for Biden anyway, even though she believes Reade.
Furthermore, the phrase “like this” is working overtime in their denial at the end. The same New York Times article reminds readers that seven other women came forward with Reade a year ago to specifically allege that Biden does have a pattern of sexual harassment, including unwanted touching, although none of them accused Biden of rape:
Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Ms. Reade told The Times then that Mr. Biden had publicly stroked her neck, wrapped his fingers in her hair and touched her in ways that made her uncomfortable. … The seven other women who had complained about Mr. Biden told the Times this month that they did not have any new information about their experiences to add, but several said they believed Ms. Reade’s account.
Plus these denials ask us to deny what everyone else sees in Biden’s behavior. His rep as a creeper comes to Biden honestly, and the evidence has been captured in photos and video for years.
That doesn’t mean that Reade’s allegation is automatically true. However, that’s the standard Biden himself insisted be applied with Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, even though no one could ever establish that the two had ever been in the same room together at any time. The hypocrisy of this denial campaign, effectively branding his former Senate aide Reade a liar by proxy, may be outstripped by its cravenness. Other Democrats should be especially wary of becoming his surrogates on that point, and getting tarnished by contact with this effort.
Update: Hoo boy. Looks like the NYT isn’t happy about Biden’s use of its earlier reporting:
A New York Times spokesperson says Biden campaign talking points “inaccurately” suggest that the Times investigation found that Tara Reade’s allegation “did not happen.” Response to this scoop from @rubycramer @RosieGray https://t.co/ZUD6f2WSEE pic.twitter.com/LNaHvH0ZxF — Jonathan Easley (@JonEasley) April 29, 2020
Talk about backfire. That in itself made the story much more reportable for other major outlets.


hotair--2020-04-29--Gilead suspense: "Positive data" from trial of remdesivir on coronavirus patients by Fauci's agency

Gilead suspense: "Positive data" from trial of remdesivir on coronavirus patients by Fauci's agency is coming today; Update: Fauci reveals results; Update: Video

We ’ re ping-ponging between good and bad news about this drug .
Two weeks ago the results leaked from a study of remdesivir at the University of Chicago , with the head researcher touting wonderful outcomes .
But some scientists were skeptical , noting that that wasn ’ t a clinical trial .
Clinical trials have control groups ; the Chicago study had none , so it was impossible to say if patients who recovered did so because of the drug or irrespective ( or in spite ) of it .
Then came news that a clinical trial conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a slightly higher mortality rate among patients who received it than among those who didn ’ t .
Gilead piped up afterward to say that we shouldn ’ t draw conclusions from that trial since it was stopped early , with too few patients enrolled .
What ’ s more , the company added , “ trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir , particularly among patients treated early in disease.
” But they didn ’ t say which data .
Is this it ?
There are two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather , there will be soon .
One comes from Gilead itself and looked at whether a longer course of treatment with the drug ( 10 days ) might have greater benefits than a shorter course ( five days ) .
Interestingly , the answer was no .
Five days may be enough for maximum impact .
But that study comes with a caveat : It too lacked a control group .
The other study , which hasn ’ t been released yet , is newsier .
That one was conducted by Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it did involve a control group .
Gilead isn ’ t spilling the beans about the results but they ’ re clearly encouraged by the findings .
The NYT reports that NIAID expects to make an announcement later today … possibly at the daily White House coronavirus task force briefing .
Is Fauci himself going to do it ?
Got ta think the results are pretty happy if he ’ s going to front them personally on national television .
Until then , here ’ s what we know : A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat the novel coronavirus , showed that the medicine is effective against Covid-19 , the disease caused by the virus… [ T ] he NIAID study , which was not expected to be released so soon , was by far the most important and rigorously designed test of remdesivir in Covid-19 .
The study compared remdesivir to placebo in 800 patients , with neither patients nor physicians knowing who got the drug instead of a placebo , meaning that unconscious biases will not affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study is the time until patients improve , with different measures of improvement depending on how sick they were to begin with .
While the result means that the drug helps patients improve faster , it is not possible to say how dramatic those improvements are .
A drug that helps patients with mild cases recover faster would be useful even if it ends up having little or no impact on fatalities in more severe cases .
Faster recoveries for mild cases mean more hospital capacity and less time spent out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But a drug that helped patients with mild cases recover faster *and* meaningfully reduced fatalities would be momentous potentially .
That ’ s what I want to hear from Fauci : Is there evidence that early treatment with remdesivir prevented mild cases from becoming severe ones ?
How did it fare on cases that were already severe ?
I hope the staff at Stat isn ’ t overhyping it : As for Gilead ’ s own study , Politico has details : Gilead released its own study results this morning suggesting that severely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fared just as well as patients receiving a 10-day dosing regimen .
More than half of both dosing groups were discharged from the hospital within two weeks of beginning their medication .
Eight percent of people in the five-day group died while 11 percent in the 10-day group died .
But another 10 percent in the longer dosing arm had to discontinue treatment because of serious side effects , and the study lacked a control group .
Gilead said the data also suggests that people who received remdesivir early in their infection seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it later .
A short hospital stay may work as well as a longer one ( if not better ) to benefit from the drug , which is great news if it holds up in a randomized clinical trial .
On the other hand , as far as I know , remdesivir is administered only via IV .
There ’ s no scenario in which people contract the virus , fill a prescription at CVS , and then pop it as a pill for a week to get better .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already reached a point of sufficient severity that they need medical assistance .
But that doesn ’ t mean it won ’ t end up saving a lot of lives if it works .
The FDA is ready to move quickly : Scott Gottlieb is still holding out hope for antibody treatments as a potential silver bullet against COVID-19 more so than remdesivir but we ’ ll take anything we can get in the meantime that might make economic activity less life-threatening .
As for why remdesivir is being so closely watched , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not just that the drug might be available near-term , to make an immediate impact on the epidemic .
It ’ s the fact that scientists believe it *should* work on coronavirus because of how it functions .
It successfully inhibits replication of viruses in the lab .
It successfully inhibits replication of viruses in monkeys .
If it doesn ’ t successfully inhibit replication of COVID-19 in humans , researchers will be left at a loss for how to deal with the virus : “ If remdesivir fails what in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The malaria drugs never had a chance from the get-go .
The AIDS drugs were a stretch , but everything about remdesivir makes sense , except the outcome.
” The “ outcome ” referred to was the incomplete Chinese trial I mentioned up above .
Sounds like today ’ s outcome will be better .
Update : Fauci ’ s previewing the results of the NIAID trial at today ’ s pool with reporters .
The improvements with remdesivir seem pretty modest to my untrained eye , but he sounds excited .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott Gottlieb :

