hotair--2020-05-13--Great news. Philadelphia's gangs apparently ready to reopen from shutdown

It ’ s no secret that people all across the country are getting tired of these lockdown orders and are itching to get back to their normal lives .
The weather is improving and many want to get out soak up the sunshine .
Employers are anxious to reopen and bring their workers back to their jobs .
But those aren ’ t the only people itching for a return to normalcy .
In Philadelphia , the criminal gangs have clearly had enough of this business as well and are heading back out to the streets to ply their trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the rise , with five people being shot and another stabbed just over Mother ’ s Day weekend .
( CBS Philadelphia ) There are new signs of hope that Philadelphia is turning the corner , but the city is still struggling amid the pandemic .
While health officials and city leaders continue to battle the coronavirus outbreak , another battle is taking place on the streets of Philadelphia as shootings rise .
Five people were shot and one stabbed during a violent Mother ’ s Day weekend… Gun violence is continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to jeopardize lives .
Nearly 495 people have been shot in the city so far this year .
So what is Philadelphia Mayor Jim “ Empty the Jails ” Kenney doing about this ?
He ’ s issuing strongly-worded statements , expressing his disappointment in the gang bangers and conveying his wishes that everyone would just call a truce and stop shooting each other .
Here ’ s one statement that he released this week .
“ I wish people would put aside their beefs , put aside their anger towards each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open and do something right for your family , your friends and your neighborhood by just putting the guns down and stopping.
” Kenney went on to say that he ’ s at his “ wits end ” with the gangs and he can ’ t understand why everyone can ’ t just pull together during a time of crisis like this .
That ’ s a lovely sentiment , Mr. Mayor , but you do realize that you ’ re talking about street gangs who have been in a constant state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t the Kiwanis Club .
They make their living slinging drugs and illegal weapons while fighting the competition for turf and market share .
It ’ s sort of like Wall Street , except the hostile takeovers are accomplished using unregistered 9 mm handguns .
Of course , the situation probably isn ’ t being made any better by the fact that you and your new Police Chief Danielle Outlaw , along with your District Attorney Larry Krasner have been busy using the pandemic as an excuse to release increasing numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets .
And on top of that , the city is refusing to let the public know the names of the inmates who are being cut loose so they can at least be on alert for anyone looking for revenge .
Almost five hundred people have been shot in the city so far this year , and that includes several weeks where even the gangs seemed to be hunkering down and taking time off .
Not for nothing , but the Mayor is going to need to do more than simply issue statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the gang bangers ’ lack of team spirit .

It’s no secret that people all across the country are getting tired of these lockdown orders and are itching to get back to their normal lives. The weather is improving and many want to get out soak up the sunshine. Employers are anxious to reopen and bring their workers back to their jobs.
But those aren’t the only people itching for a return to normalcy. In Philadelphia, the criminal gangs have clearly had enough of this business as well and are heading back out to the streets to ply their trade. Shootings and murders are once again on the rise, with five people being shot and another stabbed just over Mother’s Day weekend. (CBS Philadelphia)
There are new signs of hope that Philadelphia is turning the corner, but the city is still struggling amid the pandemic. While health officials and city leaders continue to battle the coronavirus outbreak, another battle is taking place on the streets of Philadelphia as shootings rise. Five people were shot and one stabbed during a violent Mother’s Day weekend… Gun violence is continuing to plague Philadelphia even as the coronavirus continues to jeopardize lives. Nearly 495 people have been shot in the city so far this year.
So what is Philadelphia Mayor Jim “Empty the Jails” Kenney doing about this? He’s issuing strongly-worded statements, expressing his disappointment in the gang bangers and conveying his wishes that everyone would just call a truce and stop shooting each other. Here’s one statement that he released this week.
“I wish people would put aside their beefs, put aside their anger towards each other, keep our intensive care beds open and do something right for your family, your friends and your neighborhood by just putting the guns down and stopping.”
Kenney went on to say that he’s at his “wits end” with the gangs and he can’t understand why everyone can’t just pull together during a time of crisis like this.
That’s a lovely sentiment, Mr. Mayor, but you do realize that you’re talking about street gangs who have been in a constant state of warfare for decades, right? This isn’t the Kiwanis Club. They make their living slinging drugs and illegal weapons while fighting the competition for turf and market share. It’s sort of like Wall Street, except the hostile takeovers are accomplished using unregistered 9 mm handguns.
Of course, the situation probably isn’t being made any better by the fact that you and your new Police Chief Danielle Outlaw, along with your District Attorney Larry Krasner have been busy using the pandemic as an excuse to release increasing numbers of gang members back out onto the streets. And on top of that, the city is refusing to let the public know the names of the inmates who are being cut loose so they can at least be on alert for anyone looking for revenge.
Almost five hundred people have been shot in the city so far this year, and that includes several weeks where even the gangs seemed to be hunkering down and taking time off. Not for nothing, but the Mayor is going to need to do more than simply issue statements to the press about how disappointed he is in the gang bangers’ lack of team spirit.


