hotair--2020-03-17--Now hiring: Grocers respond to increased demands

In order to keep up with increased demands for food and household supplies grocery store chains are ramping up hiring .
This is a bit of a silver lining for many who are temporarily unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Radical steps are being taken across the country in response to the coronavirus , especially during the next fifteen days , a period of time the public health professionals view as critical .
If you saw the Trump administration ’ s press briefing with the COVID-19 task force , you know that the next 15 days will likely determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus across the United States .
We find ourselves in a new normal .
Our mobility is restricted in order to protect ourselves and others around us from spreading a virus we may not even know we are carrying .
With new restrictions on crowd size and social interactions , restaurants and bars are particularly hard hit .
We ’ re looking at millions of people across the country temporarily cooling their heels at home while the food and beverage industry regroups , at least for the next couple of weeks .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people now faced with new challenges to make rent or mortgage payments , pay utility bills , and keep food on their own tables .
Enter an increased demand for labor in grocery store chains and other retail outlets that will remain open in order to furnish the necessities of everyday life .
Thanks to increased sales at grocery stores , there is a need to fill job openings that span from stockers to cashiers .
Major grocery store chains are the first to announce increased efforts to hire workers in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes sense .
If restaurants and fast food joints are limiting service to drive-through business and delivery service because dine-in eating is no longer an option , people have to purchase food elsewhere .
It would be particularly good if the food and beverage industry workers who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own are able to find employment in the retail grocery industry .
Kroger , the United States ’ largest supermarket by revenue , the second-largest general retailer , was one of the first to put out the help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focusing on specific areas where demand is high .
Smaller chain stores are making changes to meet their needs .
Safeway and Albertsons are trying to fill 2,000 open positions in their Washington stores .
There are openings for delivery drivers and in-store employees .
Smaller chains are also hiring at the local level .
H-E-B has both part-time and full-time positions open in Texas .
There are opportunities available in its warehouses and stores .
The company has advertised for short-term stockers , customer service assistants and checkers .
H-E-B also plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dealing with higher demand , such as curbside delivery and pick up .
And the big box stores are finding a need to increase hiring , too .
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner met with store representatives from major grocery chains Monday and reassured local residents that the food supply chain is safe and there are no shutdowns in operations .
Some stores may decrease hours of operation but they will not result in closures .
Part-time and full-time positions are available from overnight stockers to floor workers to managers and pharmacy technicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities in closing restaurants and bars but the mayor and county judge did so Monday afternoon .
As of 8:00 a.m. this morning , restaurants and bars are ordered to close for the next fifteen days .
Restaurants may offer delivery , pick-up , and drive-thru service but no dine-in service .
Some establishments had begun to do this on their own , not waiting for the city and county to make a decision .
We hope all of this is temporary and life can get back to normal as soon as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find jobs and get by until then .
We have to take our silver linings where we can find them these days .

In order to keep up with increased demands for food and household supplies grocery store chains are ramping up hiring. This is a bit of a silver lining for many who are temporarily unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Radical steps are being taken across the country in response to the coronavirus, especially during the next fifteen days, a period of time the public health professionals view as critical. If you saw the Trump administration’s press briefing with the COVID-19 task force, you know that the next 15 days will likely determine the severity of the spread of the virus across the United States.
We find ourselves in a new normal. Our mobility is restricted in order to protect ourselves and others around us from spreading a virus we may not even know we are carrying. With new restrictions on crowd size and social interactions, restaurants and bars are particularly hard hit. We’re looking at millions of people across the country temporarily cooling their heels at home while the food and beverage industry regroups, at least for the next couple of weeks.
The panic is real for a whole lot of people now faced with new challenges to make rent or mortgage payments, pay utility bills, and keep food on their own tables. Enter an increased demand for labor in grocery store chains and other retail outlets that will remain open in order to furnish the necessities of everyday life. Thanks to increased sales at grocery stores, there is a need to fill job openings that span from stockers to cashiers. Major grocery store chains are the first to announce increased efforts to hire workers in order to keep up with demand.
It makes sense. If restaurants and fast food joints are limiting service to drive-through business and delivery service because dine-in eating is no longer an option, people have to purchase food elsewhere. It would be particularly good if the food and beverage industry workers who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own are able to find employment in the retail grocery industry. Kroger, the United States’ largest supermarket by revenue, the second-largest general retailer, was one of the first to put out the help wanted notice.
Kroger, which owns multiple chains including Ralphs, Harris Teeter and Fred Meyer, has started to advertise jobs on its website and in emails. Reuters reports that Kroger has immediate openings in “retail stores, manufacturing plants and distribution centers.” On Kroger’s website, some of the open jobs are for cashiers, grocery clerks and pharmacy technicians.
Other chain stores are focusing on specific areas where demand is high. Smaller chain stores are making changes to meet their needs.
Safeway and Albertsons are trying to fill 2,000 open positions in their Washington stores. There are openings for delivery drivers and in-store employees. Smaller chains are also hiring at the local level. H-E-B has both part-time and full-time positions open in Texas. There are opportunities available in its warehouses and stores. The company has advertised for short-term stockers, customer service assistants and checkers. H-E-B also plans to move some workers to departments that are dealing with higher demand, such as curbside delivery and pick up.
And the big box stores are finding a need to increase hiring, too.
Costco is also hiring to deal with rising demand in its stores. For instance, NBC Los Angeles reports that the Woodland Hills Costco has “an average of 1,300 people waiting” outside when it opens.
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner met with store representatives from major grocery chains Monday and reassured local residents that the food supply chain is safe and there are no shutdowns in operations. Some stores may decrease hours of operation but they will not result in closures. Part-time and full-time positions are available from overnight stockers to floor workers to managers and pharmacy technicians.
A very positive statement we are seeing is that our grocery stores are hiring. Our #grocerystores are not closing and will have plenty of food. #COVIDー19 — Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) March 16, 2020
Houston lagged behind many other big cities in closing restaurants and bars but the mayor and county judge did so Monday afternoon. As of 8:00 a.m. this morning, restaurants and bars are ordered to close for the next fifteen days. Restaurants may offer delivery, pick-up, and drive-thru service but no dine-in service. Some establishments had begun to do this on their own, not waiting for the city and county to make a decision.
We hope all of this is temporary and life can get back to normal as soon as possible. Hopefully, those facing unemployment will find jobs and get by until then. We have to take our silver linings where we can find them these days.


hotair--2020-03-17--What is the military's role during the pandemic?

This is a question that ’ s increasingly on the minds of both politicians and citizens as the coronavirus pandemic continues to roll out .
What role , if any , does America ’ s military have to play in handling this crisis ?
Just this weekend we heard the Governor of New York calling on the White House to deploy the military for the conversion and construction of new hospital facilities in New York City .
The military has already been deployed to the southern border to help cut down on border jumpers , some of whom may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops are already being mulled .
The Associated Press published a disquieting analysis of precisely how far this trend might go and what the constitutional limits on the use of the military in civilian settings are .
The Pentagon is already helping combat the coronavirus outbreak in the United States and is considering ways to do more .
But the military faces limits .
Its health care system is geared more toward handling combat casualties than infectious diseases .
And there are logistical and legal concerns about expanding the military ’ s role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with enforcing quarantines .
Defense officials also want to be careful not to do anything to weaken its ability to defend the nation .
U.S. Northern Command , which is responsible for defending the U.S. homeland , said in a statement Monday that any Defense Department assistance to the coronavirus crisis “ would be secondary to our primary mission to defend the United States .
A range of planning efforts cover scenarios which include aiding in the establishment of medical treatment sites , providing shelter for displaced persons , assisting with food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” As noted in that excerpt , the military has a lot of doctors and medical facilities , including two massive hospital ships , that could be deployed to directly help in dealing with those who are infected .
But the problem is that most of those facilities , as well as their doctors , are generally designed and trained to deal with battlefield injuries .
They aren ’ t really set up to deal with mass outbreaks of infectious diseases .
And if they call up any reservists to help out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with civilian patients so we ’ d be taking them away from the private sector work they ’ re already engaged in .
The more disturbing image is the idea that the military might be needed to enforce quarantine areas and control crowds .
That subject is already being brought up , however .
For one example , in Baltimore , City Hall has announced that the police are ready to start arresting people who violate orders to shelter in place .
But what if there are more people taking to the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The Department of Defense has a “ pandemic response plan ” which includes “ a last-resort role in helping to impose quarantines and border restrictions.
” This is going to come as disturbing news to a lot of people if President Trump decides to put that on the table .
Typically , as most of you are already aware , the military can not be used for any sort of civilian , domestic law enforcement purposes because of the Posse Comitatus Act .
But if the President declares a national state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that rule which would involve invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 .
That allows the President to deploy the military domestically “ to suppress , in any State , any insurrection , domestic violence , unlawful combination , or conspiracy.
” Not only is that law still on the books but in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina , Congress amended the act , allowing for similar use of military force in response to ” natural disasters , epidemics , or other serious public health emergencies , terrorist attacks or incidents , or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploy the troops to maintain control of the public during an epidemic if there is widespread refusal to follow quarantine instructions .
Is that really something anyone wants to see ?
It paints a rather grim , dystopian picture of the short-term future of the United States .
But it ’ s also part of the larger conversation I brought up earlier about the limits of executive power during a crisis .
And we are moving closer and closer to seeing those limits tested in a potentially disastrous way .

