hotair--2020-05-18--Cuomo on nursing home fiasco: Old people are going to die no matter what you do, you know

Via the Blaze , a comment like this coming from Trump would have set off a 24-hour media feeding frenzy .
Especially if Trump had ordered nursing homes to readmit residents who ’ d tested positive for coronavirus , all but guaranteeing a lethal outbreak among an especially vulnerable population .
Here ’ s the closest I ’ ve come to seeing a reasonable explanation for Cuomo ’ s original nursing-home policy and it ’ s not all that close : The [ original ] order was driven by fears that hospitals would be swamped during the pandemic and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes would occupy much-needed beds .
There was also concern that if nursing homes rejected elderly residents , some could be left with nowhere to go .
But the order overlooked that the coronavirus would present a new and distinct threat to nursing homes and their elderly residents .
The mistake was odd , since Cuomo had issued an earlier directive banning all visitors from nursing homes because their patients were , he said , uniquely vulnerable during the pandemic .
It was understandable for Cuomo to worry during the early days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much higher than they turned out to be .
It was not understandable that his solution to that problem was to send senior citizens with the virus back into nursing homes , for cripes sake .
Why didn ’ t they send infected seniors to some of New York City ’ s many thousands of unoccupied hotel rooms ?
Centralized quarantine with some sort of attending support staff is an idea that ’ s long overdue for hard-hit populations , especially for patients who live with people who are much more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo ’ s using different strategies to try to put out this political fire before it really starts to burn .
One is changing the reporting rules for nursing-home deaths to make the numbers look less garish than they do now .
Another is to try to make it up to the surviving residents and staff by ordering frequent testing of all patients and employees at nursing homes — a load so enormous that New York ’ s main lab is now warning counties not to send them new tests , as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good is testing nursing-home residents and staff if ( a ) it means other people can ’ t get tested and ( b ) the nursing-home tests are too backlogged to provide timely results ?
The answer , I assume , is that this is a political gesture by Cuomo more so than a meaningful solution to the threat in nursing homes .
The goal isn ’ t to efficiently limit infections so much as to show the public that nursing homes are a priority for him now .
He ’ s under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stefanik for his handling of infected nursing-home residents but he can ignore that as partisan politics .
The bigger problem for him is that some state Democrats have also begun to demand an independent probe into the matter , with one Democratic assemblyman calling the order in March by Cuomo ’ s Department of Health to require readmitting infected nursing-home residents “ probably the deadliest decision ever made in New York State history.
” That ’ s a fair cop : More than 5,000 residents of state nursing homes have died since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total number of deaths in all but three U.S. states ( New York included , of course ) .
In lieu of an exit question , read this post from Saturday if you missed it .
The myth of Cuomo as some master crisis manager is eroding bit by bit .
Long way to go before he feels any effect , though : His job approval on handling the pandemic as of two weeks ago was … 81/18 .

Via the Blaze, a comment like this coming from Trump would have set off a 24-hour media feeding frenzy.
Especially if Trump had ordered nursing homes to readmit residents who’d tested positive for coronavirus, all but guaranteeing a lethal outbreak among an especially vulnerable population.
Here’s the closest I’ve come to seeing a reasonable explanation for Cuomo’s original nursing-home policy and it’s not all that close:
The [original] order was driven by fears that hospitals would be swamped during the pandemic and that COVID-19 patients who could be at nursing homes would occupy much-needed beds. There was also concern that if nursing homes rejected elderly residents, some could be left with nowhere to go. But the order overlooked that the coronavirus would present a new and distinct threat to nursing homes and their elderly residents. The mistake was odd, since Cuomo had issued an earlier directive banning all visitors from nursing homes because their patients were, he said, uniquely vulnerable during the pandemic.
It was understandable for Cuomo to worry during the early days of the pandemic that hospitalization rates would be much higher than they turned out to be. It was not understandable that his solution to that problem was to send senior citizens with the virus back into nursing homes, for cripes sake. Why didn’t they send infected seniors to some of New York City’s many thousands of unoccupied hotel rooms? Centralized quarantine with some sort of attending support staff is an idea that’s long overdue for hard-hit populations, especially for patients who live with people who are much more likely to die if they’re infected.
Cuomo’s using different strategies to try to put out this political fire before it really starts to burn. One is changing the reporting rules for nursing-home deaths to make the numbers look less garish than they do now. Another is to try to make it up to the surviving residents and staff by ordering frequent testing of all patients and employees at nursing homes — a load so enormous that New York’s main lab is now warning counties not to send them new tests, as they simply can’t cope. What good is testing nursing-home residents and staff if (a) it means other people can’t get tested and (b) the nursing-home tests are too backlogged to provide timely results? The answer, I assume, is that this is a political gesture by Cuomo more so than a meaningful solution to the threat in nursing homes. The goal isn’t to efficiently limit infections so much as to show the public that nursing homes are a priority for him now.
He’s under fire from New York Republicans like Elise Stefanik for his handling of infected nursing-home residents but he can ignore that as partisan politics. The bigger problem for him is that some state Democrats have also begun to demand an independent probe into the matter, with one Democratic assemblyman calling the order in March by Cuomo’s Department of Health to require readmitting infected nursing-home residents “probably the deadliest decision ever made in New York State history.” That’s a fair cop: More than 5,000 residents of state nursing homes have died since the pandemic began, a toll higher than the total number of deaths in all but three U.S. states (New York included, of course).
In lieu of an exit question, read this post from Saturday if you missed it. The myth of Cuomo as some master crisis manager is eroding bit by bit. Long way to go before he feels any effect, though: His job approval on handling the pandemic as of two weeks ago was … 81/18.


hotair--2020-05-18--More Barr: Durham's looking at potential crimes in Crossfire Hurricane, but don't expect Obama or Bi

More Barr: Durham's looking at potential crimes in Crossfire Hurricane, but don't expect Obama or Biden to be targeted

No doubt this exchange between NBC ’ s Pete Williams and William Barr disappointed some of Donald Trump ’ s followers — if not Trump himself .
Williams pressed Barr on Trump ’ s comments on “ Obamagate , ” but the AG passed on commenting on “ what the president , or Vice President Biden for that matter , say in their campaigns.
” Barr added that , based on his “ general idea ” of John Durham ’ s investigation , “ I don ’ t expect Mr. Durham ’ s work will lead to a criminal investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our potential on criminality , ” Barr concluded , “ is focused on others ” : Will that fly in the Oval Office ?
The New York Times reported Barr ’ s remarks as a rebuke to Trump , which is , ah … one way to look at them .
Is this a signal of strange new respect for Barr ?
Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump ’ s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama , saying on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference .
“ As long as I ’ m attorney general , the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends , ” Mr. Barr said during a news conference announcing that a Saudi gunman had been in communication with Al Qaeda before a deadly attack last year at a military base in Pensacola , Fla. Mr. Barr said that John H. Durham , the federal prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confronted Russia ’ s operations to meddle in the 2016 election , was examining some aspects of the case as potential crimes but that he was focused on other people , not Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden .
But Mr. Barr noted there was a difference between abusing power and violating the law , emphasizing as he has previously that he believes that law enforcement and intelligence officials unfairly targeted Mr. Trump as they sought to understand links between his campaign and Russia .
That seems like a very careful parsing of Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that captures one of Barr ’ s points pretty well , but it leaves out the context of “ partisan political ends ” in Barr ’ s answer .
That point got explained by Barr in the next breath by characterizing Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the intelligence work associated with it as “ advancing a false and utterly baseless Russia collusion narrative against the president.
” Barr clearly had that “ grave injustice ” in mind , more than Trump ’ s comments on the issue , in his abhorrence of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends.
” Basically , Barr has put forward his intent to reset the Department of Justice back to a non-political footing , which is itself an indictment of sorts of the Obama era .
“ The only way to break away from a dual system of justice , ” Barr declared , “ is to make sure that we scrupulously apply the single and proper standard of justice for everybody.
” In Crossfire Hurricane , Barr said , “ we saw two different standards of justice emerge — one that applied to President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that applied to everyone else.
” Barr ’ s predecessors in the DoJ , appointed by Obama , “ abused … the proper investigative and prosecutive standards of the Department of Justice , ” which is the scope of Durham ’ s investigation .
If that ’ s a rebuke to Trump , it ’ s only the mildest variety .
In reality , this is one of the sharpest rebukes to Obama , Loretta Lynch , and James Comey yet from Barr about abuses of power and politicization within the DoJ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all abuses of power cross over into criminal conduct , a lesson the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in the Bridgegate case .
Those require political accountability rather than prosecution , and Barr pledged to force the DoJ to firmly respect those boundaries .
As such , Obama and Biden are almost certainly off the hook legally .
Politically , they ’ re on their own .
Of course , not everyone will be that fortunate .
Barr makes it clear that Durham ’ s focus is on the “ criminality ” of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DoJ can win a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt , perhaps we ’ ll find out who the “ others ” are .
We can probably make a few educated guesses in the meantime , however .