We’re ping-ponging between good and bad news about this drug. Two weeks ago the results leaked from a study of remdesivir at the University of Chicago, with the head researcher touting wonderful outcomes. But some scientists were skeptical, noting that that wasn’t a clinical trial. Clinical trials have control groups; the Chicago study had none, so it was impossible to say if patients who recovered did so because of the drug or irrespective (or in spite) of it.
Then came news that a clinical trial conducted in China showed no benefit from remdesivir, with a slightly higher mortality rate among patients who received it than among those who didn’t. Gilead piped up afterward to say that we shouldn’t draw conclusions from that trial since it was stopped early, with too few patients enrolled. What’s more, the company added, “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early in disease.” But they didn’t say which data.
Is this it?
There are two studies of remdesivir out today — or rather, there will be soon. One comes from Gilead itself and looked at whether a longer course of treatment with the drug (10 days) might have greater benefits than a shorter course (five days). Interestingly, the answer was no. Five days may be enough for maximum impact. But that study comes with a caveat: It too lacked a control group. The other study, which hasn’t been released yet, is newsier. That one was conducted by Anthony Fauci’s agency, the NIAID, and it did involve a control group. Gilead isn’t spilling the beans about the results but they’re clearly encouraged by the findings. The NYT reports that NIAID expects to make an announcement later today … possibly at the daily White House coronavirus task force briefing. Is Fauci himself going to do it?
Gotta think the results are pretty happy if he’s going to front them personally on national television. Until then, here’s what we know:
A government-run study of Gilead’s remdesivir, perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat the novel coronavirus, showed that the medicine is effective against Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus… [T]he NIAID study, which was not expected to be released so soon, was by far the most important and rigorously designed test of remdesivir in Covid-19. The study compared remdesivir to placebo in 800 patients, with neither patients nor physicians knowing who got the drug instead of a placebo, meaning that unconscious biases will not affect the conclusions. The main goal of the study is the time until patients improve, with different measures of improvement depending on how sick they were to begin with. While the result means that the drug helps patients improve faster, it is not possible to say how dramatic those improvements are.
A drug that helps patients with mild cases recover faster would be useful even if it ends up having little or no impact on fatalities in more severe cases. Faster recoveries for mild cases mean more hospital capacity and less time spent out of work for those who are sick. But a drug that helped patients with mild cases recover faster *and* meaningfully reduced fatalities would be momentous potentially. That’s what I want to hear from Fauci: Is there evidence that early treatment with remdesivir prevented mild cases from becoming severe ones? How did it fare on cases that were already severe?
I hope the staff at Stat isn’t overhyping it:
Today, the world gets the first real sign that a new medicine, remdesivir from Gilead Sciences, will help the world emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic. Pretty awesome. — Adam Feuerstein (@adamfeuerstein) April 29, 2020
As for Gilead’s own study, Politico has details:
Gilead released its own study results this morning suggesting that severely ill patients receiving five days of remdesivir fared just as well as patients receiving a 10-day dosing regimen. More than half of both dosing groups were discharged from the hospital within two weeks of beginning their medication. Eight percent of people in the five-day group died while 11 percent in the 10-day group died. But another 10 percent in the longer dosing arm had to discontinue treatment because of serious side effects, and the study lacked a control group. Gilead said the data also suggests that people who received remdesivir early in their infection seemed to fare better than those that received it later.
A short hospital stay may work as well as a longer one (if not better) to benefit from the drug, which is great news if it holds up in a randomized clinical trial. On the other hand, as far as I know, remdesivir is administered only via IV. There’s no scenario in which people contract the virus, fill a prescription at CVS, and then pop it as a pill for a week to get better. It’s a drug for those whose symptoms have already reached a point of sufficient severity that they need medical assistance. But that doesn’t mean it won’t end up saving a lot of lives if it works.
The FDA is ready to move quickly:
As former FDA Commissioner @ScottGottliebMD suggests FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for Gilead’s remdesivir could be immediate, FDA says in emailed statement: pic.twitter.com/CPF6fLqYDT — Meg Tirrell (@megtirrell) April 29, 2020
Scott Gottlieb is still holding out hope for antibody treatments as a potential silver bullet against COVID-19 more so than remdesivir but we’ll take anything we can get in the meantime that might make economic activity less life-threatening. As for why remdesivir is being so closely watched, I found this piece enlightening. It’s not just that the drug might be available near-term, to make an immediate impact on the epidemic. It’s the fact that scientists believe it *should* work on coronavirus because of how it functions. It successfully inhibits replication of viruses in the lab. It successfully inhibits replication of viruses in monkeys. If it doesn’t successfully inhibit replication of COVID-19 in humans, researchers will be left at a loss for how to deal with the virus: “If remdesivir fails what in the world is going to succeed? The malaria drugs never had a chance from the get-go. The AIDS drugs were a stretch, but everything about remdesivir makes sense, except the outcome.” The “outcome” referred to was the incomplete Chinese trial I mentioned up above. Sounds like today’s outcome will be better.
Update: Fauci’s previewing the results of the NIAID trial at today’s pool with reporters. The improvements with remdesivir seem pretty modest to my untrained eye, but he sounds excited.
Dr Fauci shared some details from the NIAID remdesivir study just now in the Oval Office, per pool report: Primary endpoint of trial was time to improvement-
11 days on remdesivir vs 15 days on placebo
Fauci: “quite good news” — Meg Tirrell (@megtirrell) April 29, 2020
Fauci, per WH pool report, of remdesivir based on NIAID trial results: “This will be the standard of care.” Fauci: Remdesivir has a “clear-cut, positive effect in diminishing time to recover.” Never reported trial results from pool report of WH remarks. Another #COVID19 first! — Meg Tirrell (@megtirrell) April 29, 2020
It’s better than nothing, adds Scott Gottlieb:
The open label studies are helpful, they add to totality of data and broaden safety database. Conducting them was better than giving drug away with no protocol. It allowed us to collect information. The NIAID study is the key though. This isn' a home run drug, but appears active. — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) April 29, 2020
Update: Here’s the video.