This is a question that’s increasingly on the minds of both politicians and citizens as the coronavirus pandemic continues to roll out. What role, if any, does America’s military have to play in handling this crisis? Just this weekend we heard the Governor of New York calling on the White House to deploy the military for the conversion and construction of new hospital facilities in New York City. The military has already been deployed to the southern border to help cut down on border jumpers, some of whom may be disease carriers. Other uses for our troops are already being mulled.
The Associated Press published a disquieting analysis of precisely how far this trend might go and what the constitutional limits on the use of the military in civilian settings are.
The Pentagon is already helping combat the coronavirus outbreak in the United States and is considering ways to do more. But the military faces limits. Its health care system is geared more toward handling combat casualties than infectious diseases. And there are logistical and legal concerns about expanding the military’s role in civilian affairs, such as tasking it with enforcing quarantines. Defense officials also want to be careful not to do anything to weaken its ability to defend the nation. U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for defending the U.S. homeland, said in a statement Monday that any Defense Department assistance to the coronavirus crisis “would be secondary to our primary mission to defend the United States. A range of planning efforts cover scenarios which include aiding in the establishment of medical treatment sites, providing shelter for displaced persons, assisting with food transportation, and numerous other logistical efforts.”
As noted in that excerpt, the military has a lot of doctors and medical facilities, including two massive hospital ships, that could be deployed to directly help in dealing with those who are infected. But the problem is that most of those facilities, as well as their doctors, are generally designed and trained to deal with battlefield injuries. They aren’t really set up to deal with mass outbreaks of infectious diseases. And if they call up any reservists to help out, those people are very likely already dealing with civilian patients so we’d be taking them away from the private sector work they’re already engaged in.
The more disturbing image is the idea that the military might be needed to enforce quarantine areas and control crowds. That subject is already being brought up, however. For one example, in Baltimore, City Hall has announced that the police are ready to start arresting people who violate orders to shelter in place. But what if there are more people taking to the streets than the cops can keep under control?
The Department of Defense has a “pandemic response plan” which includes “a last-resort role in helping to impose quarantines and border restrictions.” This is going to come as disturbing news to a lot of people if President Trump decides to put that on the table.
Typically, as most of you are already aware, the military can not be used for any sort of civilian, domestic law enforcement purposes because of the Posse Comitatus Act. But if the President declares a national state of emergency, there is an exception to that rule which would involve invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. That allows the President to deploy the military domestically “to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” Not only is that law still on the books but in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina, Congress amended the act, allowing for similar use of military force in response to ” natural disasters, epidemics, or other serious public health emergencies, terrorist attacks or incidents, or other conditions.”
So the authority exists to deploy the troops to maintain control of the public during an epidemic if there is widespread refusal to follow quarantine instructions. Is that really something anyone wants to see? It paints a rather grim, dystopian picture of the short-term future of the United States. But it’s also part of the larger conversation I brought up earlier about the limits of executive power during a crisis. And we are moving closer and closer to seeing those limits tested in a potentially disastrous way.


hotair--2020-03-17--GOAT to Pats, fans: Toodles, and thanks for the memories

Sure , it ’ s not the most pressing ( or depressing ) news of the day , but at least it ’ s something new to discuss .
Tom Brady offered an apparent valediction to New England Patriots fans , telling them he planned to start a “ new stage for my life and career ” that didn ’ t include the Pats or Pats Nation .
He also gave a shout-out to Bill Belichick and the Patriots organization on Instagram , but left the distinct impression there as well that he wouldn ’ t be back : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s saying , ESPN reporter Adam Schefter writes : Free agency talks opened up yesterday , and Brady must have liked what he ’ s been hearing so far .
Sports Illustrated reports that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Los Angeles Chargers have taken a keen interest in the Greatest of All Time : The Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Los Angeles Chargers have made aggressive offers for Brady .
The legal tampering period in the NFL began on Monday .
Despite making 14 Pro Bowls with the Patriots and winning six Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slipped in recent years .
He threw for just 4,035 yards and 24 touchdowns in 2019 .
His completion percentage ( 60.8 % ) was also his lowest since 2013 .
True , but it ’ s also true that Brady had the fewest real weapons around him since 2013 , too .
It ’ s tough to be a deep-threat , ball-control QB without more than one solid threat on the field to catch those passes .
Philip Rivers is now out of Los Angeles and Jamies Winston has been a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but neither team really has a lot of those weapons , either .
If Brady wants to survive long enough to make the money worth it , those teams had better save some cash for their O-lines and receiver corps .
The Las Vegas Raiders were supposedly a Brady target , but they just picked up Marcus Mariota .
With David Carr still on the roster , they won ’ t have room or money for Brady : Brady could still choose to retire , but he didn ’ t seem interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s not likely to turn down his one and only big payday from it .
ESPN recalls that Brady wants to play three more years , at least in his latest career planning : Brady , 42 , leaves New England with six Super Bowl rings and 41 playoff starts since 2001 .
In recent years , Brady repeatedly said that his goal was to play until he was 45 , but he and the Patriots couldn ’ t come to an agreement on a contract extension last offseason .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his options as a free agent , and after a 2019 season in which he showed visible frustration at times and the offensively-challenged Patriots uncharacteristically lost in the wild-card round of the playoffs , he told Westwood One radio that he was “ open-minded about the process ” .
Patriots owner Robert Kraft , who deferred to coach Bill Belichick in the negotiations , told NBC Sports he hoped Brady would play in New England or retire .
Kraft , Belichick and Brady , widely seen as the three pillars of the Patriots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That era has finally closed out , and what an era it was .
It was the kind of dominance that free-agency and the draft were designed to prevent by providing parity to the NFL .
It seems unlikely that we ’ ll ever see it again , but that ’ s part of the fun of playing the games .
At the very least , Brady earned that Greatest of All Time title , and we had fun watching him do it — even if many of us were wailing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No matter where he lands , it ’ s a long shot that Brady can generate that kind of dominance in the time he has left , but he might have enough to take a more complete team to the Super Bowl .
Never count him out .

Sure, it’s not the most pressing (or depressing) news of the day, but at least it’s something new to discuss. Tom Brady offered an apparent valediction to New England Patriots fans, telling them he planned to start a “new stage for my life and career” that didn’t include the Pats or Pats Nation. He also gave a shout-out to Bill Belichick and the Patriots organization on Instagram, but left the distinct impression there as well that he wouldn’t be back:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B91c4VGheUW/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
LOVE YOU PATS NATION pic.twitter.com/lxSQZmnjPL — Tom Brady (@TomBrady) March 17, 2020
It’s only slightly ambiguous what Brady’s saying, ESPN reporter Adam Schefter writes:
Tom Brady just announced on IG that his football journey will take place elsewhere", not in New England. — Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 17, 2020
Free agency talks opened up yesterday, and Brady must have liked what he’s been hearing so far. Sports Illustrated reports that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Los Angeles Chargers have taken a keen interest in the Greatest of All Time:
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Los Angeles Chargers have made aggressive offers for Brady. The legal tampering period in the NFL began on Monday. Despite making 14 Pro Bowls with the Patriots and winning six Super Bowls, Brady’s production has slipped in recent years. He threw for just 4,035 yards and 24 touchdowns in 2019. His completion percentage (60.8%) was also his lowest since 2013.
True, but it’s also true that Brady had the fewest real weapons around him since 2013, too. It’s tough to be a deep-threat, ball-control QB without more than one solid threat on the field to catch those passes. Philip Rivers is now out of Los Angeles and Jamies Winston has been a problem for Tampa Bay for some time, but neither team really has a lot of those weapons, either. If Brady wants to survive long enough to make the money worth it, those teams had better save some cash for their O-lines and receiver corps.
The Las Vegas Raiders were supposedly a Brady target, but they just picked up Marcus Mariota. With David Carr still on the roster, they won’t have room or money for Brady:
The Las Vegas Raiders have agreed to a deal with former Tennessee Titans quarterback Marcus Mariota, a source confirmed to ESPN. Mariota, 26, will presumably be No. 2 on the depth chart and will push starter Derek Carr.
Brady could still choose to retire, but he didn’t seem interested in that option before free agency, and he’s not likely to turn down his one and only big payday from it. ESPN recalls that Brady wants to play three more years, at least in his latest career planning:
Brady, 42, leaves New England with six Super Bowl rings and 41 playoff starts since 2001. In recent years, Brady repeatedly said that his goal was to play until he was 45, but he and the Patriots couldn’t come to an agreement on a contract extension last offseason. That created a path for Brady to explore his options as a free agent, and after a 2019 season in which he showed visible frustration at times and the offensively-challenged Patriots uncharacteristically lost in the wild-card round of the playoffs, he told Westwood One radio that he was “open-minded about the process”. Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who deferred to coach Bill Belichick in the negotiations, told NBC Sports he hoped Brady would play in New England or retire. Kraft, Belichick and Brady, widely seen as the three pillars of the Patriots’ unprecedented run of success since 2001.
That era has finally closed out, and what an era it was. It was the kind of dominance that free-agency and the draft were designed to prevent by providing parity to the NFL. It seems unlikely that we’ll ever see it again, but that’s part of the fun of playing the games. At the very least, Brady earned that Greatest of All Time title, and we had fun watching him do it — even if many of us were wailing and gnashing our teeth while he did. No matter where he lands, it’s a long shot that Brady can generate that kind of dominance in the time he has left, but he might have enough to take a more complete team to the Super Bowl. Never count him out.