No doubt this exchange between NBC’s Pete Williams and William Barr disappointed some of Donald Trump’s followers — if not Trump himself. Williams pressed Barr on Trump’s comments on “Obamagate,” but the AG passed on commenting on “what the president, or Vice President Biden for that matter, say in their campaigns.” Barr added that, based on his “general idea” of John Durham’s investigation, “I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either [Obama or Biden]. Our potential on criminality,” Barr concluded, “is focused on others”:
Will that fly in the Oval Office?
The New York Times reported Barr’s remarks as a rebuke to Trump, which is, ah … one way to look at them. Is this a signal of strange new respect for Barr?
Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump’s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama, saying on Monday that he expected no charges against either Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference. “As long as I’m attorney general, the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends,” Mr. Barr said during a news conference announcing that a Saudi gunman had been in communication with Al Qaeda before a deadly attack last year at a military base in Pensacola, Fla. Mr. Barr said that John H. Durham, the federal prosecutor investigating how law enforcement and intelligence officials confronted Russia’s operations to meddle in the 2016 election, was examining some aspects of the case as potential crimes but that he was focused on other people, not Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. But Mr. Barr noted there was a difference between abusing power and violating the law, emphasizing as he has previously that he believes that law enforcement and intelligence officials unfairly targeted Mr. Trump as they sought to understand links between his campaign and Russia.
That seems like a very careful parsing of Barr’s full response. Without doubt, that captures one of Barr’s points pretty well, but it leaves out the context of “partisan political ends” in Barr’s answer. That point got explained by Barr in the next breath by characterizing Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the intelligence work associated with it as “advancing a false and utterly baseless Russia collusion narrative against the president.” Barr clearly had that “grave injustice” in mind, more than Trump’s comments on the issue, in his abhorrence of the DoJ being used for “partisan political ends.”
Basically, Barr has put forward his intent to reset the Department of Justice back to a non-political footing, which is itself an indictment of sorts of the Obama era. “The only way to break away from a dual system of justice,” Barr declared, “is to make sure that we scrupulously apply the single and proper standard of justice for everybody.” In Crossfire Hurricane, Barr said, “we saw two different standards of justice emerge — one that applied to President Trump and his associates, and one that applied to everyone else.” Barr’s predecessors in the DoJ, appointed by Obama, “abused … the proper investigative and prosecutive standards of the Department of Justice,” which is the scope of Durham’s investigation.
If that’s a rebuke to Trump, it’s only the mildest variety. In reality, this is one of the sharpest rebukes to Obama, Loretta Lynch, and James Comey yet from Barr about abuses of power and politicization within the DoJ. However, as Barr notes, not all abuses of power cross over into criminal conduct, a lesson the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in the Bridgegate case. Those require political accountability rather than prosecution, and Barr pledged to force the DoJ to firmly respect those boundaries. As such, Obama and Biden are almost certainly off the hook legally. Politically, they’re on their own.
Of course, not everyone will be that fortunate. Barr makes it clear that Durham’s focus is on the “criminality” of “others.” If Barr thinks that the DoJ can win a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps we’ll find out who the “others” are. We can probably make a few educated guesses in the meantime, however.


hotair--2020-05-18--"Years of planning and preparation": FBI links al-Qaeda to Saudi shooting in Pensacola -- and target

"Years of planning and preparation": FBI links al-Qaeda to Saudi shooting in Pensacola -- and targeted his contact in Yemen

Suspicions confirmed ?
The FBI and Department of Justice announced today that the Saudi pilot who killed three and wounded eight in a mass shooting at the Pensacola naval aviation station in December had communicated with al-Qaeda prior to the attack .
The AQ “ operative ” had “ encouraged ” the attack , the New York Times reported this morning ahead of a press conference with Attorney General William Barr .
Those contacts went all the way up to the terror network ’ s leadership , apparently — and got past any security checks by the US and Saudi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that links Al Qaeda to last year ’ s deadly shooting at a United States military base in Pensacola , Fla. , according to two American officials briefed on the investigation .
The F.B.I .
found that the gunman , Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani , a Saudi Air Force cadet training with the American military , had communicated with a Qaeda operative who had encouraged the attacks , according to the two officials , who were not authorized to speak about it publicly ahead of an 11 a.m. news conference by Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alshamrani was in touch over time with the Qaeda branch , including its leadership at times , up to the attack , according to one of the officials , who said that Mr. Alshamrani ’ s ties to the group went beyond simply being inspired to act based on watching YouTube videos or reading extremist propaganda .
In the press conference , Barr called the contacts between Alshamrani and his AQ contact Abdullah al-Maliki “ significant.
” The Saudi pilot ’ s AQ ties go back at least as far as 2015 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air force intended to set up a terrorist attack in the US .
This was no impulse shooting , Wray explained , but a well planned operation by Alshamrani and al-Maliki : Barr and FBI Christopher Wray also announced that the US had conducted a “ counterintelligence operation ” on al-Maliki .
They didn ’ t get more specific , but one presumes that this information would not have been released if al-Maliki had not reached room temperature .
How did the FBI track down those communications ?
Alshamrani attempted to destroy his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access encrypted data on them .
Apple refused to unlock the phones , but the FBI finally figured out how to decrypt them on their own .
“ We did it ourselves , ” Wray said , and “ Apple provided no help ” in this effort : The contacts between the shooter , Mohammed Alshamrani , and the al-Qaida operative were discovered on the shooter ’ s phone , according to the official , who was not authorized to discuss the case by name and spoke on the condition of anonymity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the gunman , including one that authorities say Alshamrani damaged with a bullet after being confronted by law enforcement .
It was not immediately clear how the FBI and Justice Department were able to ultimately access the phone .
Wray sounded quite peeved at Apple , noting that they had “ court approved search warrants ” for the data on Alshamrani ’ s phones .
This might not be the time for the FBI to take a stand on search warrants , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impact the delay will have on the counterintelligence operation in reaction to this attack .
Perhaps the FBI would have been wiser to protect its credibility by , say , not lying to judges on FISA warrants .
The AQ link has been long suspected .
The Yemen branch , al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ( AQAP ) , issued a video at the time taking credit for the attack , but AQ and its affiliates have exaggerated their roles in so-called “ lone wolf ” attacks in the past .
Far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Wray described Alshamrani as a “ determined AQAP operative ” and the shooting the result of a years-long plot against the US .
Wray warned that this shows how serious a threat al-Qaeda “ or its offshoots ” pose to the US .
It also raises serious questions about the vetting process for visiting personnel from Saudi Arabia .
Twenty-one other Saudi aviators training in the US ( out of around 900 ) got sent back to Riyadh after increased security checks showed that they had either had expressed jihadist sympathies or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while in the US .
Just for comparison , that ’ s more potential terrorists than conducted the 9/11 attacks , and on a much more limited scale for vetting , too .
The Saudis ended up discharging seventeen of them in the aftermath of the humiliating episode .
The success in cracking Apple ’ s encryption might raise other questions , too .
Now that the FBI has this knowledge , where else might they apply it ?
Apple had resisted cooperating on this case in part to preserve its customers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the FBI ’ s declining reputation for respecting the boundaries of law .
The recent revelations on Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FISA warrant practices won ’ t boost confidence in the FBI ’ s ability to get past that encryption now either , even if in this case they unlocked critical information that reminds us of the threat al-Qaeda still poses .
If more recent existential threats have distracted us from the war on terror , this development should warn us that not all other threats stopped in the spread of the @ @ @