hotair--2020-04-29--Cable news anchor's wife recommends bleach baths, media ignores it

Cristina Cuomo is the founder of the health and wellness blog The Purist .
She is also the wife of CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo .
She is recovering from the coronavirus and has been blogging about her experience with COVID-19 .
She , her husband , and their 14-year-old son have all been battling the virus recently .
I don ’ t wish that on anyone .
Fortunately , Chris Cuomo has recovered and Cristina is doing well in her recovery .
Her blog features her suggestions for fighting the coronavirus , though she does recommend that everyone consult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not being irresponsible in her recommendations , as a non-medical professional , but let ’ s just say her approach is not a traditional one .
One of Cristina ’ s recommendations is to bath in Clorox bleach .
She pours a 1/2 cup of Clorox bleach into her bathwater to “ combat the radiation and metals in my system and oxygenate it.
” She is careful to caution only a 1/2 cup should be used , no more .
Here ’ s the part that caught my attention , besides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored this story .
Why ?
Cristina Cuomo had the good fortune of making a health care recommendation about using bleach the same day that President Trump went off on his tangent about disinfectants and sunshine during his coronavirus task force press briefing .
It was last Thursday and the press went berserk over what amounted to the president thinking out loud and asking questions to the medical experts present that day .
She actually came out with her health tip before the press briefing .
As the media made the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days afterward , Cristina escaped the same scrutiny and criticism .
Cuomo isn ’ t dumb .
She saw what was happening to the president .
Trump wasn ’ t even making recommendations , he was just saying out loud what he was thinking while the press watched and listened to him .
Cristina Cuomo was actually making a recommendation .
So , she made adjustments to her blog post .
She added the part about checking with a doctor first and also the instruction to “ ONLY ” use 1/2 cup of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points out that her blog post introduction now includes a different introduction and , as a deflection from criticism , she adds a quote from Martin Luther King Jr .
Sometimes even liberal publications like Vanity Fair surprise me when they stumble upon the truth about someone on the left .
Cristina is hailed as an enlightened woman while Trump is dogged as a moron .
The post ’ s introduction , too , now reads , “ The point of sharing my story is to help people become aware of the various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical system and to give a voice to the scientific advances that could have real impact on our collective health .
Sharing new knowledge is not elitist , it ’ s revolutionary.
” She also quoted a Martin Luther King Jr. sermon about peace to deflect criticism , as well as a cliché that she attributes to her brother-in-law : “ ‘ Returning hate for hate multiplies hate , adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars .
Darkness can not drive out darkness ; only light can do that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only love can do that , ’ said Martin Luther King Jr. And , as our trusted New York Governor said , ‘ Love wins.
’ ” The Clorox website is definitely not in agreement with Cristina ’ s recommendation and states that .
Just the thought of the harsh chemicals in bleach being added to bathwater was enough for me to take note .
Surely it must be really hard on the skin .
Depending on how diluted it is with the amount of water in the bathtub , it has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skin .
Some doctors have weighed in on bleach baths .
Hasbrouck says soaking in a Clorox bath can do harm to the body : “ Where ’ s the harm going to come ?
Just the abrasiveness of the chemical on your skin.
” He says the suggested remedy doesn ’ t make sense for several reasons , including the fact that the bleach doesn ’ t have a clear path of getting through your skin to the virus .
And don ’ t even think about drinking bleach – it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to your respiratory system , ” says Hasbrouk .
Dr. Jose Luis Ocampo , a board-certified emergency medicine physician at Kaiser Permanente in Baldwin Park , California , also urges the public to use caution .
“ As a physician , I would never recommend something that was not proven efficacious and safe for patients to use or do , ” Ocampo tells USA TODAY .
“ As such , I have never recommended Clorox baths as my knowledge of its medicinal use and safety is limited .
While bleach baths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , it must be done carefully and should always be done in consultation with a physician.
” The FDA warns against ingesting disinfectants , saying consumption of “ products can cause nausea , vomiting , diarrhea , and symptoms of severe dehydration.
” There are other recommendations that Cuomo makes that are reasonable .
Some are unusual .
All are non-traditional for western medicine and that ’ s ok .
I don ’ t fault her on going down a holistic path .
I do it myself when possible .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media gives her a pass because she is one of them , so to speak .
She ’ s a liberal and she ’ s married to a CNN guy .
She ’ s a blogger so that puts her in the spotlight , too .
She is given a platform on cable news , too , according to Vanity Fair though I haven ’ t seen her interviews .
It ’ s the bleach that gets attention because it can be compared to what the president said .
Vitamin drips are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The body charger is new to me .
She shouldn ’ t be criticized just because her husband is a public figure , nor should she be given a pass as she puts herself into the fray .