hotair--2020-03-17--By the way, Joe Biden won the Washington primary

The only bright spots for Bernie Sanders on Not So Super Tuesday ( March 10th ) were North Dakota and Washington state .
Well , one of those lights just dimmed considerably .
While the counting hasn ’ t finished entirely , Sanders ’ lead in Washington has evaporated and Joe Biden has opened up enough of a lead for the Seattle Times to declare him the winner .
Former Vice President Joe Biden has won Washington ’ s presidential primary , further cementing his status as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination .
As of Monday afternoon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statewide vote , compared with about 36 % for Vermont Sen. Sanders — a gap of 23,000 votes .
Biden ’ s lead had expanded since the two rivals ended election night March 10 in a virtual tie .
The delayed victory — which came amid record turnout for a Washington presidential primary — means Biden won five of the six states that voted March 10 .
This result is probably at least somewhat instructive in understanding just how big the seismic shift was after the South Carolina primary .
Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polls in Washington for months up until then .
And since all of the ballots in that state are cast in the mail , many of them had been sent in before the Biden surge .
And yet somehow , Joe had obviously been making the beginnings of a comeback there even before his big day on February 29 .
Granted , this isn ’ t much of a lead .
But depending on how the individual congressional districts break down , Biden will still take a larger share of the delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of the delegate math , Uncle Joe will take at least one extra delegate because Washington sends an odd number of pledged delegates ( 107 ) to the convention .
And every delegate counts since Bernie was hoping for at least a couple of wins to prevent Biden from opening up too much of a lead .
That lead may not be mathematically “ insurmountable ” at this point , but after tonight it will probably be getting close .
The current tally ( which is still missing a few from previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders ’ 719 .
Ohio probably won ’ t be voting today as we discussed earlier , but Florida , Arizona and Illinois are still going to the polls .
Florida has a buttload of delegates ( 219 ) and the most recent polling has Joe Biden holding a nearly 40 point lead over Sanders .
Arizona should have been a state that favors Bernie a bit more since he ’ s been doing better out west , but Biden still appears to be headed for a double-digit win there and the larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois doesn ’ t look much better for Sanders , with Biden holding a lead of anwhere from 21 points to 38 points , depending on which of the most recent polls you choose to believe .
Just doing some back of the napkin math , assuming those poll numbers are anywhere close to reality , Joe Biden could wake up tomorrow morning with a total delegate lead in the range of 250 .
And Bernie doesn ’ t really have any more states coming up where there ’ s an obvious hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So does he keep slugging it out all the way to the convention ?
( Assuming the convention even happens , what with all the coronavirus madness . )
Probably .
Why bother dropping out if there ’ s a chance that you can leverage your body of delegates to get some concessions in the party platform ?

The only bright spots for Bernie Sanders on Not So Super Tuesday (March 10th) were North Dakota and Washington state. Well, one of those lights just dimmed considerably. While the counting hasn’t finished entirely, Sanders’ lead in Washington has evaporated and Joe Biden has opened up enough of a lead for the Seattle Times to declare him the winner.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has won Washington’s presidential primary, further cementing his status as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. As of Monday afternoon, Biden led with nearly 38% of the statewide vote, compared with about 36% for Vermont Sen. Sanders — a gap of 23,000 votes. Biden’s lead had expanded since the two rivals ended election night March 10 in a virtual tie. The delayed victory — which came amid record turnout for a Washington presidential primary — means Biden won five of the six states that voted March 10.
This result is probably at least somewhat instructive in understanding just how big the seismic shift was after the South Carolina primary. Bernie Sanders had been holding a solid lead in the polls in Washington for months up until then. And since all of the ballots in that state are cast in the mail, many of them had been sent in before the Biden surge. And yet somehow, Joe had obviously been making the beginnings of a comeback there even before his big day on February 29.
Granted, this isn’t much of a lead. But depending on how the individual congressional districts break down, Biden will still take a larger share of the delegates. And owing to the “quirk” of the delegate math, Uncle Joe will take at least one extra delegate because Washington sends an odd number of pledged delegates (107) to the convention. And every delegate counts since Bernie was hoping for at least a couple of wins to prevent Biden from opening up too much of a lead.
That lead may not be mathematically “insurmountable” at this point, but after tonight it will probably be getting close. The current tally (which is still missing a few from previous states) has Biden with 871 versus Sanders’ 719. Ohio probably won’t be voting today as we discussed earlier, but Florida, Arizona and Illinois are still going to the polls. Florida has a buttload of delegates (219) and the most recent polling has Joe Biden holding a nearly 40 point lead over Sanders. Arizona should have been a state that favors Bernie a bit more since he’s been doing better out west, but Biden still appears to be headed for a double-digit win there and the larger share of their 67 pledged delegates. Illinois doesn’t look much better for Sanders, with Biden holding a lead of anwhere from 21 points to 38 points, depending on which of the most recent polls you choose to believe.
Just doing some back of the napkin math, assuming those poll numbers are anywhere close to reality, Joe Biden could wake up tomorrow morning with a total delegate lead in the range of 250. And Bernie doesn’t really have any more states coming up where there’s an obvious hope for a big, blowout win. So does he keep slugging it out all the way to the convention? (Assuming the convention even happens, what with all the coronavirus madness.) Probably. Why bother dropping out if there’s a chance that you can leverage your body of delegates to get some concessions in the party platform?


hotair--2020-03-17--Texas appellate court halts execution -- over coronavirus spread fears

The novel coronavirus met a novel defense theory — and lost , at least for now .
An appeals court in Texas halted the execution tomorrow of a triple murderer in part over concerns that it might help spread COVID-19 .
Texas prison officials protested that they had already instituted a screening and cleaning process , but at least for now , the state ’ s death chamber is closed like bars and restaurants : The outbreak of the novel coronavirus prompted the top Texas criminal appeals court on Monday to stay for 60 days the scheduled execution of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected all grounds of John William Hummel ’ s appeal but said it would postpone the scheduled Wednesday execution “ in light of the current health crisis and the enormous resources needed to address the execution.
” One of the issues that Michael Mowla , Hummel ’ s attorney , had raised in his efforts to stop the execution was a concern that the process involved with putting Hummel to death “ may itself assist in spreading COVID-19.
” A number of people either take part or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the state penitentiary in Huntsville , including correctional officers , attorneys , physicians and family members or friends of the inmate and of the victims .
“ Gathering all these people in one location presents a substantial risk of transmission of COVID-19/Coronavirus if anyone is infected , ” Mowla wrote in a petition to the appeals court last week .
Hummel stabbed his pregnant wife to death , and beat his father-in-law and five-year-old daughter to death with a baseball bat in 2009 .
He then torched the home to cover his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The motive established at trial was that Hummel wanted to date a woman he met at a convenience store .
Hummel was only convicted of killing his wife and father-in-law , but that was in 2011 .
The state of Texas has been waiting a while to carry out this sentence , and now it will have to wait a little longer .
Texas ’ attorneys argued that the wait was unnecessary , with proper protocols in place to prevent any spread of the novel coronavirus : Execution witnesses would have been subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to go through before entering a prison unit .
The screening involves questions based on travel , potential exposure to the coronavirus and health inquiries , Desel said .
The death chamber is not a heavy traffic area and is completely isolated from all parts of the prison in Huntsville , Desel said .
“ But it is thoroughly cleaned , consistently and constantly .
We are taking precautions throughout the prison system , ” he said .
I ’ m not a fan of the death penalty anyway , but this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a stronger argument that jails and holding cells pose a threat to COVID-19 community transmission , and prisons as well .
Hummel and his jailers probably face a bigger threat from keeping him alive on death row .
Should we cancel those penalties as a result ?
Send everyone home and hope they self-quarantine , including someone who annihilated his whole family just to flirt at a convenience store ?
It ’ s clear that COVID-19 is a dangerous pandemic , and that it requires extraordinary precautions to keep the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of us alive .
The process of the law should go on uninterrupted , however , especially when postponing it does nothing to reduce that risk .