Suspicions confirmed? The FBI and Department of Justice announced today that the Saudi pilot who killed three and wounded eight in a mass shooting at the Pensacola naval aviation station in December had communicated with al-Qaeda prior to the attack. The AQ “operative” had “encouraged” the attack, the New York Times reported this morning ahead of a press conference with Attorney General William Barr. Those contacts went all the way up to the terror network’s leadership, apparently — and got past any security checks by the US and Saudi Arabia:
Federal investigators found cellphone evidence that links Al Qaeda to last year’s deadly shooting at a United States military base in Pensacola, Fla., according to two American officials briefed on the investigation. The F.B.I. found that the gunman, Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi Air Force cadet training with the American military, had communicated with a Qaeda operative who had encouraged the attacks, according to the two officials, who were not authorized to speak about it publicly ahead of an 11 a.m. news conference by Attorney General William P. Barr. … Mr. Alshamrani was in touch over time with the Qaeda branch, including its leadership at times, up to the attack, according to one of the officials, who said that Mr. Alshamrani’s ties to the group went beyond simply being inspired to act based on watching YouTube videos or reading extremist propaganda.
In the press conference, Barr called the contacts between Alshamrani and his AQ contact Abdullah al-Maliki “significant.” The Saudi pilot’s AQ ties go back at least as far as 2015, and his efforts to penetrate the Saudi air force intended to set up a terrorist attack in the US. This was no impulse shooting, Wray explained, but a well planned operation by Alshamrani and al-Maliki:
Wray says new evidence shows the Pensacola air base shooting was "the brutal culmination of years of planning and preparation" https://t.co/HcJ4ge7ZNj pic.twitter.com/wjMG5KucTB — CBS News (@CBSNews) May 18, 2020
Barr and FBI Christopher Wray also announced that the US had conducted a “counterintelligence operation” on al-Maliki. They didn’t get more specific, but one presumes that this information would not have been released if al-Maliki had not reached room temperature.
How did the FBI track down those communications? Alshamrani attempted to destroy his two iPhones, but investigators could still access encrypted data on them. Apple refused to unlock the phones, but the FBI finally figured out how to decrypt them on their own. “We did it ourselves,” Wray said, and “Apple provided no help” in this effort:
The contacts between the shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani, and the al-Qaida operative were discovered on the shooter’s phone, according to the official, who was not authorized to discuss the case by name and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The Justice Department had previously asked Apple to help extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the gunman, including one that authorities say Alshamrani damaged with a bullet after being confronted by law enforcement. It was not immediately clear how the FBI and Justice Department were able to ultimately access the phone.
Wray sounded quite peeved at Apple, noting that they had “court approved search warrants” for the data on Alshamrani’s phones. This might not be the time for the FBI to take a stand on search warrants, even though Wray wasn’t wrong about the impact the delay will have on the counterintelligence operation in reaction to this attack. Perhaps the FBI would have been wiser to protect its credibility by, say, not lying to judges on FISA warrants.
The AQ link has been long suspected. The Yemen branch, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), issued a video at the time taking credit for the attack, but AQ and its affiliates have exaggerated their roles in so-called “lone wolf” attacks in the past. Far from being a “lone wolf,” Wray described Alshamrani as a “determined AQAP operative” and the shooting the result of a years-long plot against the US. Wray warned that this shows how serious a threat al-Qaeda “or its offshoots” pose to the US.
It also raises serious questions about the vetting process for visiting personnel from Saudi Arabia. Twenty-one other Saudi aviators training in the US (out of around 900) got sent back to Riyadh after increased security checks showed that they had either had expressed jihadist sympathies or “had contact with child pornography” while in the US. Just for comparison, that’s more potential terrorists than conducted the 9/11 attacks, and on a much more limited scale for vetting, too. The Saudis ended up discharging seventeen of them in the aftermath of the humiliating episode.
The success in cracking Apple’s encryption might raise other questions, too. Now that the FBI has this knowledge, where else might they apply it? Apple had resisted cooperating on this case in part to preserve its customers’ privacy, and probably in part because of the FBI’s declining reputation for respecting the boundaries of law. The recent revelations on Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FISA warrant practices won’t boost confidence in the FBI’s ability to get past that encryption now either, even if in this case they unlocked critical information that reminds us of the threat al-Qaeda still poses. If more recent existential threats have distracted us from the war on terror, this development should warn us that not all other threats stopped in the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Watch today’s press conference in full here:


hotair--2020-05-18--Moderna's vaccine candidate looking good per preliminary results from phase one trials

If you ’ re wondering why the Dow is up 700 points this morning , this is a big part of it .
Any bit of meaningful incremental progress towards digging us out of the multitrillion-dollar economic hole we ’ re in is enough to unleash some “ animal spirits.
” I ’ m going to go ahead and guess that this is the mystery data Moncef Slaoui alluded to at Friday ’ s White House press conference when he said he ’ d seen something lately that made him optimistic about having a vaccine by the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moderna ’ s board .
Presumably he learned of these phase one results before most of the rest of the world did .
What ’ s especially interesting about Moderna ’ s progress is that the science here is innovative .
They ’ re not working on a traditional vaccine in which the virus itself is rendered inactive and then injected into subjects to produce antibodies .
They ’ re using a novel process based on mRNA , which raises the stakes for their trials .
Will it even work ?
As importantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or better than , the traditional approach ?
So far , so good .
Although they ’ re not very far in the process .
Immunogenicity data are currently available for the 25 µg and 100 µg dose level ( ages 18-55 ) after two doses ( day 43 ) and at the 250 µg level ( ages 18-55 ) after one dose ( day 29 ) .
Dose dependent increases in immunogenicity were seen across the three dose levels , and between prime and boost within the 25 µg and 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18-55 ( n=15 per cohort ) across all three dose levels seroconverted by day 15 after a single dose .
At day 43 , two weeks following the second dose , at the 25 µg dose level ( n=15 ) , levels of binding antibodies were at the levels seen in convalescent sera ( blood samples from people who have recovered from COVID-19 ) tested in the same assay .
At day 43 , at the 100 µg dose level ( n=10 ) , levels of binding antibodies significantly exceeded the levels seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet available for remaining participants .
At this time , neutralizing antibody data are available only for the first four participants in each of the 25 µg and 100 µg dose level cohorts .
Consistent with the binding antibody data , mRNA-1273 vaccination elicited neutralizing antibodies in all eight of these participants , as measured by plaque reduction neutralization ( PRNT ) assays against live SARS-CoV-2 .
The levels of neutralizing antibodies at day 43 were at or above levels generally seen in convalescent sera .
Two key questions loom over phase one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One , obviously , is whether the vaccine works to produce antibodies .
Moderna ’ s sample is small but the preliminary data says yes — the mRNA vaccine elicits as many antibodies , and at some doses even more antibodies , as actual infection from the coronavirus does .
And it did prevent viral replication in the lungs of mice , per a separate study .
The second question is whether the vaccine causes side effects .
The results here depended on the dose , with nothing more than a little redness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who got the 25 µg and 100 µg shot .
Three patients who got the big 250 µg experienced fever , headaches , and muscle aches for a day and then felt better .
But we don ’ t need to worry much about the 250 µg dose : Because the lower doses worked fine , Moderna ’ s not planning to test the highest dose in later trials .
Partly that ’ s a matter of wanting to limit side effects , I take it , and partly to stretch their stockpile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d be fantastic if we can bring immunity to 10 people at the low dose instead of one person at the high one .
“ If you get to the level of [ antibodies of ] people who have had disease , that should be enough , ” said the company ’ s chief medical officer .
Whether the antibodies generated by the vaccine actually work to protect subjects from COVID-19 is unclear right now .
That ’ s what phase two of the trials is for .
But scientists have been bullish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The science is above my pay grade but this paper in Nature magazine from two years ago identifies several advantages to them over traditional vaccines , one of which is highly relevant in our current dystopian predicament .
The use of mRNA has several beneficial features over subunit , killed and live attenuated virus , as well as DNA-based vaccines .
First , safety : as mRNA is a non-infectious , non-integrating platform , there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis .
Additionally , mRNA is degraded by normal cellular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods .
The inherent immunogenicity of the mRNA can be down-modulated to further increase the safety profile .
Second , efficacy : various modifications make mRNA more stable and highly translatable .
Efficient in vivo delivery can be achieved by formulating mRNA into carrier molecules , allowing rapid uptake and expression in the cytoplasm ( reviewed in Refs 10,11 ) .
mRNA is the minimal genetic vector ; therefore , anti-vector immunity is avoided , and mRNA vaccines can be administered repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the potential for rapid , inexpensive and scalable manufacturing , mainly owing to the high yields of in vitro transcription reactions .
If phases two and three go well , Moderna ’ s vaccine could be available for emergency use by the fall — although we shouldn ’ t get our hopes up .
Describing Trump ’ s aim for a vaccine available at scale by year ’ s end , WaPo reported this weekend that “ A number of senior administration officials said on the condition of anonymity that they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timeline but that Trump wanted to provide ‘ hope.
’ Birx has gently told the president it will be more difficult than he thinks to create a vaccine quickly.
” Relatedly , read this skeptical take on Oxford ’ s promising early vaccine results from respected virologist William Haseltine .
The Oxford vaccine may have prevented monkeys from getting sick , he notes , but it didn ’ t prevent them from being infected , suggesting a relatively weak immune effect .
The titer of neutralizing antibodies produced by the vaccine was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This passage about the “ adenovirus vector-based ” model of Oxford ’ s vaccine caught my eye .
Does it bode ill for Moderna ’ s vaccine ?
Various Chinese outfits are working on traditional whole-killed-virus vaccines .
If Haseltine ’ s right , they may get to the moon before we do .
One more point to note about Moderna ’ s results .
Subjects who received lower doses of the vaccine ( 25 µg and 100 µg ) got two shots instead of one .
At the lowest dose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ booster shot for subjects to have antibodies in their system in numbers equivalent to those seen in recovered coronavirus patients .
Administering a single-dose vaccine to a population of 330 million people will be logistically challenging ; administering a two-dose vaccine , with a booster required in the weeks after the first shot , would be that much more complicated .
Moderna says it ’ s going to try a 50 µg dose in coming trials , though , which may solve this problem .
They ’ re trying to find a sweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high enough to be effective in one shot and low enough that it won ’ t produce side effects .
Stay tuned .