Cristina Cuomo is the founder of the health and wellness blog The Purist. She is also the wife of CNN’s Chris Cuomo. She is recovering from the coronavirus and has been blogging about her experience with COVID-19.
She, her husband, and their 14-year-old son have all been battling the virus recently. I don’t wish that on anyone. Fortunately, Chris Cuomo has recovered and Cristina is doing well in her recovery. Her blog features her suggestions for fighting the coronavirus, though she does recommend that everyone consult a doctor before trying anything. She’s not being irresponsible in her recommendations, as a non-medical professional, but let’s just say her approach is not a traditional one.
One of Cristina’s recommendations is to bath in Clorox bleach. She pours a 1/2 cup of Clorox bleach into her bathwater to “combat the radiation and metals in my system and oxygenate it.” She is careful to caution only a 1/2 cup should be used, no more.
“We want to neutralize heavy metals because they slow-up the electromagnetic frequency of our cells, which is our energy field, and we need a good flow of energy,” Cuomo explains. She adds there is “no danger in doing this,” comparing it to “a simple naturopathic treatment.”
Here’s the part that caught my attention, besides the bleach thing. The media has ignored this story. Why? Cristina Cuomo had the good fortune of making a health care recommendation about using bleach the same day that President Trump went off on his tangent about disinfectants and sunshine during his coronavirus task force press briefing. It was last Thursday and the press went berserk over what amounted to the president thinking out loud and asking questions to the medical experts present that day. She actually came out with her health tip before the press briefing. As the media made the president’s off-hand remarks their focus for several days afterward, Cristina escaped the same scrutiny and criticism.
Cuomo isn’t dumb. She saw what was happening to the president. Trump wasn’t even making recommendations, he was just saying out loud what he was thinking while the press watched and listened to him. Cristina Cuomo was actually making a recommendation. So, she made adjustments to her blog post. She added the part about checking with a doctor first and also the instruction to “ONLY” use 1/2 cup of bleach.
While the internet was distracted, The Purist logged back on. A newer version of the blog entry includes the caveat that one should check with a doctor before carrying out any of the post’s recommendations. She also added the word “ONLY” after her Clorox measurement suggestion to underscore the importance of not poisoning oneself, and quoted the person who recommended it, Linda Lancaster of Light Harmonics in New Mexico, at length.
The Vanity Fair article also points out that her blog post introduction now includes a different introduction and, as a deflection from criticism, she adds a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. Sometimes even liberal publications like Vanity Fair surprise me when they stumble upon the truth about someone on the left. Cristina is hailed as an enlightened woman while Trump is dogged as a moron.
The post’s introduction, too, now reads, “The point of sharing my story is to help people become aware of the various options that are available beyond the overstrained medical system and to give a voice to the scientific advances that could have real impact on our collective health. Sharing new knowledge is not elitist, it’s revolutionary.” She also quoted a Martin Luther King Jr. sermon about peace to deflect criticism, as well as a cliché that she attributes to her brother-in-law: “‘Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that,’ said Martin Luther King Jr. And, as our trusted New York Governor said, ‘Love wins.’”
The Clorox website is definitely not in agreement with Cristina’s recommendation and states that.
The official Clorox website disagrees, stressing that their bleach “is NOT recommended for personal hygiene of any kind–consumers should always avoid direct skin and eye contacts with both undiluted bleach, as well as prolonged contact with the various bleach solutions we recommend for household cleaning and laundry … using a bleach and water solution for bathing is not approved by the EPA and should not be done.”
Just the thought of the harsh chemicals in bleach being added to bathwater was enough for me to take note. Surely it must be really hard on the skin. Depending on how diluted it is with the amount of water in the bathtub, it has the potential to dry out or irritate human skin. Some doctors have weighed in on bleach baths.
Hasbrouck says soaking in a Clorox bath can do harm to the body: “Where’s the harm going to come? Just the abrasiveness of the chemical on your skin.” He says the suggested remedy doesn’t make sense for several reasons, including the fact that the bleach doesn’t have a clear path of getting through your skin to the virus. And don’t even think about drinking bleach – it’s unsafe and “is not going to get to your respiratory system,” says Hasbrouk. Dr. Jose Luis Ocampo, a board-certified emergency medicine physician at Kaiser Permanente in Baldwin Park, California, also urges the public to use caution. “As a physician, I would never recommend something that was not proven efficacious and safe for patients to use or do,” Ocampo tells USA TODAY. “As such, I have never recommended Clorox baths as my knowledge of its medicinal use and safety is limited. While bleach baths have been used to treat eczema, for example, it must be done carefully and should always be done in consultation with a physician.” The FDA warns against ingesting disinfectants, saying consumption of “products can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration.”
There are other recommendations that Cuomo makes that are reasonable. Some are unusual. All are non-traditional for western medicine and that’s ok. I don’t fault her on going down a holistic path. I do it myself when possible. It is noteworthy, though, that the media gives her a pass because she is one of them, so to speak. She’s a liberal and she’s married to a CNN guy. She’s a blogger so that puts her in the spotlight, too. She is given a platform on cable news, too, according to Vanity Fair though I haven’t seen her interviews. It’s the bleach that gets attention because it can be compared to what the president said.
There was a paragraph on borrowing a “body charger” from a friend on the advice of an energy specialist. She wrote that it sends “electrical frequencies through the body to oxygenate blood and stimulate the healthy production of blood cells to fortify my immune system.” She wrote that she ordered an at-home I.V.
Vitamin drips are not anything new to the wealthy and privileged. The body charger is new to me. She shouldn’t be criticized just because her husband is a public figure, nor should she be given a pass as she puts herself into the fray.