The novel coronavirus met a novel defense theory — and lost, at least for now. An appeals court in Texas halted the execution tomorrow of a triple murderer in part over concerns that it might help spread COVID-19. Texas prison officials protested that they had already instituted a screening and cleaning process, but at least for now, the state’s death chamber is closed like bars and restaurants:
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus prompted the top Texas criminal appeals court on Monday to stay for 60 days the scheduled execution of a man condemned for killing his family. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected all grounds of John William Hummel’s appeal but said it would postpone the scheduled Wednesday execution “in light of the current health crisis and the enormous resources needed to address the execution.” One of the issues that Michael Mowla, Hummel’s attorney, had raised in his efforts to stop the execution was a concern that the process involved with putting Hummel to death “may itself assist in spreading COVID-19.” A number of people either take part or witness the execution in the death chamber at the state penitentiary in Huntsville, including correctional officers, attorneys, physicians and family members or friends of the inmate and of the victims. “Gathering all these people in one location presents a substantial risk of transmission of COVID-19/Coronavirus if anyone is infected,” Mowla wrote in a petition to the appeals court last week.
Hummel stabbed his pregnant wife to death, and beat his father-in-law and five-year-old daughter to death with a baseball bat in 2009. He then torched the home to cover his tracks, unsuccessfully, of course. The motive established at trial was that Hummel wanted to date a woman he met at a convenience store. Hummel was only convicted of killing his wife and father-in-law, but that was in 2011. The state of Texas has been waiting a while to carry out this sentence, and now it will have to wait a little longer.
Texas’ attorneys argued that the wait was unnecessary, with proper protocols in place to prevent any spread of the novel coronavirus:
Execution witnesses would have been subject to the same screening that department employees have to go through before entering a prison unit. The screening involves questions based on travel, potential exposure to the coronavirus and health inquiries, Desel said. The death chamber is not a heavy traffic area and is completely isolated from all parts of the prison in Huntsville, Desel said. “But it is thoroughly cleaned, consistently and constantly. We are taking precautions throughout the prison system,” he said.
I’m not a fan of the death penalty anyway, but this seems like a ridiculous argument. There’s a stronger argument that jails and holding cells pose a threat to COVID-19 community transmission, and prisons as well. Hummel and his jailers probably face a bigger threat from keeping him alive on death row. Should we cancel those penalties as a result? Send everyone home and hope they self-quarantine, including someone who annihilated his whole family just to flirt at a convenience store?
It’s clear that COVID-19 is a dangerous pandemic, and that it requires extraordinary precautions to keep the spread from accelerating ahead of resources to keep the rest of us alive. The process of the law should go on uninterrupted, however, especially when postponing it does nothing to reduce that risk.


hotair--2020-03-17--Ohio's primary "in chaos" and basically postponed

Yesterday there was a lot of action going on regarding today ’ s primary election in Ohio , but it had little or nothing to do with voting .
Due to the coronavirus ( of course ) the Governor decided that the risk to public health was too great to have people clumping together at polling places and asked the courts to postpone the election .
A judge considered the request but concluded that the delay would be too problematic and ordered that the voting move forward anyway .
Then , last night , in a shocking development , Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision and said that the primary would be postponed until June anyway .
If this doesn ’ t have you worried , you didn ’ t pay attention in civics class in high school .
( NBC News ) Ohio ’ s primary election was thrust into chaos Monday as Gov .
Mike DeWine said the state would not open polls Tuesday because of the coronavirus outbreak after a judge declined to postpone the contest until June .
“ During this time when we face an unprecedented public health crisis , to conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and voters to place themselves at an unacceptable health risk of contracting coronavirus , ” DeWine said in a statement posted to Twitter .
DeWine said that state Health Department Director Amy Acton would “ order the polls closed as a health emergency .
While the polls will be closed tomorrow , Secretary of State @ FrankLaRose will seek a remedy through the courts to extend voting options so that every voter who wants to vote will be granted that opportunity.
” In the coming weeks and months , we are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the limits of executive power ( at all levels of government ) during states of emergency .
The handling of the Ohio primary this week should be near the top of the list of items to discuss because this is essentially the definition of a constitutional crisis .
On the surface , the reasons for postponing the election being offered by the Governor , the Secretary of State and the Director of the Health Department make perfect sense .
Polling stations tend to be staffed by senior citizens , a group most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines are expected at a time when everyone is being told to practice “ social distancing ” to slow the spread of the disease .
Having people stay away from the polls makes perfect sense .
But at the same time , we need to pause and realize what just happened .
The Executive branch in Ohio sent the matter to the Judicial branch .
The Judicial branch made a ruling ( whether we agree with it or not ) and the Executive branch completely ignored them and overruled the decision .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ ve been warned about over the entire history of our country .
If the courts have no one to enforce their orders , we no longer have three co-equal branches of government .
Curiously , over at the Washington Post , Griff Witte has written a glowing review of DeWine ’ s decisions and actions throughout the growth of the epidemic , including his decision to postpone the election .
I ’ m going to operate under the assumption that his copy was submitted before the court rejected the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aggressive actor in trying to minimize the danger from the contagion in his state and many of his actions have proven to be prescient .
And it may turn out that postponing the election will wind up saving lives and helping to “ flatten the curve ” of the epidemic , aiding in preventing our medical resources from being overwhelmed .
But when this virus finally passes and we return to whatever passes for “ normal ” in the aftermath , people in Ohio ( and across the nation , really ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asking precisely how powerful the executive branch is and what other circumstances might arise where the decisions of our judges can simply be ignored .
It ’ s a critically important question that could have ugly ramifications further down the road .
Meanwhile , Arizona , Illinois and Florida will still go to the polls today .
In a couple of weeks , depending on whether their coronavirus case count spirals and by how much , we should know if they made the right call .
Good luck and Godspeed to everyone @ @

Yesterday there was a lot of action going on regarding today’s primary election in Ohio, but it had little or nothing to do with voting. Due to the coronavirus (of course) the Governor decided that the risk to public health was too great to have people clumping together at polling places and asked the courts to postpone the election. A judge considered the request but concluded that the delay would be too problematic and ordered that the voting move forward anyway. Then, last night, in a shocking development, Governor Mike DeWine rejected the court’s decision and said that the primary would be postponed until June anyway. If this doesn’t have you worried, you didn’t pay attention in civics class in high school. (NBC News)
Ohio’s primary election was thrust into chaos Monday as Gov. Mike DeWine said the state would not open polls Tuesday because of the coronavirus outbreak after a judge declined to postpone the contest until June. “During this time when we face an unprecedented public health crisis, to conduct an election tomorrow would force poll workers and voters to place themselves at an unacceptable health risk of contracting coronavirus,” DeWine said in a statement posted to Twitter. DeWine said that state Health Department Director Amy Acton would “order the polls closed as a health emergency. While the polls will be closed tomorrow, Secretary of State @FrankLaRose will seek a remedy through the courts to extend voting options so that every voter who wants to vote will be granted that opportunity.”
In the coming weeks and months, we are going to be having a long series of debates over the limits of executive power (at all levels of government) during states of emergency. The handling of the Ohio primary this week should be near the top of the list of items to discuss because this is essentially the definition of a constitutional crisis.
On the surface, the reasons for postponing the election being offered by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Director of the Health Department make perfect sense. Polling stations tend to be staffed by senior citizens, a group most at risk from the virus. Long lines are expected at a time when everyone is being told to practice “social distancing” to slow the spread of the disease. Having people stay away from the polls makes perfect sense.
But at the same time, we need to pause and realize what just happened. The Executive branch in Ohio sent the matter to the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch made a ruling (whether we agree with it or not) and the Executive branch completely ignored them and overruled the decision. This is precisely the sort of constitutional crisis that we’ve been warned about over the entire history of our country. If the courts have no one to enforce their orders, we no longer have three co-equal branches of government.
Curiously, over at the Washington Post, Griff Witte has written a glowing review of DeWine’s decisions and actions throughout the growth of the epidemic, including his decision to postpone the election. I’m going to operate under the assumption that his copy was submitted before the court rejected the idea.
Yes, DeWine was an early, aggressive actor in trying to minimize the danger from the contagion in his state and many of his actions have proven to be prescient. And it may turn out that postponing the election will wind up saving lives and helping to “flatten the curve” of the epidemic, aiding in preventing our medical resources from being overwhelmed. But when this virus finally passes and we return to whatever passes for “normal” in the aftermath, people in Ohio (and across the nation, really) will be left staring in the mirror and asking precisely how powerful the executive branch is and what other circumstances might arise where the decisions of our judges can simply be ignored. It’s a critically important question that could have ugly ramifications further down the road.
Meanwhile, Arizona, Illinois and Florida will still go to the polls today. In a couple of weeks, depending on whether their coronavirus case count spirals and by how much, we should know if they made the right call. Good luck and Godspeed to everyone involved.


hotair--2020-03-17--Is Romney's plan to give every American adult $1,000 a good idea?

My favorite part in reading up on this was finding some math-challenged lefties scolding Kamala Harris for the supposed stinginess of her own plan relative to Mitt ’ s .
Romney the Republican wants to give everyone $ 1,000 , as happened during the 2008 recession .
Harris the Democrat only wants to give them $ 500 !
The key phrase there is “ a month.
” Romney ’ s proposal calls for a one-time cash payment of $ 1,000 .
Harris wants to make the payments recurring .
Oops .
Anyway , whether or not it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to be handing out checks to people , some form of massive financial relief is in order at a moment when local authorities are forcing people out of work due to a dire public health threat .
The argument for cutting a check to everyone who ’ s been affected is crystal clear : They need cash quickly to pay the rent and a payroll tax holiday , which would be highly regressive in its effects , won ’ t help much if you ’ re no longer on someone ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad : A new NPR national poll finds that 18 percent ( ! )
of Americans say that either they or someone in their household has already lost a job due to the coronavirus shutdown .
The case for immediate financial assistance is plain , as are the economic benefits of having more money suddenly in the hands of consumers .
But what ’ s the case for shooting out thousand-dollar checks to everyone irrespective of need ?
Most members of the middle class ( me included ) who don ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lights on are going to pocket it , I suspect , in the very reasonable expectation that this economic pain will drag on for awhile .
It ’ s cash for a rainy day , knowing there ’ ll be many rainy days ahead .
It ’ s not like businesses are open for us to spend it even if we wanted to .
So the stimulus effects from the payment may be blunted .
Meanwhile , while $ 1,000 is better than nothing , it ’ s clearly not full monthly income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been laid off .
Right , right , it ’ s not supposed to be — they can also apply for unemployment benefits .
But it seems highly inefficient to send too much money to a huge cohort of people who don ’ t need it and won ’ t spend it while sending too little money to a huge cohort that desperately needs it and will spend it .
Of course , there are ways around that : Other plans circulating in Congress call for means-testing the beneficiaries : Josh Hawley proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a sliding scale , from $ 1,446 for a family of three to $ 2,206 for a family of five .
Is there some comparative virtue to a flat $ 1,000 payment to every adult that I ’ m missing ?
A logistical thing , maybe ?
If all you want to do is get cash out the door ASAP , doubtless it ’ d be simpler to cut every taxpayer a check for the same amount than it would be to have to calibrate amounts to each individual ’ s AGI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s top economic advisors , Jason Furman , endorsed the “ $ 1,000 for everyone ” idea in an op-ed 12 days ago , with the caveat that parents should get an additional $ 500 per child .
And Furman wants the payments to continue so long as the unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or higher , which seems like a cinch .
This will be a very costly intervention , especially if it drags on .
Good thing we weren ’ t carrying much debt until now , huh ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s idea last night as well-meaning but foolish in that it risks encouraging people to avoid work .
Better that we follow the German example , he says , by encouraging employers to offer workers reduced hours instead of laying them off and then compensating workers for those hours they ’ re no longer working .
That would spare employees from being severed from their current places of business , which means they ’ d be in place to resume normal operations once business resumes .
But how are businesses supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re working if they ’ re not actually working ?
If the business is shuttered for health reasons , or if it ’ s open but drawing no customers due to fear of confined space , those hours may need to be reduced down to virtually nothing .
It might not be in the employer ’ s interest to keep the place open and try to make rent , let alone keep people on the payroll part-time .
What do you do in that situation ?