If you’re wondering why the Dow is up 700 points this morning, this is a big part of it. Any bit of meaningful incremental progress towards digging us out of the multitrillion-dollar economic hole we’re in is enough to unleash some “animal spirits.”
I’m going to go ahead and guess that this is the mystery data Moncef Slaoui alluded to at Friday’s White House press conference when he said he’d seen something lately that made him optimistic about having a vaccine by the end of the year. Slaoui is a member of Moderna’s board. Presumably he learned of these phase one results before most of the rest of the world did.
What’s especially interesting about Moderna’s progress is that the science here is innovative. They’re not working on a traditional vaccine in which the virus itself is rendered inactive and then injected into subjects to produce antibodies. They’re using a novel process based on mRNA, which raises the stakes for their trials. Will it even work? As importantly, will it work as well as, or better than, the traditional approach?
So far, so good. Although they’re not very far in the process.
Immunogenicity data are currently available for the 25 µg and 100 µg dose level (ages 18-55) after two doses (day 43) and at the 250 µg level (ages 18-55) after one dose (day 29). Dose dependent increases in immunogenicity were seen across the three dose levels, and between prime and boost within the 25 µg and 100 µg dose levels. All participants ages 18-55 (n=15 per cohort) across all three dose levels seroconverted by day 15 after a single dose. At day 43, two weeks following the second dose, at the 25 µg dose level (n=15), levels of binding antibodies were at the levels seen in convalescent sera (blood samples from people who have recovered from COVID-19) tested in the same assay. At day 43, at the 100 µg dose level (n=10), levels of binding antibodies significantly exceeded the levels seen in convalescent sera. Samples are not yet available for remaining participants. At this time, neutralizing antibody data are available only for the first four participants in each of the 25 µg and 100 µg dose level cohorts. Consistent with the binding antibody data, mRNA-1273 vaccination elicited neutralizing antibodies in all eight of these participants, as measured by plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) assays against live SARS-CoV-2. The levels of neutralizing antibodies at day 43 were at or above levels generally seen in convalescent sera.
Two key questions loom over phase one trials, as I understand it. One, obviously, is whether the vaccine works to produce antibodies. Moderna’s sample is small but the preliminary data says yes — the mRNA vaccine elicits as many antibodies, and at some doses even more antibodies, as actual infection from the coronavirus does. And it did prevent viral replication in the lungs of mice, per a separate study.
The second question is whether the vaccine causes side effects. The results here depended on the dose, with nothing more than a little redness at the point of injection for subjects who got the 25 µg and 100 µg shot. Three patients who got the big 250 µg experienced fever, headaches, and muscle aches for a day and then felt better. But we don’t need to worry much about the 250 µg dose: Because the lower doses worked fine, Moderna’s not planning to test the highest dose in later trials. Partly that’s a matter of wanting to limit side effects, I take it, and partly to stretch their stockpile of the virus further. It’d be fantastic if we can bring immunity to 10 people at the low dose instead of one person at the high one. “If you get to the level of [antibodies of] people who have had disease, that should be enough,” said the company’s chief medical officer.
Whether the antibodies generated by the vaccine actually work to protect subjects from COVID-19 is unclear right now. That’s what phase two of the trials is for. But scientists have been bullish on mRNA vaccines despite their novelty. The science is above my pay grade but this paper in Nature magazine from two years ago identifies several advantages to them over traditional vaccines, one of which is highly relevant in our current dystopian predicament.
The use of mRNA has several beneficial features over subunit, killed and live attenuated virus, as well as DNA-based vaccines. First, safety: as mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Additionally, mRNA is degraded by normal cellular processes, and its in vivo half-life can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods. The inherent immunogenicity of the mRNA can be down-modulated to further increase the safety profile. Second, efficacy: various modifications make mRNA more stable and highly translatable. Efficient in vivo delivery can be achieved by formulating mRNA into carrier molecules, allowing rapid uptake and expression in the cytoplasm (reviewed in Refs 10,11). mRNA is the minimal genetic vector; therefore, anti-vector immunity is avoided, and mRNA vaccines can be administered repeatedly. Third, production: mRNA vaccines have the potential for rapid, inexpensive and scalable manufacturing, mainly owing to the high yields of in vitro transcription reactions.
If phases two and three go well, Moderna’s vaccine could be available for emergency use by the fall — although we shouldn’t get our hopes up. Describing Trump’s aim for a vaccine available at scale by year’s end, WaPo reported this weekend that “A number of senior administration officials said on the condition of anonymity that they are also skeptical of the president’s timeline but that Trump wanted to provide ‘hope.’ Birx has gently told the president it will be more difficult than he thinks to create a vaccine quickly.” Relatedly, read this skeptical take on Oxford’s promising early vaccine results from respected virologist William Haseltine. The Oxford vaccine may have prevented monkeys from getting sick, he notes, but it didn’t prevent them from being infected, suggesting a relatively weak immune effect. The titer of neutralizing antibodies produced by the vaccine was also relatively low compared to more traditional approaches.
This passage about the “adenovirus vector-based” model of Oxford’s vaccine caught my eye. Does it bode ill for Moderna’s vaccine?
What are the potential implications for other vaccine trials? We know adenovirus is a good vector for eliciting protective responses for protein coding genes of other viruses, in fact better than many others. This then raises the question of whether vaccine strategies based on the delivery of viral antigens by nucleic acids, be it DNA or RNA, will suffice. From the published data the nucleic acid of select viral genes and proteins delivery technology seems inferior to a whole killed virus vaccine approach.
Various Chinese outfits are working on traditional whole-killed-virus vaccines. If Haseltine’s right, they may get to the moon before we do.
One more point to note about Moderna’s results. Subjects who received lower doses of the vaccine (25 µg and 100 µg) got two shots instead of one. At the lowest dose, it took until two weeks after the booster shot for subjects to have antibodies in their system in numbers equivalent to those seen in recovered coronavirus patients. Administering a single-dose vaccine to a population of 330 million people will be logistically challenging; administering a two-dose vaccine, with a booster required in the weeks after the first shot, would be that much more complicated. Moderna says it’s going to try a 50 µg dose in coming trials, though, which may solve this problem. They’re trying to find a sweet spot in a dose that’s high enough to be effective in one shot and low enough that it won’t produce side effects. Stay tuned.


hotair--2020-05-18--Another congressman's affair with "an intern" is exposed

The headline at the New York Post looked depressingly familiar this weekend .
A Democratic congressman from Nevada had admitted to having a long-running extramarital affair with “ an intern ” after his mistress went public about it on a podcast .
But I felt compelled to put the part about the woman being an intern in scare quotes because , while technically true , it ’ s not quite as bad as the phrasing makes it sound .
Congressman Steven Horsford ( D-Nevada ) has been caught with his pants down , at least figuratively , but the details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less scandalous .
A married Nevada congressman has admitted having a longstanding affair with a former intern calling herself “ Love Jones ” — after she exposed him in an explosive series of podcasts .
Rep. Steven Horsford ( D-Nev. ) — who had previously been Nevada ’ s first African-American State Senate Majority Leader — came forward after Gabriela Linder detailed the affair in a podcast , “ Mistress for Congress.
” It started in 2009 when she was a 21-year-old intern at then-Senator Harry Reid ’ s Nevada office — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same month she started her podcast , she told the Las Vegas Review-Journal .
“ It is true that I had a previous relationship outside of my marriage , over the course of several years , ” Rep. Horsford told the paper .
So Horsford began stepping out on his wife more than a decade ago and had managed to keep his relationship with “ Love Jones ” a secret until just this month .
And when the affair began in 2019 , his mistress was indeed an intern .
But she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another Nevada Democrat ) , not Horsford .
In fact , as you read further into the details , she ’ s never worked for Horsford , though he did help introduce her to other politicians and influencers to keep her career going .
Why is this an important distinction ?
You ’ ll recall that Katie Hill ( of throuple fame ) wasn ’ t taken down because of her sexual adventures or because of any revenge porn .
She was being investigated because she ’ d been getting busy with one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( though not proven or admitted ) of having a dalliance with one of her congressional staffers .
That ’ s an abuse of power and a potential violation of House ethics rules .
What Horsford is guilty of by admission is your run of the mill trail of marital infidelity .
Still not a good look , but also not a violation of the ethics rules .
If we started tossing out every elected official who cheated on their spouse , the halls of Congress ( and probably the White House ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given year .
Thus far , Gabriela Linder ( the real name of “ Love Jones ” ) doesn ’ t seem to be accusing Horsford of anything other than breaking her heart .
She claims that Horsford “ offered her financial support ” but doesn ’ t say whether or not she accepted it .
But even if she did , it doesn ’ t sound as if there was any sort of quid pro quo here because she also flatly states that he “ never told me to keep quiet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unless something more concrete can be established showing that Horsford used either money or the power of his office to inappropriately aid his mistress or purchase her silence , there might not be anything here for an ethics investigation to go after .
And based on the statement released by his spokesperson , it doesn ’ t sound as if Horsford plans on resigning or not running for another term .
So the matter remains between him and his wife and children .
And , of course , the voters in November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of behavior they ’ re willing to accept from their elected officials .
That might not be a slam dunk , by the way .
Nevada ’ s 4th District has flipped back and forth between the parties over the past decade .
Horsford actually held the seat for one term following the 2012 elections , losing his reelection bid to his Republican challenger .
That Republican then went on to lose his own reelection to a different Democrat , Ruben Kihuen , who retired after one term coincidentally after the exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Is there something in the water out there ? )
That opened to door for Horsford to take the office back in the 2018 race .
So this seat could definitely be in play this November .