hotair--2020-04-29--Healthcare CEO apologizes for big executive bonuses given out after layoffs

At the Denver Health Medical Center in Colorado , front-line workers battling the pandemic have been having a rough time on multiple fronts .
There are the obvious challenges of trying to care for the flood of COVID-19 cases without themselves falling victim to the novel coronavirus .
But on top of that , they learned back on April 3rd that the hospital ’ s finances were in rough shape , as is the case with many medical centers around the country .
In light of that , their CEO , Robin Wittenstein was forced to lay off some workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours of the rest , forcing them to “ live on less.
” They were also asked to take leave without pay and use up their personal time to save the hospital money .
Well , in tough times we all have to make some sacrifices I suppose .
But not actually all of us , it seems .
The staff just learned last week that on April 10th , one week after the announcement of the pay cuts and related measures , roughly 150 hospital executives and managers were awarded Management Incentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to $ 230,000 .
The natives quickly grew restless , as you might well imagine .
( CBS Denver ) Denver Health Medical Center CEO Robin Wittenstein on Monday apologized to the hospital ’ s 7,000 employees for the timing of incentive bonuses that were handed out to executives and managers April 10 , in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic .
The bonuses came a week after Wittenstein asked front-line staff to cut hours and pay and live on less .
“ Being informed of incentive payments now to the executive staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” wrote Wittenstein , “ has clearly been painful and dividing , especially because you did not hear about this from me directly first .
For this , I am deeply sorry.
” Wittenstein ’ s email was sent to hospital staff Monday afternoon .
There was no official notification to the staff about the bonuses .
Instead , the workers had to learn about it through a CBS News investigation of the hospital ’ s financial situation .
This added insult to injury , since it looked like the hospital was asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same time as huge amounts of cash were being doled out to the management .
Of course , I probably shouldn ’ t say that ’ s what it “ looked like.
” That ’ s exactly what they were doing .
By the end of the day , 3,450 workers had signed a petition demanding that the executives give the bonuses back , putting that money toward the front-line workers .
One City Councilman published a statement calling for the bonuses to be returned .
One board member issued a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regret at how “ the timing of the 2019 incentive payments has created anger and resentment.
” She did not , however , even mention the possibility of giving the money back and said that the board “ stands behind the leadership compensation structure.
” The hospital isn ’ t a government institution and this isn ’ t taxpayer money we ’ re talking about , so it ’ s a question to be settled by the private sector .
Executives in such a large enterprise no doubt expect to be well compensated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hospital operating in a profitable fashion .
But with all of that said… c ’ mon , man .
There ’ s got to be a point where you start experiencing some level of shame .
You told the people who are down on the front lines going toe-to-toe with the pandemic that they needed to take pay cuts and use up their paid leave and then turned around and let 150 executives pocket bonuses amounting to more than the entire annual salary of a lot of your people .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point where you should probably have been keeping an eye out of your window for pitchforks and torches .