My favorite part in reading up on this was finding some math-challenged lefties scolding Kamala Harris for the supposed stinginess of her own plan relative to Mitt’s. Romney the Republican wants to give everyone $1,000, as happened during the 2008 recession. Harris the Democrat only wants to give them $500!
We cannot ignore the strain that emergency situations like the coronavirus pandemic put on many families who are already living paycheck to paycheck. I introduced the LIFT Act to give working families up to $500 a month. We need it now more than ever. — Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) March 17, 2020
The key phrase there is “a month.” Romney’s proposal calls for a one-time cash payment of $1,000. Harris wants to make the payments recurring. Oops.
Anyway, whether or not it’s a gross affront to conservative orthodoxy for the government to be handing out checks to people, some form of massive financial relief is in order at a moment when local authorities are forcing people out of work due to a dire public health threat. The argument for cutting a check to everyone who’s been affected is crystal clear: They need cash quickly to pay the rent and a payroll tax holiday, which would be highly regressive in its effects, won’t help much if you’re no longer on someone’s payroll. The situation is already very bad:
Portman said he received new data on Ohio's unemployment claims today: 45,000 claims this week compared to 6,500 last week. — Liz Skalka (@lizskalka) March 17, 2020
A new NPR national poll finds that 18 percent(!) of Americans say that either they or someone in their household has already lost a job due to the coronavirus shutdown. The case for immediate financial assistance is plain, as are the economic benefits of having more money suddenly in the hands of consumers.
But what’s the case for shooting out thousand-dollar checks to everyone irrespective of need? Most members of the middle class (me included) who don’t need to spend that money to keep the lights on are going to pocket it, I suspect, in the very reasonable expectation that this economic pain will drag on for awhile. It’s cash for a rainy day, knowing there’ll be many rainy days ahead. It’s not like businesses are open for us to spend it even if we wanted to. So the stimulus effects from the payment may be blunted. Meanwhile, while $1,000 is better than nothing, it’s clearly not full monthly income replacement for most people who’ve been laid off. Right, right, it’s not supposed to be — they can also apply for unemployment benefits. But it seems highly inefficient to send too much money to a huge cohort of people who don’t need it and won’t spend it while sending too little money to a huge cohort that desperately needs it and will spend it.
Of course, there are ways around that:
I think a good way to deal with "not everybody needs a check" is to send everybody a check and have a high-profile campaign urging people who really don't need the money to give it away to those who do. — Josh Barro (@jbarro) March 17, 2020
Other plans circulating in Congress call for means-testing the beneficiaries:
Among Democrats, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Sherrod Brown of Ohio are proposing sending $2,000 to every adult and child below a set income, with future payments in July and then quarterly until unemployment levels drop. Last week, Reps. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) and Tim Ryan (D., Ohio) proposed sending a check between $1,000 and $6,000 to every American who earned less than $65,000 last year.
Josh Hawley proposed a “refundable monthly benefit” based on a sliding scale, from $1,446 for a family of three to $2,206 for a family of five. Is there some comparative virtue to a flat $1,000 payment to every adult that I’m missing? A logistical thing, maybe? If all you want to do is get cash out the door ASAP, doubtless it’d be simpler to cut every taxpayer a check for the same amount than it would be to have to calibrate amounts to each individual’s AGI last year or whatever. One of Obama’s top economic advisors, Jason Furman, endorsed the “$1,000 for everyone” idea in an op-ed 12 days ago, with the caveat that parents should get an additional $500 per child. And Furman wants the payments to continue so long as the unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or higher, which seems like a cinch. This will be a very costly intervention, especially if it drags on.
Good thing we weren’t carrying much debt until now, huh?
The coming (deep) recession makes it unconscionable that Washington had been running nearly-$1 trillion deficits during a long run of prosperity. The tax cuts & higher spending caps should have been paid for, & soaring health care spending should've been reformed. Total failure. pic.twitter.com/AQQprspODc — Brian Riedl 🧀 (@Brian_Riedl) March 15, 2020
Here’s Tucker Carlson critiquing Romney’s idea last night as well-meaning but foolish in that it risks encouraging people to avoid work. Better that we follow the German example, he says, by encouraging employers to offer workers reduced hours instead of laying them off and then compensating workers for those hours they’re no longer working. That would spare employees from being severed from their current places of business, which means they’d be in place to resume normal operations once business resumes. But how are businesses supposed to compensate them for the limited reduced hours they’re working if they’re not actually working? If the business is shuttered for health reasons, or if it’s open but drawing no customers due to fear of confined space, those hours may need to be reduced down to virtually nothing. It might not be in the employer’s interest to keep the place open and try to make rent, let alone keep people on the payroll part-time. What do you do in that situation?


hotair--2020-03-17--Innovation: Lack of product makes for strange partners in COVID-19 war

Just as politics can make strange bedfellows , a worldwide pandemic can make strange partners .
When a shortage of a basic product used in the battle against the spread of COVID-19 was noticed , companies with a capacity to help are stepping up .
In some markets , hand sanitizer is in short supply .
The very first recommendation offered to stop the spread of the coronavirus is letting people know of the importance of thorough and frequent handwashing .
When soap and water aren ’ t available , hand sanitizer is the next best thing .
Panicked shoppers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal hygiene products but not everyone cooperates .
And , in some spots , there was simply not enough stock in place in the first place .
In France , for example , luxury perfume makers Dior and Givenchy are stepping up by making hand sanitizer for delivery to French health care workers , free of charge .
With France ’ s total number of cases of the coronavirus confirmed continuing to rise , now over 5,397 and 127 deaths , a shortage of the product spurred on a little innovation .
Luxury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would begin producing hand sanitizer , not perfume or makeup products on Monday .
LVHM is the parent company of Christian Dior , Guerlain , and Givenchy .
The gel will be delivered to French health authorities and the Assistance Publique-Hospitaux de Paris , a network of 39 teaching hospitals that treats more than 8 million patients each year , according to its website .
“ Through this initiative , LVMH intends to help address the risk of a lack of product in France and enable a greater number of people to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves from the spread of the virus , ” the company said in a press release .
This week alone , the company will be able to make 12 tons of the product .
LVMH will continue to honor its commitment as long as it is needed .
Martine Hirsch , the head of Paris hospitals , is grateful .
“ I wish to thank LVMH for acting so quickly : they made us this offer on Saturday night at 9pm , and confirmed it on Sunday.
” The health care system in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the product but supplies are “ strained ” .
The city ’ s hospitals have not yet run out of gel but supplies are “ strained , ” a spokeswoman for the Paris hospital system said , adding that other companies have also said they are ready to donate supplies .
Fears of catching the new coronavirus have sparked a run on hand gel across France , with many pharmacies restricting clients to one small bottle per person .
The government issued a decree limiting prices after reports some retailers were trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a 100ml bottle now costing no more than three euros .
Producers across France say they have been hiring workers to meet the soaring demand , as authorities urge stringent hand cleaning among measures to curtail the outbreak .
We know that for hand sanitizer to be effective it must be at least 60 % alcohol , according to the CDC .
In an interesting twist , distilleries are stepping up in the U.S. and producing hand sanitizer and cleaning solutions , too .
Durham , NC-based Durham Distillery , which makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constellation Brands ) , received approval late Thursday from the government agency that oversees alcohol laws in the control state to distribute an ethanol-based “ Sanitizing Solution ” to bars and restaurants in North Carolina ’ s Research Triangle .
The Sanitizing Solution is made from the same 95 % alcohol-by-volume ( abv ) corn-based ethanol Durham uses for its gin , diluted to a ratio of 70 % ethanol to distilled water , about the same level as rubbing alcohol .
( By comparison , their Navy Strength Gin is bottled at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dry Gin at 44 % abv . )
The spray is not flavored with juniper and it ’ s not a hand sanitizer ; it ’ s intended to spray tabletops and other high-touch areas , effectively killing microbes .
The company is offering it to all local hospitality operations free of charge , in two-liter measures ( about a two-week supply ) .
All others have to do is come pick it up .
In Indianapolis , Hotel Tango awaits final approval from the federal government before shipping cases out to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of days .
The first batch will be donated to local Indianapolis and Fort Wayne shelters .
The next batches will be shipped to military bases overseas in affected countries .
Perhaps in the future , the company may see it in their tasting rooms .
“ With the shortages of hand sanitizers across the United States , we felt like we had to do something to help , ” Travis Barnes , CEO and founder of Hotel Tango , said .
“ Since we already have facilities and equipment geared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common cleaning and anti-bacterial agent , it feels like we have a duty to help wherever we can .
This is a time for all of us to come together and combine our focused efforts to get COVID-19 under control.
” “ We want to do everything we can to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and contribute to those in need , but do not want to shut down operations , ” Mike Leary , Hotel Tango ’ s Chief Operating Officer , said .
“ The communities we serve are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still deserve to have a healthy space to gather and enjoy themselves .
We want to be one of those destinations .
Thankfully , now we ’ ll have plenty of Hotel Tango ’ s alcohol-based cleaner , ready-to-protect.
” And , don ’ t forget New York ’ s own version of hand sanitizer .