The headline at the New York Post looked depressingly familiar this weekend. A Democratic congressman from Nevada had admitted to having a long-running extramarital affair with “an intern” after his mistress went public about it on a podcast. But I felt compelled to put the part about the woman being an intern in scare quotes because, while technically true, it’s not quite as bad as the phrasing makes it sound. Congressman Steven Horsford (D-Nevada) has been caught with his pants down, at least figuratively, but the details of the story make this a tad less scandalous.
A married Nevada congressman has admitted having a longstanding affair with a former intern calling herself “Love Jones” — after she exposed him in an explosive series of podcasts. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) — who had previously been Nevada’s first African-American State Senate Majority Leader — came forward after Gabriela Linder detailed the affair in a podcast, “Mistress for Congress.” It started in 2009 when she was a 21-year-old intern at then-Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada office — and they only broke ties in April, the same month she started her podcast, she told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “It is true that I had a previous relationship outside of my marriage, over the course of several years,” Rep. Horsford told the paper.
So Horsford began stepping out on his wife more than a decade ago and had managed to keep his relationship with “Love Jones” a secret until just this month. And when the affair began in 2009, his mistress was indeed an intern. But she was working for Senator Harry Reid (another Nevada Democrat), not Horsford. In fact, as you read further into the details, she’s never worked for Horsford, though he did help introduce her to other politicians and influencers to keep her career going.
Why is this an important distinction? You’ll recall that Katie Hill (of throuple fame) wasn’t taken down because of her sexual adventures or because of any revenge porn. She was being investigated because she’d been getting busy with one of her campaign staffers and stood accused (though not proven or admitted) of having a dalliance with one of her congressional staffers. That’s an abuse of power and a potential violation of House ethics rules.
What Horsford is guilty of by admission is your run of the mill trail of marital infidelity. Still not a good look, but also not a violation of the ethics rules. If we started tossing out every elected official who cheated on their spouse, the halls of Congress (and probably the White House) would start looking pretty empty on any given year.
Thus far, Gabriela Linder (the real name of “Love Jones”) doesn’t seem to be accusing Horsford of anything other than breaking her heart. She claims that Horsford “offered her financial support” but doesn’t say whether or not she accepted it. But even if she did, it doesn’t sound as if there was any sort of quid pro quo here because she also flatly states that he “never told me to keep quiet. He didn’t have to.”
Unless something more concrete can be established showing that Horsford used either money or the power of his office to inappropriately aid his mistress or purchase her silence, there might not be anything here for an ethics investigation to go after. And based on the statement released by his spokesperson, it doesn’t sound as if Horsford plans on resigning or not running for another term. So the matter remains between him and his wife and children. And, of course, the voters in November, who will decide if this is the sort of behavior they’re willing to accept from their elected officials.
That might not be a slam dunk, by the way. Nevada’s 4th District has flipped back and forth between the parties over the past decade. Horsford actually held the seat for one term following the 2012 elections, losing his reelection bid to his Republican challenger. That Republican then went on to lose his own reelection to a different Democrat, Ruben Kihuen, who retired after one term coincidentally after the exposure of a sex scandal of his own. (Is there something in the water out there?) That opened to door for Horsford to take the office back in the 2018 race. So this seat could definitely be in play this November.


hotair--2020-05-18--Book review: Secrets from the Black Vault

With many of us still on lockdown , if you ’ re like me you ’ ve been burning through your backlog of books that you always meant to get around to reading .
In case you ’ re running short , you may want to order a copy of the latest book from John Greenewald jr. titled “ Secrets from the Black Vault.
” You may remember John from an interview he did for us last year when he was talking about the Pentagon ’ s secret UFO program .
He ’ s also the owner of the indispensable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been collecting literally millions of declassified government documents for well over a decade on a dizzying array of subjects .
In this latest offering , Greenewald takes readers down another series of government rabbit holes , exploring a wide range of programs you might have never heard of and , frankly , that the government would probably have preferred to not tell you about .
But he also gives us a fascinating and occasionally dismaying look at the process involved in obtaining all of this information .
There are some subjects where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade , filing one FOIA request after another , requesting interviews and answers , before finally getting the information he was looking for .
As consumers of news , many of us likely take for granted that someone will go out there , flush out the information , and deliver it in a digestible form .
John Greenewald lets you peer behind the curtain and see all of the blood , sweat and tears involved in these efforts .
So what sort of intriguing United States Government secrets will John be revealing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spoil the whole book for you ( which would take forever ) , but I ’ m happy to toss out a few teasers .
If you ’ ve sat down for a bowl of cereal at breakfast recently , did you know it ’ s very possible that the company that made those sugary flakes was also involved for quite a while in the development of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction ?
And that the same cereal company has been blamed for the supposed UFO crash at Roswell in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented details about the CIA ’ s mind control program .
( No , that wasn ’ t just a movie .
It really happened and John has the documents to prove it . )
There ’ s plenty more , ranging from how the United States and the Russians adopted a an entire crowd of Nazi scientists after the Second World War to our plans to build a military base on the moon .
Yes… the moon .
Oh , and of course , there ’ s an entire section on UFOs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about them .
There ’ s plenty more beyond that , but I ’ ll leave it for you to explore for yourself .
I really enjoyed this book and ended up tearing through it in a couple of sittings .
It might change the way you think about the American government .
Or , if nothing else , you ’ ll become the keeper of a ton of fascinating trivia to dazzle your friends .
Secrets from the Black Vault gets a hearty two thumbs up .

With many of us still on lockdown, if you’re like me you’ve been burning through your backlog of books that you always meant to get around to reading. In case you’re running short, you may want to order a copy of the latest book from John Greenewald jr. titled “Secrets from the Black Vault.” You may remember John from an interview he did for us last year when he was talking about the Pentagon’s secret UFO program. He’s also the owner of the indispensable website The Black Vault, where John has been collecting literally millions of declassified government documents for well over a decade on a dizzying array of subjects.
In this latest offering, Greenewald takes readers down another series of government rabbit holes, exploring a wide range of programs you might have never heard of and, frankly, that the government would probably have preferred to not tell you about. But he also gives us a fascinating and occasionally dismaying look at the process involved in obtaining all of this information. There are some subjects where Greenewald had to wait literally over a decade, filing one FOIA request after another, requesting interviews and answers, before finally getting the information he was looking for. As consumers of news, many of us likely take for granted that someone will go out there, flush out the information, and deliver it in a digestible form. John Greenewald lets you peer behind the curtain and see all of the blood, sweat and tears involved in these efforts.
So what sort of intriguing United States Government secrets will John be revealing this time? I’m not going to spoil the whole book for you (which would take forever), but I’m happy to toss out a few teasers. If you’ve sat down for a bowl of cereal at breakfast recently, did you know it’s very possible that the company that made those sugary flakes was also involved for quite a while in the development of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction? And that the same cereal company has been blamed for the supposed UFO crash at Roswell in 1947?
You’ll also learn documented details about the CIA’s mind control program. (No, that wasn’t just a movie. It really happened and John has the documents to prove it.) There’s plenty more, ranging from how the United States and the Russians adopted a an entire crowd of Nazi scientists after the Second World War to our plans to build a military base on the moon. Yes… the moon. Oh, and of course, there’s an entire section on UFOs and what the government has been doing about them.
There’s plenty more beyond that, but I’ll leave it for you to explore for yourself. I really enjoyed this book and ended up tearing through it in a couple of sittings. It might change the way you think about the American government. Or, if nothing else, you’ll become the keeper of a ton of fascinating trivia to dazzle your friends. Secrets from the Black Vault gets a hearty two thumbs up.


hotair--2020-05-18--WHO let the plague out? Over 100 countries to demand UNGA probe