At the Denver Health Medical Center in Colorado, front-line workers battling the pandemic have been having a rough time on multiple fronts. There are the obvious challenges of trying to care for the flood of COVID-19 cases without themselves falling victim to the novel coronavirus. But on top of that, they learned back on April 3rd that the hospital’s finances were in rough shape, as is the case with many medical centers around the country. In light of that, their CEO, Robin Wittenstein was forced to lay off some workers and reduce the pay rates and paid hours of the rest, forcing them to “live on less.” They were also asked to take leave without pay and use up their personal time to save the hospital money.
Well, in tough times we all have to make some sacrifices I suppose. But not actually all of us, it seems. The staff just learned last week that on April 10th, one week after the announcement of the pay cuts and related measures, roughly 150 hospital executives and managers were awarded Management Incentive Plan bonuses ranging from $50,000 up to $230,000. The natives quickly grew restless, as you might well imagine. (CBS Denver)
Denver Health Medical Center CEO Robin Wittenstein on Monday apologized to the hospital’s 7,000 employees for the timing of incentive bonuses that were handed out to executives and managers April 10, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. The bonuses came a week after Wittenstein asked front-line staff to cut hours and pay and live on less. “Being informed of incentive payments now to the executive staff, no matter what the explanation,” wrote Wittenstein, “has clearly been painful and dividing, especially because you did not hear about this from me directly first. For this, I am deeply sorry.” Wittenstein’s email was sent to hospital staff Monday afternoon.
There was no official notification to the staff about the bonuses. Instead, the workers had to learn about it through a CBS News investigation of the hospital’s financial situation. This added insult to injury, since it looked like the hospital was asking the lowest-paid workers to make significant sacrifices at the same time as huge amounts of cash were being doled out to the management. Of course, I probably shouldn’t say that’s what it “looked like.” That’s exactly what they were doing.
By the end of the day, 3,450 workers had signed a petition demanding that the executives give the bonuses back, putting that money toward the front-line workers. One City Councilman published a statement calling for the bonuses to be returned.
One board member issued a memo to all the workers expressing her regret at how “the timing of the 2019 incentive payments has created anger and resentment.” She did not, however, even mention the possibility of giving the money back and said that the board “stands behind the leadership compensation structure.”
The hospital isn’t a government institution and this isn’t taxpayer money we’re talking about, so it’s a question to be settled by the private sector. Executives in such a large enterprise no doubt expect to be well compensated and the board is responsible for keeping the hospital operating in a profitable fashion. But with all of that said… c’mon, man. There’s got to be a point where you start experiencing some level of shame. You told the people who are down on the front lines going toe-to-toe with the pandemic that they needed to take pay cuts and use up their paid leave and then turned around and let 150 executives pocket bonuses amounting to more than the entire annual salary of a lot of your people. In the old days, this would have been the point where you should probably have been keeping an eye out of your window for pitchforks and torches.


hotair--2020-04-29--Gulp: Q1 GDP plunges 4.8% in COVID-19 economic meltdown

Horrid , and just the tip of the iceberg into which the American economy slammed .
The shudder running down the nation ’ s collective spine doesn ’ t come from today ’ s GDP report , which showed an annualized contraction of 4.8 % in the first quarter of 2020 .
The shudder comes from imagining what Q2 ’ s report will look like : The coronavirus pandemic has slammed into the economy so hard the nation ’ s GDP has fallen by 4.8 percent , bringing the longest economic expansion on record to an abrupt halt .
Gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of goods and services , sank by 4.8 percent in the first quarter on an annualized basis , according to an initial estimate from the Department of Commerce released Wednesday morning .
It ’ s the steepest decline since the Great Recession , which ended in 2009 .
Economic growth was tracking at or above 2 percent until mid-March .
The Q1 contraction came in worse than expected .
CNBC notes that economists had projected the GDP number at -3.5 % , but that a hard reversal on consumer spending in March made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first negative GDP reading since the 1.1 % decline in the first quarter of 2014 and the lowest level since the 8.4 % plunge in Q4 of 2008 during the worst of the financial crisis .
The biggest drags on the economy were consumer spending , nonresidential fixed investment , exports and inventories .
Residential fixed investment along with spending from both the federal and state governments helped offset some of the damage .
Consumer expenditures , which comprise 67 % of total GDP , plunged 7.6 % in the quarter as all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. economy was taken almost completely out of commission .
This is what has economists worried about Q2 .
Bear in mind that most of the damage from COVID-19 took place in just the last three weeks of Q1 as shelter-in-place orders got issued around the country and the White House urged people to follow its initial “ 15 Days to Flatten the Curve ” strategy .
What will the economy look like when we do that for six-to-eight weeks , or even longer ?
Some economists now think Q2 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of -20.0 % , or even worse .
The spectre of a Q2 crater has the White House and several governors now pressing for reopening the economy .
However , that is easier said than done .
The transition to a consumer economy means confidence in the system has to be high to get that kind of re-engagement .
Just how confident will Americans be to venture back into retail stores and public venues , both as consumers and as workers ?
Plans for a swift reopening of malls , factories and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collided with the reality that persuading workers and consumers to overlook their coronavirus fears and resume their roles in powering the U.S. economy may prove difficult .
… Hanging over plans to restart the nation ’ s economic engine are unprecedented health concerns , as individuals balance each shopping trip , airplane flight and restaurant meal against the risk of catching a sometimes-fatal illness .
“ Consumers may have permission to go do something .
But whether they go do it depends upon how badly they want to do it and how safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business .
If we reopen too soon ( or really , too broadly too soon ) , we risk spiking hospitalizations past the resources available to effectively treat acute infections .
If that happens , areas might need to shut down again , extending the economic damage rather than shortening it : The White House plan for a staged reopening still makes the most sense .
Its one drawback is its reliance on a level of testing that we still have not yet achieved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Minnesota can now conduct 20,000 tests a day , which is probably sufficient for its first-stage reopening two days ago and the broader next step scheduled for next Monday .
After that , though , the state will need more capacity to ensure that we have prevented logarithmic spread before we can reopen fully , and some states haven ’ t yet achieved that level of testing capacity .
If our economy was based more on manufacturing than consumer spending and service industries with close human contact , we could recover more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure and sanitize manufacturing facilities against pandemics than it is to do so with retail shops and service industry activity .
This should provide us with the political impetus to incentivize American firms to relocate more of its manufacturing to the US , even if that means those products cost more .
This is a very good reminder about the limits of globalization and the need to orient an economy to creation rather than trading .
Addendum : Consumer spending wasn ’ t the only dramatic loss .
Take a look at what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GDP , via Allahpundit .