Just as politics can make strange bedfellows, a worldwide pandemic can make strange partners. When a shortage of a basic product used in the battle against the spread of COVID-19 was noticed, companies with a capacity to help are stepping up.
In some markets, hand sanitizer is in short supply. The very first recommendation offered to stop the spread of the coronavirus is letting people know of the importance of thorough and frequent handwashing. When soap and water aren’t available, hand sanitizer is the next best thing. Panicked shoppers are being discouraged from over-purchasing and hoarding personal hygiene products but not everyone cooperates. And, in some spots, there was simply not enough stock in place in the first place.
In France, for example, luxury perfume makers Dior and Givenchy are stepping up by making hand sanitizer for delivery to French health care workers, free of charge. With France’s total number of cases of the coronavirus confirmed continuing to rise, now over 5,397 and 127 deaths, a shortage of the product spurred on a little innovation. Luxury goods conglomerate LVMH announced all production facilities would begin producing hand sanitizer, not perfume or makeup products on Monday. LVHM is the parent company of Christian Dior, Guerlain, and Givenchy.
The gel will be delivered to French health authorities and the Assistance Publique-Hospitaux de Paris, a network of 39 teaching hospitals that treats more than 8 million patients each year, according to its website. “Through this initiative, LVMH intends to help address the risk of a lack of product in France and enable a greater number of people to continue to take the right action to protect themselves from the spread of the virus,” the company said in a press release.
This week alone, the company will be able to make 12 tons of the product. LVMH will continue to honor its commitment as long as it is needed.
Martine Hirsch, the head of Paris hospitals, is grateful. “I wish to thank LVMH for acting so quickly: they made us this offer on Saturday night at 9pm, and confirmed it on Sunday.”
The health care system in France isn’t completely out of the product but supplies are “strained”.
The city’s hospitals have not yet run out of gel but supplies are “strained,” a spokeswoman for the Paris hospital system said, adding that other companies have also said they are ready to donate supplies. Fears of catching the new coronavirus have sparked a run on hand gel across France, with many pharmacies restricting clients to one small bottle per person. The government issued a decree limiting prices after reports some retailers were trying to make extra profit from would-be buyers, with a 100ml bottle now costing no more than three euros. Producers across France say they have been hiring workers to meet the soaring demand, as authorities urge stringent hand cleaning among measures to curtail the outbreak.
We know that for hand sanitizer to be effective it must be at least 60% alcohol, according to the CDC. In an interesting twist, distilleries are stepping up in the U.S. and producing hand sanitizer and cleaning solutions, too.
Durham, NC-based Durham Distillery, which makes Conniption Gin (and is minority-owned by Constellation Brands), received approval late Thursday from the government agency that oversees alcohol laws in the control state to distribute an ethanol-based “Sanitizing Solution” to bars and restaurants in North Carolina’s Research Triangle. The Sanitizing Solution is made from the same 95% alcohol-by-volume (abv) corn-based ethanol Durham uses for its gin, diluted to a ratio of 70% ethanol to distilled water, about the same level as rubbing alcohol. (By comparison, their Navy Strength Gin is bottled at 57% abv, and their American Dry Gin at 44% abv.) The spray is not flavored with juniper and it’s not a hand sanitizer; it’s intended to spray tabletops and other high-touch areas, effectively killing microbes.
The company is offering it to all local hospitality operations free of charge, in two-liter measures (about a two-week supply). All others have to do is come pick it up.
In Indianapolis, Hotel Tango awaits final approval from the federal government before shipping cases out to those in need. It is expected within a matter of days. The first batch will be donated to local Indianapolis and Fort Wayne shelters. The next batches will be shipped to military bases overseas in affected countries. Perhaps in the future, the company may see it in their tasting rooms.
“With the shortages of hand sanitizers across the United States, we felt like we had to do something to help,” Travis Barnes, CEO and founder of Hotel Tango, said. “Since we already have facilities and equipment geared toward producing high-proof alcohol, which is a common cleaning and anti-bacterial agent, it feels like we have a duty to help wherever we can. This is a time for all of us to come together and combine our focused efforts to get COVID-19 under control.” “We want to do everything we can to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and contribute to those in need, but do not want to shut down operations,” Mike Leary, Hotel Tango’s Chief Operating Officer, said. “The communities we serve are taking this matter very seriously, but still deserve to have a healthy space to gather and enjoy themselves. We want to be one of those destinations. Thankfully, now we’ll have plenty of Hotel Tango’s alcohol-based cleaner, ready-to-protect.”
And, don’t forget New York’s own version of hand sanitizer.


hotair--2020-03-17--Election night thread: It was irresponsible of Bernie not to quit yesterday

Bernie fans will whine at the suggestion that he should have dropped out 24 hours ago rather than ask people to turn out in the middle of a once-a-century pandemic to keep his pipe dream of winning the nomination alive .
You wouldn ’ t have called on Biden to drop out if he were in second place trying to catch up to Bernie .
Yeah , I would have .
Maybe James Carville wouldn ’ t have .
But try this thought experiment : Imagine any other two candidates in this race separated by the delegate gap that currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of enormous polling momentum Biden ’ s seeing right now and tell me that the second-place candidate in that scenario shouldn ’ t have thrown in the towel already in the name of keeping people away from the polls while a killer virus is circulating .
Biden is a 99 percent favorite to win the nomination in FiveThirtyEight ’ s model and a 99 percent favorite to win Florida , Illinois , and Arizona tonight .
If Amy Klobuchar had already piled up an all but insurmountable delegate lead on Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent favorite in the three states voting today , what do you think the general view would be of Mayor Pete choosing to press on anyway — especially in Florida , where lots of vulnerable senior citizens will congregate at polling places to cast their ballots ?
There is a double standard here between Bernie and other candidates but it ’ s a double standard that favors Sanders .
Because he ’ s leading a movement , a “ revolution , ” his fans are likely more willing to support a dangerous sustained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more mundane candidate would be .
I thought his secret plan was to participate in Sunday night ’ s debate and hope for a game-changing miracle , like Biden forgetting his own name onstage .
Then , if it didn ’ t happen — and it didn ’ t — he ’ d drop out on Monday in the name of not prolonging unnecessarily risky behavior like voting after the nomination has already effectively been decided .
But no , he ’ s still competing .
Team Sanders was quick to note this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking people to go to the polls today : If you ’ re not hellbent on getting people out to the polls , why the hell wouldn ’ t you quit ?
Either drop out beforehand and let the DNC cancel the remaining primaries or contest the primaries vigorously in hopes of staging a delegate comeback .
Half-assing it this way is the worst of both worlds , encouraging people to put themselves at risk for no real reason .
And no , it ’ s not enough to dial back the GOTV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter to decide whether to turn out or vote .
It ’ d be wonderful if we lived in a world where everyone was capable of rationally assessing the risk from this disease .
We don ’ t , as the mortifying photos and videos of Americans packing into bars and restaurants last weekend proved .
Some people will seize opportunities to congregate regardless of basic health advice .
The only way to stop them is to deny them the opportunity .
As it is , I don ’ t even know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Probably he ’ ll get crushed , as predicted , in which case he ’ ll be under even more pressure to quit tomorrow .
Let ’ s say he does .
If it all takes to push him out is a wholly expected wipeout in FL , IL , and AZ then he could have and should have spared everyone the trouble of voting by quitting on Monday .
On the other hand , let ’ s say there ’ s a massive decrease in turnout today — which seems likely — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outperforming his polling because his fans turned out while Biden ’ s didn ’ t .
Will Bernie be well served by tomorrow ’ s narrative that he ’ s back in the game thanks to … coronavirus ?
Will Biden fans now be forced to trek to the polls in the next primaries en masse , possibly when the epidemic is peaking , to try to reassert their guy ’ s dominance ?
None of this makes sense .
In fact , given the wave of COVID-19 illness that ’ s about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s guess when the next primaries will actually be held .
Even a “ big ” win tonight by Sanders won ’ t mean anything in terms of momentum by the time the next batch of Democratic voters go to vote .
Let ’ s hope this study suggesting that voting doesn ’ t meaningfully increase the spread of epidemics is correct .
It ’ d be catastrophic to have COVID-19 turn out to be the exception that proves the rule .
You ’ ll find live results for Florida , Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think about this evening : Who ’ s going to be Biden ’ s VP ?
He said at the debate on Sunday that it ’ ll be a woman .
Amy Klobuchar is reportedly the frontrunner but of course the left dislikes that idea .
I think it ’ s either her , Kamala Harris , Elizabeth Warren , or Stacey Abrams .
If there ’ s any evidence that Klobuchar ’ s midwestern pedigree can help in Rust Belt states , not just Minnesota , I think it ’ ll be @ @