If Xi Jinping ’ s propaganda war and economic threats tried to save China from humiliation , it just backfired on Beijing .
Health ministers from more than 100 countries have signed onto a call at the United Nations General Assembly for a probe into the origins of COVID , a demand drafted by the European Union .
The demand doesn ’ t name China , but it does name the UN subordinate agency World Health Organization : More than 100 health ministers from around the world are expected to call for an independent evaluation of the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the organization ’ s 73rd general assembly on Monday .
… President Trump has been Beijing ’ s chief accuser , but he is not the only one to have alleged that Chinese officials covered up the virus during its early stages and exacerbated its spread into a pandemic .
The WHO has also faced criticism , with some observers saying the agency was at least far too credulous in believing Beijing ’ s reassurances , which it then amplified uncritically to the wider world .
The WHO ’ s director-general , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under scrutiny after he heaped praise on Beijing ’ s coronavirus response .
Americans might barely know that Trump “ isn ’ t the only one ” pointing the finger at China .
We ’ ll get back to that at the end , but Australia first demanded that the UNGA open this probe after the EU backed down from China ’ s threats , and they are also not alone .
Russia signed onto the demand too , fueling the backlash against China that has developed as the disease has spread — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out to be useless .
The point has now become clear enough to Beijing : That was met with an angry response from Beijing , which accused Canberra of a “ highly irresponsible ” move that could “ disrupt international cooperation in fighting the pandemic and goes against people ’ s shared aspiration.
” While the resolution to be presented at the annual meeting of World Health Organization ( WHO ) members , which begins on Monday in Geneva , does not single out China or any other country , it calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprehensive evaluation ” of “ the ( WHO ) -coordinated international health response to Covid-19.
” The wording of the resolution is weak compared to Australia ’ s previous calls for a probe into China ’ s role and responsibility in the origin of the pandemic .
This may have been necessary to get a majority of WHO member states to sign on — particularly those , such as Russia , with traditionally strong ties to Beijing .
But that doesn ’ t mean China ’ s government should rest easy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one not initially tasked with investigating an individual country ’ s response , to turn up damning or embarrassing information is great .
Australian government sources told the ABC , the country ’ s public broadcaster , that the resolution ’ s language was sufficiently strong to “ ensure that a proper and thorough investigation took place.
” China initially indicated that it will only support an investigation conducted by WHO itself , which is not just laughable but also a good indication that Beijing sees WHO as its own subsidiary .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be ; Taiwan is still being excluded from this conference despite its success in dealing with COVID-19 .
The calls to restore Taiwan to WHO have grown , but Taiwan has agreed that this emergency conference isn ’ t the time to pursue it : Taiwan on Monday said its exclusion from the World Health Organization will not be raised at the global health body ’ s annual policy meeting this week because allies want to focus on the fight against the coronavirus .
Taiwan has had remarkable success in combatting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 400 infections .
But it is frozen out of the WHO by Beijing which regards the self-ruled democratic island of 23 million people as its own territory and has vowed to take it by force if necessary .
More than a dozen countries have openly called for Taiwan ’ s inclusion despite China ’ s adamant insistence on barring any diplomatic recognition of Taiwan .
That ’ s how badly this has backfired on China , which is losing nearly a half-century of ground on trade and diplomacy .
That might be why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play for time : Chinese President Xi Jinping prepared a speech to present via video during the opening ceremony of the Assembly .
He was invited to send the remarks by WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , who has himself faced criticism from the Trump administration and other WHO states for being too China-friendly in his response to the pandemic .
In his remarks , Xi said China would support a comprehensive review of the global response to the pandemic led by the WHO , but only after the virus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insistence that China has been open and transparent about disease and said the ruling Communist Party would support an investigation conducted in an objective and impartial manner .
In a seeming response to recent claims , including from U.S. officials , that China has waged a cyber-espionage campaign aimed at stealing data from researchers around the world racing to develop a COVID-19 vaccine , Xi said any vaccine developed in China would be made available to the world .
Xi is stalling for time , and transparently so .
He wants to push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( a ) let the momentum behind this push abate somewhat , and ( b ) get more time to cover up what happened in Wuhan .
The UNGA and the WHO members who have funded China ’ s mouthpiece had better strike while the iron is hot .
Finally , perhaps this UNGA rebellion against Xi might take the blinders off the American media , who paint attempts to hold China responsible as some sort of dodge for Trump .
It turns out that the US media ’ s bête noire isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finger at China ; in fact , pretty much everyone else but the American media is doing so .
The only success Xi has actually had with his propaganda war has been in American newspapers and television broadcasts .
If having the notoriously anti-American UNGA side with Trump doesn ’ t wake up the American media to its exploitation from Beijing , nothing will .

If Xi Jinping’s propaganda war and economic threats tried to save China from humiliation, it just backfired on Beijing. Health ministers from more than 100 countries have signed onto a call at the United Nations General Assembly for a probe into the origins of COVID, a demand drafted by the European Union. The demand doesn’t name China, but it does name the UN subordinate agency World Health Organization:
More than 100 health ministers from around the world are expected to call for an independent evaluation of the World Health Organization’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic during the organization’s 73rd general assembly on Monday. … President Trump has been Beijing’s chief accuser, but he is not the only one to have alleged that Chinese officials covered up the virus during its early stages and exacerbated its spread into a pandemic. The WHO has also faced criticism, with some observers saying the agency was at least far too credulous in believing Beijing’s reassurances, which it then amplified uncritically to the wider world. The WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has also been under scrutiny after he heaped praise on Beijing’s coronavirus response.
Americans might barely know that Trump “isn’t the only one” pointing the finger at China. We’ll get back to that at the end, but Australia first demanded that the UNGA open this probe after the EU backed down from China’s threats, and they are also not alone. Russia signed onto the demand too, fueling the backlash against China that has developed as the disease has spread — and as China’s medical products turn out to be useless. The point has now become clear enough to Beijing:
That was met with an angry response from Beijing, which accused Canberra of a “highly irresponsible” move that could “disrupt international cooperation in fighting the pandemic and goes against people’s shared aspiration.” While the resolution to be presented at the annual meeting of World Health Organization (WHO) members, which begins on Monday in Geneva, does not single out China or any other country, it calls for an “impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation” of “the (WHO)-coordinated international health response to Covid-19.” The wording of the resolution is weak compared to Australia’s previous calls for a probe into China’s role and responsibility in the origin of the pandemic. This may have been necessary to get a majority of WHO member states to sign on — particularly those, such as Russia, with traditionally strong ties to Beijing. But that doesn’t mean China’s government should rest easy. The potential for an independent probe, even one not initially tasked with investigating an individual country’s response, to turn up damning or embarrassing information is great. Australian government sources told the ABC, the country’s public broadcaster, that the resolution’s language was sufficiently strong to “ensure that a proper and thorough investigation took place.”
China initially indicated that it will only support an investigation conducted by WHO itself, which is not just laughable but also a good indication that Beijing sees WHO as its own subsidiary. And it has been, and still continues to be; Taiwan is still being excluded from this conference despite its success in dealing with COVID-19. The calls to restore Taiwan to WHO have grown, but Taiwan has agreed that this emergency conference isn’t the time to pursue it:
Taiwan on Monday said its exclusion from the World Health Organization will not be raised at the global health body’s annual policy meeting this week because allies want to focus on the fight against the coronavirus. Taiwan has had remarkable success in combatting the pandemic with only seven deaths and some 400 infections. But it is frozen out of the WHO by Beijing which regards the self-ruled democratic island of 23 million people as its own territory and has vowed to take it by force if necessary.
More than a dozen countries have openly called for Taiwan’s inclusion despite China’s adamant insistence on barring any diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. That’s how badly this has backfired on China, which is losing nearly a half-century of ground on trade and diplomacy.
That might be why Beijing hit reverse this morning, hoping to play for time:
Chinese President Xi Jinping prepared a speech to present via video during the opening ceremony of the Assembly. He was invited to send the remarks by WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has himself faced criticism from the Trump administration and other WHO states for being too China-friendly in his response to the pandemic. In his remarks, Xi said China would support a comprehensive review of the global response to the pandemic led by the WHO, but only after the virus is definitively reined in. Xi reiterated his insistence that China has been open and transparent about disease and said the ruling Communist Party would support an investigation conducted in an objective and impartial manner. In a seeming response to recent claims, including from U.S. officials, that China has waged a cyber-espionage campaign aimed at stealing data from researchers around the world racing to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, Xi said any vaccine developed in China would be made available to the world.
Xi is stalling for time, and transparently so. He wants to push this off as long as possible to (a) let the momentum behind this push abate somewhat, and (b) get more time to cover up what happened in Wuhan. The UNGA and the WHO members who have funded China’s mouthpiece had better strike while the iron is hot.
Finally, perhaps this UNGA rebellion against Xi might take the blinders off the American media, who paint attempts to hold China responsible as some sort of dodge for Trump. It turns out that the US media’s bête noire isn’t the only one pointing the finger at China; in fact, pretty much everyone else but the American media is doing so. The only success Xi has actually had with his propaganda war has been in American newspapers and television broadcasts. If having the notoriously anti-American UNGA side with Trump doesn’t wake up the American media to its exploitation from Beijing, nothing will.


hotair--2020-05-18--Governments are using the pandemic as an excuse to shield public records