Horrid, and just the tip of the iceberg into which the American economy slammed. The shudder running down the nation’s collective spine doesn’t come from today’s GDP report, which showed an annualized contraction of 4.8% in the first quarter of 2020. The shudder comes from imagining what Q2’s report will look like:
The coronavirus pandemic has slammed into the economy so hard the nation’s GDP has fallen by 4.8 percent, bringing the longest economic expansion on record to an abrupt halt. Gross domestic product, which measures the output of goods and services, sank by 4.8 percent in the first quarter on an annualized basis, according to an initial estimate from the Department of Commerce released Wednesday morning. It’s the steepest decline since the Great Recession, which ended in 2009. Economic growth was tracking at or above 2 percent until mid-March.
The Q1 contraction came in worse than expected. CNBC notes that economists had projected the GDP number at -3.5%, but that a hard reversal on consumer spending in March made the situation worse:
This marked the first negative GDP reading since the 1.1% decline in the first quarter of 2014 and the lowest level since the 8.4% plunge in Q4 of 2008 during the worst of the financial crisis. The biggest drags on the economy were consumer spending, nonresidential fixed investment, exports and inventories. Residential fixed investment along with spending from both the federal and state governments helped offset some of the damage. Consumer expenditures, which comprise 67% of total GDP, plunged 7.6% in the quarter as all nonessential stores were closed and the cornerstone of the U.S. economy was taken almost completely out of commission.
This is what has economists worried about Q2. Bear in mind that most of the damage from COVID-19 took place in just the last three weeks of Q1 as shelter-in-place orders got issued around the country and the White House urged people to follow its initial “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” strategy. What will the economy look like when we do that for six-to-eight weeks, or even longer? Some economists now think Q2’s GDP will be in the range of -20.0%, or even worse.
The spectre of a Q2 crater has the White House and several governors now pressing for reopening the economy. However, that is easier said than done. The transition to a consumer economy means confidence in the system has to be high to get that kind of re-engagement. Just how confident will Americans be to venture back into retail stores and public venues, both as consumers and as workers?
Not terribly confident, the Washington Post reports:
Plans for a swift reopening of malls, factories and other businesses accelerated Tuesday, but they quickly collided with the reality that persuading workers and consumers to overlook their coronavirus fears and resume their roles in powering the U.S. economy may prove difficult. … Hanging over plans to restart the nation’s economic engine are unprecedented health concerns, as individuals balance each shopping trip, airplane flight and restaurant meal against the risk of catching a sometimes-fatal illness. “Consumers may have permission to go do something. But whether they go do it depends upon how badly they want to do it and how safe they feel,” said William Dunkelberg, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business.
If we reopen too soon (or really, too broadly too soon), we risk spiking hospitalizations past the resources available to effectively treat acute infections. If that happens, areas might need to shut down again, extending the economic damage rather than shortening it:
The administration’s hopes for a swift V-shaped recovery are clouded by the danger that a premature reopening might result in a new surge of infections, which would require some states to order a second shutdown. Besides testing public compliance, such an order could interrupt supply chains. “This is what matters. The risk is you’ve got to shut down again,” said Steven Blitz, chief U.S. economist for TS Lombard.
The White House plan for a staged reopening still makes the most sense. Its one drawback is its reliance on a level of testing that we still have not yet achieved, at least not in some regions. Minnesota can now conduct 20,000 tests a day, which is probably sufficient for its first-stage reopening two days ago and the broader next step scheduled for next Monday. After that, though, the state will need more capacity to ensure that we have prevented logarithmic spread before we can reopen fully, and some states haven’t yet achieved that level of testing capacity.
If our economy was based more on manufacturing than consumer spending and service industries with close human contact, we could recover more quickly. It’s easier to secure and sanitize manufacturing facilities against pandemics than it is to do so with retail shops and service industry activity. This should provide us with the political impetus to incentivize American firms to relocate more of its manufacturing to the US, even if that means those products cost more. This is a very good reminder about the limits of globalization and the need to orient an economy to creation rather than trading.
Addendum: Consumer spending wasn’t the only dramatic loss. Take a look at what the government mandate for hospitals did to GDP, via Allahpundit.


hotair--2020-04-29--IMF chief sees pandemic as "great opportunity"