Bernie fans will whine at the suggestion that he should have dropped out 24 hours ago rather than ask people to turn out in the middle of a once-a-century pandemic to keep his pipe dream of winning the nomination alive. You wouldn’t have called on Biden to drop out if he were in second place trying to catch up to Bernie.
Yeah, I would have. Maybe James Carville wouldn’t have. But try this thought experiment: Imagine any other two candidates in this race separated by the delegate gap that currently exists between Biden and Sanders and the sort of enormous polling momentum Biden’s seeing right now and tell me that the second-place candidate in that scenario shouldn’t have thrown in the towel already in the name of keeping people away from the polls while a killer virus is circulating.
I mean, really:
Biden is a 99 percent favorite to win the nomination in FiveThirtyEight’s model and a 99 percent favorite to win Florida, Illinois, and Arizona tonight. If Amy Klobuchar had already piled up an all but insurmountable delegate lead on Pete Buttigieg, say, and was a 99 percent favorite in the three states voting today, what do you think the general view would be of Mayor Pete choosing to press on anyway — especially in Florida, where lots of vulnerable senior citizens will congregate at polling places to cast their ballots?
There is a double standard here between Bernie and other candidates but it’s a double standard that favors Sanders. Because he’s leading a movement, a “revolution,” his fans are likely more willing to support a dangerous sustained exercise in futility than supporters of a more mundane candidate would be. I thought his secret plan was to participate in Sunday night’s debate and hope for a game-changing miracle, like Biden forgetting his own name onstage. Then, if it didn’t happen — and it didn’t — he’d drop out on Monday in the name of not prolonging unnecessarily risky behavior like voting after the nomination has already effectively been decided. But no, he’s still competing.
Team Sanders was quick to note this morning that they’re technically not asking people to go to the polls today:
Remarkable statement from @BernieSanders spokesman @cascamike: No traditional get-out-the-vote efforts today. Going to polls during the coronavirus outbreak “is a personal decision.” pic.twitter.com/5jgz9RsWks — Paul Heintz (@paulheintz) March 17, 2020
If you’re not hellbent on getting people out to the polls, why the hell wouldn’t you quit? Either drop out beforehand and let the DNC cancel the remaining primaries or contest the primaries vigorously in hopes of staging a delegate comeback. Half-assing it this way is the worst of both worlds, encouraging people to put themselves at risk for no real reason. And no, it’s not enough to dial back the GOTV efforts and leave it to each individual voter to decide whether to turn out or vote. It’d be wonderful if we lived in a world where everyone was capable of rationally assessing the risk from this disease. We don’t, as the mortifying photos and videos of Americans packing into bars and restaurants last weekend proved. Some people will seize opportunities to congregate regardless of basic health advice. The only way to stop them is to deny them the opportunity.
As it is, I don’t even know what outcome Bernie is hoping for tonight. Probably he’ll get crushed, as predicted, in which case he’ll be under even more pressure to quit tomorrow. Let’s say he does. If it all takes to push him out is a wholly expected wipeout in FL, IL, and AZ then he could have and should have spared everyone the trouble of voting by quitting on Monday. On the other hand, let’s say there’s a massive decrease in turnout today — which seems likely — and Sanders ends up benefiting, strongly outperforming his polling because his fans turned out while Biden’s didn’t. Will Bernie be well served by tomorrow’s narrative that he’s back in the game thanks to … coronavirus? Will Biden fans now be forced to trek to the polls in the next primaries en masse, possibly when the epidemic is peaking, to try to reassert their guy’s dominance? None of this makes sense.
In fact, given the wave of COVID-19 illness that’s about to break, it’s anyone’s guess when the next primaries will actually be held. Even a “big” win tonight by Sanders won’t mean anything in terms of momentum by the time the next batch of Democratic voters go to vote.
Let’s hope this study suggesting that voting doesn’t meaningfully increase the spread of epidemics is correct. It’d be catastrophic to have COVID-19 turn out to be the exception that proves the rule. You’ll find live results for Florida, Illinois, and Arizona below. Something to think about this evening: Who’s going to be Biden’s VP? He said at the debate on Sunday that it’ll be a woman. Amy Klobuchar is reportedly the frontrunner but of course the left dislikes that idea. I think it’s either her, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, or Stacey Abrams. If there’s any evidence that Klobuchar’s midwestern pedigree can help in Rust Belt states, not just Minnesota, I think it’ll be her.


hotair--2020-03-18--Atlantic: Where is Ayatollah Khamenei in the midst of the coronavirus crisis?

Yesterday I wrote about the dire warning which appeared on Iranian state television .
A doctor warned that failing to follow state guidelines could result in a worst case scenario where “ 3.5 million ” Iranians die .
Even if that ’ s a big exaggeration , something clearly has the regime very concerned about the potential for catastrophe .
Today at the Atlantic , Graeme Wood suggests a possibility I hadn ’ t considered .
What if Ayatollah Khamenei caught the coronavirus ?
The news of ailing senior leaders keeps coming , and at some point the mullahs ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , Ayatollah Hashem Bathaei-Golpaygani , a member of Khamenei ’ s Council of Experts , died of COVID-19 in Qom .
Last week , former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati announced that he had contracted the coronavirus .
He is 74 years old , still cunning , and the chief adviser to Khamenei , to whom he speaks regularly and in person .
If Velayati dies of the coronavirus , he will be the most important regime figure to die since Qassem Soleimani .
Of course , the center of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khamenei doesn ’ t appear in public often , even in the best of times , and you ’ d have to be fairly lucky to spot him—except on a few occasions where his appearance is so customary that an absence would make everyone , both allies and enemies , wonder if the coronavirus has felled him too .
As it happens , one such occasion is this week : Persian New Year , or Nowruz .
This pre-Islamic holiday marks the vernal equinox , and this year it falls smack in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Khamenei stood at the largest Islamic pilgrimage site in Iran , the shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad , and delivered a long , almost Fidel Castro–like speech detailing policies and plans .
This year , the Islamic Republic canceled the speech 10 days in advance , “ due to health recommendations to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus.
” Tasnim News Agency in Iran is reporting today that Khamenei has agreed to commute the sentences of a large number of inmates in time for Nowruz , but it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval .
The most recent post on Khamenei ’ s Twitter feed is a slick video looking for a silver lining amid the coronavirus outbreak .
He posted this on Monday .
Meanwhile , the official death toll continues to mount : And that number would certainly be higher if Iran were telling the truth .
But in some cases , officials even lie to families about the real cause of death .
Today the LA Times published a story about one family who was told their mother had died of a heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she had coronavirus : When Maryam Rahmati learned last week that her mother died from a supposed heart attack in Gonbad Kavus city , she was confused after learning from officials that the family wouldn ’ t be allowed to bury the body .
Since the death certificate stated her mother had passed away because of a heart attack , they had no reason to believe that the cause of death was in fact coronavirus… Rahmati ’ s aunt cleansed her mother ’ s body with the help of two cemetery body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After they placed the body in the ground , Rahmati ’ s brother jumped in and hugged his mother one last time .
More than 50 mourners who attended the funeral watched from above .
Now , Rahmati ’ s family may face greater tragedy .
Her four aunts have tested positive for the virus ; her father is currently hospitalized and her husband is also infected and self-quarantining at home in Tehran .
“ I insisted that all family members go and take lung CT scans , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ death certificate to hide the real numbers and now they caused the virus to spread.
” Ayatollah Khamenei is 80 years old .
My guess is he ’ s still alive but keeping himself at a distance from everyone .
But as Wood suggests , he ’ ll have to show himself in public soon to convince everyone he ’ s still alive .