One of the first victims of the novel coronavirus after governments began sending as many of their own workers home as possible may turn out to have been transparency .
Apparently not counting as an “ essential service , ” many state governments either discontinued responses to FOIA requests completely or warned people making such requests that long delays could be expected in getting results .
A recent Associated Press report found that users of these systems , including members of the media , ran into frustrating blockades of what should be publicly available documents and records just as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what ’ s been going on .
Many state and local governments across the country have suspended public records requirements amid the coronavirus pandemic , denying or delaying access to information that could shed light on key government decisions .
Public officials have said employees either don ’ t have the time or ability to compile the requested documents or data because they are too busy responding to the outbreak or are working from home instead of at government offices .
The result is that government secrecy has increased at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting the COVID-19 disease and making major decisions affecting the health and economic livelihood of millions of Americans .
One organization has identified more than 100 instances in at least 30 states where regulations requiring responses to record requests have been suspended .
The employees processing such requests have either been furloughed or are working from home without access to all the data and sources they would need to respond .
Almost all of the rest of the state and local agencies are technically still taking requests , but responses that previously took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now estimated to take months .
And it ’ s not just offices at the state and local level .
The federal government has run into the same issues .
Back in March , the FBI stopped taking record requests for a while .
Last month they began accepting them again on their website , but users are warned to expect unspecified delays .
Other federal agencies are issuing similar advisories .
This doesn ’ t just impact the professional media , either .
Plenty of citizens ( and citizen journalists ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information that their elected officials aren ’ t volunteering and the mainstream media isn ’ t reporting .
This seems to be a particularly dire situation when you consider that literally trillions of dollars are being effectively set on fire in a series of pandemic aid packages .
How the decisions as to where the money would be going were reached , who was involved and how the process moved forward should be of great interest to all taxpayers .
But getting answers is now becoming progressively harder .
While I sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also see things from the government ’ s side on this .
If you have to limit the number of people coming into the office in order to minimize the spread of the disease , the ones handling matters directly impacting people ’ s ability to survive are obviously going to be the most essential .
The ones digging through paperwork and computer records to answer people ’ s questions probably aren ’ t going to be near the top of the list .
And to be fair , these requests involve either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being created and ( hopefully ) won ’ t be going anywhere .
Sooner or later we ’ ll return to mostly normal operations and the backlog of requests will still be able to be processed .
It ’ s just going to take more time than many of us would like to see .

One of the first victims of the novel coronavirus after governments began sending as many of their own workers home as possible may turn out to have been transparency. Apparently not counting as an “essential service,” many state governments either discontinued responses to FOIA requests completely or warned people making such requests that long delays could be expected in getting results. A recent Associated Press report found that users of these systems, including members of the media, ran into frustrating blockades of what should be publicly available documents and records just as they were struggling to inform the public as to what’s been going on.
Many state and local governments across the country have suspended public records requirements amid the coronavirus pandemic, denying or delaying access to information that could shed light on key government decisions. Public officials have said employees either don’t have the time or ability to compile the requested documents or data because they are too busy responding to the outbreak or are working from home instead of at government offices. The result is that government secrecy has increased at the same time officials are spending billions of dollars fighting the COVID-19 disease and making major decisions affecting the health and economic livelihood of millions of Americans.
One organization has identified more than 100 instances in at least 30 states where regulations requiring responses to record requests have been suspended. The employees processing such requests have either been furloughed or are working from home without access to all the data and sources they would need to respond. Almost all of the rest of the state and local agencies are technically still taking requests, but responses that previously took only a week or two to complete are now estimated to take months.
And it’s not just offices at the state and local level. The federal government has run into the same issues. Back in March, the FBI stopped taking record requests for a while. Last month they began accepting them again on their website, but users are warned to expect unspecified delays. Other federal agencies are issuing similar advisories.
This doesn’t just impact the professional media, either. Plenty of citizens (and citizen journalists) rely on FOIA requests to obtain government information that their elected officials aren’t volunteering and the mainstream media isn’t reporting. This seems to be a particularly dire situation when you consider that literally trillions of dollars are being effectively set on fire in a series of pandemic aid packages. How the decisions as to where the money would be going were reached, who was involved and how the process moved forward should be of great interest to all taxpayers. But getting answers is now becoming progressively harder.
While I sort of hate to say it, I can also see things from the government’s side on this. If you have to limit the number of people coming into the office in order to minimize the spread of the disease, the ones handling matters directly impacting people’s ability to survive are obviously going to be the most essential. The ones digging through paperwork and computer records to answer people’s questions probably aren’t going to be near the top of the list.
And to be fair, these requests involve either paper or electronic records that are still being created and (hopefully) won’t be going anywhere. Sooner or later we’ll return to mostly normal operations and the backlog of requests will still be able to be processed. It’s just going to take more time than many of us would like to see.


hotair--2020-05-17--House to weigh in once more on USA FREEDOM Act reauthorization

Reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act returns to the House later this month after the Senate approved tweaks to the bill .
The needed adjustments happened last week following a fight between civil libertarians and proponents of mass surveillance over amendments .
Civil libertarians came ‘ this close ’ to winning outright on their amendments with a proposal by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy passing with 77 ( ! )
votes .
Montana Republican Steve Daines and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden ’ s amendment failed by one vote due to pro-reform senators ( including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( more on that amendment later ) .
Another amendment proposed by Kentucky Republican Rand Paul , forcing the government to get a traditional warrant , failed to receive even a dozen votes .
The Lee-Leahy amendment makes slight changes to the FREEDOM Act but allows more oversight on FISA issues through the use of outside advisers .
The amendment requires the advisers to possess privacy and civil liberties expertise before helping judges review a request .
Judges still have the final say but civil libertarian groups praised the amendment for bringing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ By increasing the use of the amici curiae and broadening their access to information , Americans targeted under FISA will more often have someone advocating for their rights during these secret proceedings , and the likelihood is greatly decreased that intelligence agencies can abuse their surveillance power and get away with it , ” FreedomWorks Vice President of Legislative Affairs Jason Pye stated after the vote even though he admitted the reforms were modest .
“ Had the protections established by Lee-Leahy been in place in years past , it is probable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spying on the Trump campaign and the dragnet mass metadata surveillance orders revealed by Eric Snowden would have been caught and subjected to scrutiny.
” The ACLU backed the reforms as well although it neglected to mention any Trump campaign spying by name .
“ After many years of just rubberstamping laws used to commit civil liberties violations , Congress has overwhelmingly passed changes that will help ensure that government claims before a secret intelligence court do not go unchecked , ” ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Neema Singh Guliani crowded before prodding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years by protecting online privacy .
“ [ Wednesday ’ s vote ] shows that a majority of senators agree that what we do online should not be subject to warrantless surveillance — and it ’ s past time for Congress to make this clear in our laws.
” Concern remains regarding the failure of the Wyden-Daines Amendment , specifically because a single vote was needed to add it to the bill .
The amendment is rather simple : it bans warrantless searches of Internet browsing data and Internet search history through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure in a myriad of partisan rhetoric either blasting or defending the president .
The bloviating still came down to one simple issue : enforcing due process by limiting unconstitutional power .
And it failed by one bloody vote !
“ The USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act could have been significantly improved by the inclusion of a bipartisan amendment from Senators Wyden and Daines that would have protected Americans ’ private internet histories from warrantless government surveillance… ” Due Process Institute President Shana-Tara O ’ Toole said in a statement and also opined the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently on the books .
“ We are encouraged that Senate leaders crossed their respective political aisles to work together on important reforms that begin to better protect constitutional rights and still allow our government to do the important work of maintaining national security .
We urge the House to promptly pass this legislation to ensure that America ’ s surveillance laws are brought more in line with vital protections guaranteed in our Constitution.
” A small victory , but still a victory , regarding Fourth Amendment protections against secret courts and warrantless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment bill succeeds in the House although it would be nice if the Wyden-Daines amendment somehow gets added .
The Senate would weigh in again on any further amendments before it heads to the President ’ s desk .
We ’ ll find out in late May , it seems , on the House ’ s move .

Reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act returns to the House later this month after the Senate approved tweaks to the bill. The needed adjustments happened last week following a fight between civil libertarians and proponents of mass surveillance over amendments.
Civil libertarians came ‘this close’ to winning outright on their amendments with a proposal by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy passing with 77(!) votes. Montana Republican Steve Daines and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden’s amendment failed by one vote due to pro-reform senators (including Bernie Sanders) failing to show up (more on that amendment later). Another amendment proposed by Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, forcing the government to get a traditional warrant, failed to receive even a dozen votes.
The Lee-Leahy amendment makes slight changes to the FREEDOM Act but allows more oversight on FISA issues through the use of outside advisers. The amendment requires the advisers to possess privacy and civil liberties expertise before helping judges review a request. Judges still have the final say but civil libertarian groups praised the amendment for bringing in more due process to FISA cases.
“By increasing the use of the amici curiae and broadening their access to information, Americans targeted under FISA will more often have someone advocating for their rights during these secret proceedings, and the likelihood is greatly decreased that intelligence agencies can abuse their surveillance power and get away with it,” FreedomWorks Vice President of Legislative Affairs Jason Pye stated after the vote even though he admitted the reforms were modest. “Had the protections established by Lee-Leahy been in place in years past, it is probable that both the FBI’s misconduct in spying on the Trump campaign and the dragnet mass metadata surveillance orders revealed by Eric Snowden would have been caught and subjected to scrutiny.”
The ACLU backed the reforms as well although it neglected to mention any Trump campaign spying by name.
“After many years of just rubberstamping laws used to commit civil liberties violations, Congress has overwhelmingly passed changes that will help ensure that government claims before a secret intelligence court do not go unchecked,” ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Neema Singh Guliani crowded before prodding the House to address surveillance abuses from recent years by protecting online privacy. “[Wednesday’s vote] shows that a majority of senators agree that what we do online should not be subject to warrantless surveillance — and it’s past time for Congress to make this clear in our laws.”
Concern remains regarding the failure of the Wyden-Daines Amendment, specifically because a single vote was needed to add it to the bill. The amendment is rather simple: it bans warrantless searches of Internet browsing data and Internet search history through the Patriot Act. Politicians supported the measure in a myriad of partisan rhetoric either blasting or defending the president. The bloviating still came down to one simple issue: enforcing due process by limiting unconstitutional power.
And it failed by one bloody vote!
“The USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act could have been significantly improved by the inclusion of a bipartisan amendment from Senators Wyden and Daines that would have protected Americans’ private internet histories from warrantless government surveillance…” Due Process Institute President Shana-Tara O’Toole said in a statement and also opined the passed version is better than the one currently on the books. “We are encouraged that Senate leaders crossed their respective political aisles to work together on important reforms that begin to better protect constitutional rights and still allow our government to do the important work of maintaining national security. We urge the House to promptly pass this legislation to ensure that America’s surveillance laws are brought more in line with vital protections guaranteed in our Constitution.”
A small victory, but still a victory, regarding Fourth Amendment protections against secret courts and warrantless spying. It’s likely the amendment bill succeeds in the House although it would be nice if the Wyden-Daines amendment somehow gets added. The Senate would weigh in again on any further amendments before it heads to the President’s desk.
We’ll find out in late May, it seems, on the House’s move.