Normally , when we talk about someone attempting to exploit a terrible situation to advance their own agenda we reference the infamous maxim , “ never let a crisis go to waste.
” But it ’ s generally said as a comment on how terribly the person is acting .
It ’ s rare indeed when you see a public figure coming right out and saying it themselves with no apparent sense of shame .
And yet that ’ s what happened this week when the Director of the International Monetary Fund was on a videoconference with the Atlantic Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis is never to be missed as an opportunity… ( Washington Examiner ) Environmentalists have an unprecedented chance to turn their policy hopes into a global reality during the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic , according to the head of the International Monetary Fund .
“ You know , a crisis [ is ] never to be missed as an opportunity to do better , ” IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva said Monday .
Georgieva , a Bulgarian economist who took over as IMF chief last year , has a prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blows delivered by the pandemic .
She is also working on strategies to “ jump-start economies ” after the contagion passes .
And what is this opportunity that awaits us ?
Why , new , comprehensive policies to combat climate change , of course !
Her job is supposed to be helping to develop ways to get various nations ’ economies turned back on and avoid a global depression .
And she claims to want to do that .
But we should also , according to Georgieva , “ see what are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even accelerate so we can see climate-friendly growth in the future.
” Assuming this was really a priority , how precisely would we do this , Madam Director ?
It turns out that she ’ s got a laundry list of ideas , each designed to take advantage of the economic crisis created by the pandemic and using relief money as a tool to start twisting some arms .
She ’ s clearly put a lot of thought into this .
First of all , oil prices are at nearly historic lows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn the screws and remove “ harmful subsidies ” that benefit the fossil fuel industry .
Nevermind the fact that , at least in the United States , the oil and gas industry doesn ’ t receive any subsidies that other large businesses don ’ t get .
The reality is that oil prices are low because demand is low , primarily because people are locked down and not traveling very much .
Once travel patterns return to normal , the oil market will be right back where it was , thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not her only scheme .
She also notes that the pandemic is damaging our food supply chains .
Farmers and other producers are in financial trouble .
They could probably use some economic relief from the IMF , right ?
Well , how about if they condition that relief on making the recipients retool their operations for more “ green ” systems ?
Yes , I ’ m sure that just what a farmer or meat processing plant operator wants… a huge bill to fundamentally restructure their operations just as they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh , and if you ’ re having trouble paying your mortgage , the IMF might be able to throw you a lifeline .
Provided , of course , that you retrofit your house with solar energy and other green technology innovations .
Here ’ s something else for Ms. Georgieva to consider .
Right now we ’ re approaching one quarter million dead around the world because of the pandemic .
And those who are still healthy are frightened about the future .
Perhaps this isn ’ t the time to blackmail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
Just a thought…

Normally, when we talk about someone attempting to exploit a terrible situation to advance their own agenda we reference the infamous maxim, “never let a crisis go to waste.” But it’s generally said as a comment on how terribly the person is acting. It’s rare indeed when you see a public figure coming right out and saying it themselves with no apparent sense of shame. And yet that’s what happened this week when the Director of the International Monetary Fund was on a videoconference with the Atlantic Council. Kristalina Georgieva literally said that a crisis is never to be missed as an opportunity… (Washington Examiner)
Environmentalists have an unprecedented chance to turn their policy hopes into a global reality during the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, according to the head of the International Monetary Fund. “You know, a crisis [is] never to be missed as an opportunity to do better,” IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva said Monday. Georgieva, a Bulgarian economist who took over as IMF chief last year, has a prominent role influencing how countries soften the economic blows delivered by the pandemic. She is also working on strategies to “jump-start economies” after the contagion passes.
And what is this opportunity that awaits us? Why, new, comprehensive policies to combat climate change, of course! Her job is supposed to be helping to develop ways to get various nations’ economies turned back on and avoid a global depression. And she claims to want to do that. But we should also, according to Georgieva, “see what are the policies that we can put in place and even accelerate so we can see climate-friendly growth in the future.”
Assuming this was really a priority, how precisely would we do this, Madam Director? It turns out that she’s got a laundry list of ideas, each designed to take advantage of the economic crisis created by the pandemic and using relief money as a tool to start twisting some arms. She’s clearly put a lot of thought into this.
First of all, oil prices are at nearly historic lows. Georgieva would like to see everyone turn the screws and remove “harmful subsidies” that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Nevermind the fact that, at least in the United States, the oil and gas industry doesn’t receive any subsidies that other large businesses don’t get. The reality is that oil prices are low because demand is low, primarily because people are locked down and not traveling very much. Once travel patterns return to normal, the oil market will be right back where it was, thank you very much.
But that’s not her only scheme. She also notes that the pandemic is damaging our food supply chains. Farmers and other producers are in financial trouble. They could probably use some economic relief from the IMF, right? Well, how about if they condition that relief on making the recipients retool their operations for more “green” systems? Yes, I’m sure that just what a farmer or meat processing plant operator wants… a huge bill to fundamentally restructure their operations just as they’re teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Oh, and if you’re having trouble paying your mortgage, the IMF might be able to throw you a lifeline. Provided, of course, that you retrofit your house with solar energy and other green technology innovations.
Here’s something else for Ms. Georgieva to consider. Right now we’re approaching one quarter million dead around the world because of the pandemic. And those who are still healthy are frightened about the future. Perhaps this isn’t the time to blackmail everyone in an effort to push your agenda. Just a thought…