Yesterday I wrote about the dire warning which appeared on Iranian state television. A doctor warned that failing to follow state guidelines could result in a worst case scenario where “3.5 million” Iranians die. Even if that’s a big exaggeration, something clearly has the regime very concerned about the potential for catastrophe. Today at the Atlantic, Graeme Wood suggests a possibility I hadn’t considered. What if Ayatollah Khamenei caught the coronavirus?
The news of ailing senior leaders keeps coming, and at some point the mullahs’ deep bench of gerontocrats will be depleted. Today, Ayatollah Hashem Bathaei-Golpaygani, a member of Khamenei’s Council of Experts, died of COVID-19 in Qom. Last week, former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati announced that he had contracted the coronavirus. He is 74 years old, still cunning, and the chief adviser to Khamenei, to whom he speaks regularly and in person. If Velayati dies of the coronavirus, he will be the most important regime figure to die since Qassem Soleimani. Of course, the center of all speculation is the supreme leader himself. Khamenei doesn’t appear in public often, even in the best of times, and you’d have to be fairly lucky to spot him—except on a few occasions where his appearance is so customary that an absence would make everyone, both allies and enemies, wonder if the coronavirus has felled him too. As it happens, one such occasion is this week: Persian New Year, or Nowruz. This pre-Islamic holiday marks the vernal equinox, and this year it falls smack in the middle of coronavirus season. Last year, Khamenei stood at the largest Islamic pilgrimage site in Iran, the shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad, and delivered a long, almost Fidel Castro–like speech detailing policies and plans. This year, the Islamic Republic canceled the speech 10 days in advance, “due to health recommendations to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus.”
Tasnim News Agency in Iran is reporting today that Khamenei has agreed to commute the sentences of a large number of inmates in time for Nowruz, but it’s not clear if anyone saw him issue this approval.
The most recent post on Khamenei’s Twitter feed is a slick video looking for a silver lining amid the coronavirus outbreak. He posted this on Monday.
The experiences we gain in combating the #COVIDー19, and the people’s sacrifices and activities that benefit the general public, are achievements that turn tragedies and threats into blessings and opportunities. pic.twitter.com/VSS1xx4Sgt — Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) March 16, 2020
Meanwhile, the official death toll continues to mount:
A 15 percent spike in the coronavirus death toll in Iran overnight Tuesday marked the country’s single biggest 24-hour rise since officials first acknowledged COVID-19 cases in mid-February. Officials said Wednesday that another 147 people have died, meaning at least 1,135 people are dead nationwide.
And that number would certainly be higher if Iran were telling the truth. But in some cases, officials even lie to families about the real cause of death. Today the LA Times published a story about one family who was told their mother had died of a heart attack only to learn the hard way that she had coronavirus:
When Maryam Rahmati learned last week that her mother died from a supposed heart attack in Gonbad Kavus city, she was confused after learning from officials that the family wouldn’t be allowed to bury the body. Since the death certificate stated her mother had passed away because of a heart attack, they had no reason to believe that the cause of death was in fact coronavirus… Rahmati’s aunt cleansed her mother’s body with the help of two cemetery body washers. None wore masks or gloves. After they placed the body in the ground, Rahmati’s brother jumped in and hugged his mother one last time. More than 50 mourners who attended the funeral watched from above. Now, Rahmati’s family may face greater tragedy. Her four aunts have tested positive for the virus; her father is currently hospitalized and her husband is also infected and self-quarantining at home in Tehran. “I insisted that all family members go and take lung CT scans,” she said. “They falsified my mother’s death certificate to hide the real numbers and now they caused the virus to spread.”
Ayatollah Khamenei is 80 years old. My guess is he’s still alive but keeping himself at a distance from everyone. But as Wood suggests, he’ll have to show himself in public soon to convince everyone he’s still alive.


hotair--2020-03-18--Axios/Ipsos poll: Only half of Americans trust traditional media on coronavirus news

After the last few days of general media dumbassery over whether to link COVID-19 to its place of origin , I ’ m surprised it ’ s this high .
A new poll from Axios conducted by Ipsos shows that only half of the country trusts the news about the coronavirus pandemic coming from traditional media outlets .
They trust the CDC far more , and are not at all likely to trust the gossip culture on social media — all of which sounds like good news .
If you can trust it , that is .
Doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which only 47 % trust ?
Hmmmm : Roughly half the country says they don ’ t trust traditional media , like cable TV and newspapers , very much or at all to accurately deliver information about the novel coronavirus , according to a new Axios/Ipsos poll .
That number sinks even lower for digital media and online news companies .
Why it matters : While the government and health officials are able to provide important safety and procedural information about the virus , it ’ s the role of the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enriches the public ’ s understanding .
The lack of trust in the media means society could be less informed .
Details : Of all of the institutions polled , most people feel as though health officials , followed by government institutions , are most likely to provide accurate information about COVID-19 .
Well , some government institutions , anyway .
The CDC scores best in this poll , with 85 % trusting what they say about the coronavirus outbreak .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) , the only non-US entity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 % .
State officials get a 70 % rating , while local officials score 67 % .
However , federal government officials only engender trust among 53 % of the population , just barely ahead of newspapers ( 51 % ) and cable outlets ( 50 % ) .
In actuality , there ’ s not much difference in the medium when it comes to news sources .
The spread between newspapers , cable , and online news outlets all fall roughly within the margin of error ( ±3.2 % ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would be a stunning indictment of the nation ’ s news media if in fact it was anything new or worse than previously seen .
Actually , it ’ s a significant step up , at least from Gallup ’ s tracking on media credibility .
Overall trust in media cratered in 2016 to 32 % , and only rebounded to 41 % last September , their most recent iteration of their polling on the topic : Americans remain largely mistrustful of the mass media as 41 % currently have “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of trust in newspapers , television and radio to report the news “ fully , accurately and fairly.
” This latest reading represents a four-percentage-point dip since last year and marks the end of improvements in back-to-back years after hitting an all-time low .
… Gallup first measured trust in the mass media in a 1972 survey when 68 % of Americans said they trusted it .
Similar levels were recorded in 1974 ( 69 % ) and 1976 ( 72 % ) , but two decades later , when Gallup next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 53 % .
Although overall trust was at the majority level until 2004 , no more than 21 % of Americans dating back to 1972 ever said they had the greatest level of trust .
Currently , 13 % have a great deal of trust , 28 % a fair amount , 30 % not very much and 28 % none at all .
Here ’ s their chart from last year , showing that the most recent time trust in media hit 50 % was when George W. Bush ran for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was no post-9/11 bump in media trust either , at least not long enough to be captured by Gallup ’ s polling .
( There appears to be a polling gap of three-plus years around that period . )
That means that the coronavirus crisis isn ’ t going to present media with a new burst of trust from its consumers .
They will have to find a way to earn it .
The new data from Axios and Ipsos doesn ’ t look promising in that regard .
However , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Savannah Guthrie followed the advice that her network has been giving out after getting some symptoms of a cold and is now working from home , which is admittedly a lot easier to do when you work for NBC and have room for a basement studio .
Still , it ’ s at least a demonstration of non-hypocrisy that might make viewers just a little more open to what Today tells them .
Unless they watch this clip on social media , of course .

After the last few days of general media dumbassery over whether to link COVID-19 to its place of origin, I’m surprised it’s this high. A new poll from Axios conducted by Ipsos shows that only half of the country trusts the news about the coronavirus pandemic coming from traditional media outlets. They trust the CDC far more, and are not at all likely to trust the gossip culture on social media — all of which sounds like good news.
If you can trust it, that is. Doesn’t Ipsos and Axios qualify as online media, which only 47% trust? Hmmmm:
Roughly half the country says they don’t trust traditional media, like cable TV and newspapers, very much or at all to accurately deliver information about the novel coronavirus, according to a new Axios/Ipsos poll. That number sinks even lower for digital media and online news companies. Why it matters: While the government and health officials are able to provide important safety and procedural information about the virus, it’s the role of the media to provide key research and analysis that enriches the public’s understanding. The lack of trust in the media means society could be less informed. Details: Of all of the institutions polled, most people feel as though health officials, followed by government institutions, are most likely to provide accurate information about COVID-19.
Well, some government institutions, anyway. The CDC scores best in this poll, with 85% trusting what they say about the coronavirus outbreak. The World Health Organization (WHO), the only non-US entity on the list, scores a second-place 77%. State officials get a 70% rating, while local officials score 67%. However, federal government officials only engender trust among 53% of the population, just barely ahead of newspapers (51%) and cable outlets (50%).
In actuality, there’s not much difference in the medium when it comes to news sources. The spread between newspapers, cable, and online news outlets all fall roughly within the margin of error (±3.2%) and right around the 50% mark. That would be a stunning indictment of the nation’s news media if in fact it was anything new or worse than previously seen.
Actually, it’s a significant step up, at least from Gallup’s tracking on media credibility. Overall trust in media cratered in 2016 to 32%, and only rebounded to 41% last September, their most recent iteration of their polling on the topic:
Americans remain largely mistrustful of the mass media as 41% currently have “a great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.” This latest reading represents a four-percentage-point dip since last year and marks the end of improvements in back-to-back years after hitting an all-time low. … Gallup first measured trust in the mass media in a 1972 survey when 68% of Americans said they trusted it. Similar levels were recorded in 1974 (69%) and 1976 (72%), but two decades later, when Gallup next asked the question, trust had fallen to 53%. Although overall trust was at the majority level until 2004, no more than 21% of Americans dating back to 1972 ever said they had the greatest level of trust. Currently, 13% have a great deal of trust, 28% a fair amount, 30% not very much and 28% none at all.
Here’s their chart from last year, showing that the most recent time trust in media hit 50% was when George W. Bush ran for a second term:
Note too that there was no post-9/11 bump in media trust either, at least not long enough to be captured by Gallup’s polling. (There appears to be a polling gap of three-plus years around that period.) That means that the coronavirus crisis isn’t going to present media with a new burst of trust from its consumers. They will have to find a way to earn it. The new data from Axios and Ipsos doesn’t look promising in that regard.
However, perhaps demonstrations of solidarity like this will help. Savannah Guthrie followed the advice that her network has been giving out after getting some symptoms of a cold and is now working from home, which is admittedly a lot easier to do when you work for NBC and have room for a basement studio. Still, it’s at least a demonstration of non-hypocrisy that might make viewers just a little more open to what Today tells them. Unless they watch this clip on social media, of course.