hotair--2020-05-17--WaPo writer: We can't beat the virus because Americans stubbornly love their freedom too much

Over at the Washington Post , Keith Humphreys ended the week on a pessimistic note , opining that no matter how much testing and contact tracing is required to get us fully past this pandemic , America will never do as well as several other countries that seem to be taming the virus more quickly .
The reason ?
Because Americans love their “ freedom ” too much .
( Please note for the record that it was Humphreys who put the word freedom in scare quotes , not me . )
He begins by quoting medical professionals who insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal relies on our ability to “ test , isolate , contact trace and quarantine.
” He then lists a few examples of countries where those practices appear to be helping them tame the virus , including Germany , Singapore , South Korea and Taiwan .
But , the author argues , we may never succeed in the same fashion because such programs would require not only a willingness to surrender considerable privacy rights and freedoms , but also a general attitude of trust towards the government which doesn ’ t exist in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a technically sound program is useless without widespread consent .
And obtaining such consent “ would require a major reduction in our liberties and a prolonged period of increased surveillance , ” as journalist Stephen Bush points out .
Will Americans accept those reductions willingly and quickly enough to implement an effective testing regimen ?
It ’ s hard to imagine .
In countries with successful testing programs , the relationship of citizens to the government differs from that of the United States in important respects .
According to a 2018 Gallup poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Americans ( 59 percent vs. 31 percent ) to have confidence in government .
This may help explain Germans ’ greater willingness to comply with testing regimens and mask-wearing guidelines — and why Germany has almost two-thirds fewer coronavirus deaths per capita than the United States .
This isn ’ t a case of me trying to read something into Humphreys ’ words here .
He ’ s quite direct in describing the differences between the societies found in the nations he listed .
Describing the fairly recent and young democracies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taiwan ( where testing and contact tracing seem to have produced admirable effects ) , he notes that there is an air of “ authoritarian residue.
” This genetic memory of times when the government controlled nearly every aspect of citizens ’ lives helps to promote “ compliance with government-imposed coronavirus measures.
” I suppose we should examine this analysis with two questions in mind .
First , is Humphreys correct ?
And second , even if we assume that he is , should we really be envious of people living under harsher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it gets us past the pandemic faster ?
As to the first question , I have no argument to offer .
The author is absolutely correct .
Americans are probably just about the orneriest group of curmudgeons on the planet when it comes to bending to the will of the government .
That ’ s because we are arguably the freest people on Earth .
We were born of generations of people who had experienced life under the rule of a monarch without any serious assurances of God-given rights .
And they wound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it where the sun doesn ’ t shine .
We ’ re not all that different today .
With that in mind , I would say that I would not care to exchange the remaining freedoms that we haven ’ t already allowed to slip away or decay in the name of beating the novel coronavirus faster .
I ’ ve already written about the concerns I have over widespread contact tracing and how the abuse of such a system could impact everyone .
We have no choice but to allow a certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times of declared states of emergency ( and the courts have largely backed such actions ) , but that must be limited in scope and end as quickly as possible .
There are also questions about precisely how effective mass-scale testing and contact tracing will be in a nation as large , diverse and mobile as ours when compared to smaller , more authoritarian states like South Korea .
I ’ m not saying we shouldn ’ t test as many people who are both willing and available as possible and help keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s just common sense .
But the tests are only a single snapshot .
Anyone testing negative may very well go out to walk their dog the next day and contract the virus from some other random dog-walker who sneezes .
Further , as we ’ ve discussed here in the past , we ’ re still not at the point where we can trust all of the available testing kits that much .
Some of them that are still in use have shown error rates producing false negatives as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the end , we ’ re probably doing the best we can do in our fight against the novel coronavirus .
Every nation has to come up with their own solution and ours will wind up being uniquely American , framed around both our scientific capabilities and our values .
If that means that we can ’ t get our virus numbers down to nearly zero as fast as some other nations , so be it .
Heck , we still don ’ t know with 100 % certainty if this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll ever have a vaccine .
But if not , we ’ ll at least go down swinging .

Over at the Washington Post, Keith Humphreys ended the week on a pessimistic note, opining that no matter how much testing and contact tracing is required to get us fully past this pandemic, America will never do as well as several other countries that seem to be taming the virus more quickly. The reason? Because Americans love their “freedom” too much. (Please note for the record that it was Humphreys who put the word freedom in scare quotes, not me.)
He begins by quoting medical professionals who insist that the only path toward the new normal relies on our ability to “test, isolate, contact trace and quarantine.” He then lists a few examples of countries where those practices appear to be helping them tame the virus, including Germany, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. But, the author argues, we may never succeed in the same fashion because such programs would require not only a willingness to surrender considerable privacy rights and freedoms, but also a general attitude of trust towards the government which doesn’t exist in the United States today.
But even a technically sound program is useless without widespread consent. And obtaining such consent “would require a major reduction in our liberties and a prolonged period of increased surveillance,” as journalist Stephen Bush points out. Will Americans accept those reductions willingly and quickly enough to implement an effective testing regimen? It’s hard to imagine. In countries with successful testing programs, the relationship of citizens to the government differs from that of the United States in important respects. According to a 2018 Gallup poll, Germans are almost twice as likely as Americans (59 percent vs. 31 percent) to have confidence in government. This may help explain Germans’ greater willingness to comply with testing regimens and mask-wearing guidelines — and why Germany has almost two-thirds fewer coronavirus deaths per capita than the United States.
This isn’t a case of me trying to read something into Humphreys’ words here. He’s quite direct in describing the differences between the societies found in the nations he listed. Describing the fairly recent and young democracies in countries like Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan (where testing and contact tracing seem to have produced admirable effects), he notes that there is an air of “authoritarian residue.” This genetic memory of times when the government controlled nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives helps to promote “compliance with government-imposed coronavirus measures.”
I suppose we should examine this analysis with two questions in mind. First, is Humphreys correct? And second, even if we assume that he is, should we really be envious of people living under harsher authoritarian rule and emulate their behavior if it gets us past the pandemic faster?
As to the first question, I have no argument to offer. The author is absolutely correct. Americans are probably just about the orneriest group of curmudgeons on the planet when it comes to bending to the will of the government. That’s because we are arguably the freest people on Earth. We were born of generations of people who had experienced life under the rule of a monarch without any serious assurances of God-given rights. And they wound up telling that monarch to go stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. We’re not all that different today.
With that in mind, I would say that I would not care to exchange the remaining freedoms that we haven’t already allowed to slip away or decay in the name of beating the novel coronavirus faster. I’ve already written about the concerns I have over widespread contact tracing and how the abuse of such a system could impact everyone. We have no choice but to allow a certain amount of overreach of executive authority during times of declared states of emergency (and the courts have largely backed such actions), but that must be limited in scope and end as quickly as possible.
There are also questions about precisely how effective mass-scale testing and contact tracing will be in a nation as large, diverse and mobile as ours when compared to smaller, more authoritarian states like South Korea. I’m not saying we shouldn’t test as many people who are both willing and available as possible and help keep them isolated if they have the virus. That’s just common sense. But the tests are only a single snapshot. Anyone testing negative may very well go out to walk their dog the next day and contract the virus from some other random dog-walker who sneezes.
Further, as we’ve discussed here in the past, we’re still not at the point where we can trust all of the available testing kits that much. Some of them that are still in use have shown error rates producing false negatives as much as 40% of the time.
In the end, we’re probably doing the best we can do in our fight against the novel coronavirus. Every nation has to come up with their own solution and ours will wind up being uniquely American, framed around both our scientific capabilities and our values. If that means that we can’t get our virus numbers down to nearly zero as fast as some other nations, so be it. Heck, we still don’t know with 100% certainty if this virus can ever be eliminated or if we’ll ever have a vaccine. But if not, we’ll at least go down swinging.