hotair--2020-05-13--Axios: Curiously, new COVID-19 cases in high-risk reopening states are ... falling

Hot weather ?
Good social-distancing practices ?
Herd immunity ?
Or is this just an artifact of a testing gap or the COVID-19 incubation period ?
Whatever it is , the data coming from both Florida and Georgia has surprised observers who expected a burst of new infections after aggressive reopening policies were put in place , Axios reports this morning : Our chart compares each state ’ s seven-day average of new cases from Monday , and the seven-day average from a week prior , May 4 .
• Comparing the averages of two weeks helps smooth out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes inconsistently conduct and report tests .
• The latest average captures the first full week in which some states began to ease some of their lockdown measures .
Some of the states that skeptics were most worried about , including Florida and Georgia , haven ’ t seen the rise in total cases that some experts feared .
• Florida ’ s new cases have actually declined by 14 % compared to the previous week , and Georgia ’ s fell by 12 % .
• Nevada leads the pack with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that embraced aggressive lockdowns to help contain early outbreaks — Michigan , New York and New Jersey — all saw reductions of at least 30 % .
“ It ’ s an encouraging early sign , ” writes Sam Baker of the overall trend in the country .
More states show declines than states that still show increases , but California ’ s still in the latter category , and its population swamps out some of the other gains we seem to be making .
New York is declining , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the virus early in the pandemic and the inability to impose a shutdown fast or effectively enough .
Also , despite all the talk about regional approaches , the chart shows a patchwork of statuses that offer little connection to either region or reopening policies .
South Dakota never did impose a mandatory shutdown and has seen a spike upward of more than 120 % in diagnosed cases .
Meanwhile , Florida and Georgia show declines after moving to a somewhat similar posture .
Minnesota ’ s cases have gone up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only gone up 1 % despite having similar policies in place for similar periods of time .
What can we learn from this , and specifically from Florida and Georgia ?
Physician and regular reader Dr. Pradheep Shanker isn ’ t sure we can read anything into it , at least not yet : Generally speaking , we see a two-week cycle in increased diagnoses and hospitalizations , so we probably do need more time to ensure this trend holds .
The point on testing is just as critical ; we aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these states , so what we are seeing in general is reporting from somewhat self-selected samples of potentially symptomatic people .
As testing expands even in that sense , though , we should see increases in confirmed cases , as expanded testing has produced in Minnesota , not decreases .
This does suggest that reopening might not produce the kind of second wave that epidemiologists fear , or at least we haven ’ t seen that yet here .
We have seen that in other countries , though , including in best-of-class-response South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest country to reimpose restrictions after experiencing a surge of infections , almost exactly two weeks after it appeared to have contained the spread of the virus and began easing up .
Authorities ordered a four-day , near-complete lockdown to allow officials time to assess the rise in numbers .
The reemergence of coronavirus cases in many parts of Asia is also prompting a return to closures in places that had claimed success in battling the disease or appeared to have eradicated it altogether , including South Korea , regarded as one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
South Korea last week rescinded a go-ahead for bars and clubs to reopen after a spike in cases , hours after officials announced the lifting of previous social distancing restrictions and the start of a “ new everyday life with the coronavirus.
” South Korean President Moon Jae-in warned his country Sunday to “ brace for the pandemic ’ s second wave , ” calling the battle against covid-19 a “ prolonged ” fight .
The calculation has to be a balance between reopening , social distancing protocols , and health-care resourcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappear , and just as clearly we can ’ t hunker down forever waiting for it to do so .
For one thing , the economic wreckage will impact our ability to produce the very health-care resources we need to fight COVID-19 .
That means smart reopening strategies that maybe don ’ t include night clubs and concerts , but do include limited-capacity retail and personal service businesses that allow people to return to work .
If these trends continue , perhaps that will boost confidence in such reopening strategies , a critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with COVID-19 .
Hopefully we will find vaccines and/or effective treatments for it very soon , but under no scenario will it be soon enough to keep lockdowns in place until they emerge .
If we are to survive economically , we have to adapt and overcome — and in that sense , this early data does indeed look encouraging .

Hot weather? Good social-distancing practices? Herd immunity? Or is this just an artifact of a testing gap or the COVID-19 incubation period? Whatever it is, the data coming from both Florida and Georgia has surprised observers who expected a burst of new infections after aggressive reopening policies were put in place, Axios reports this morning:
Our chart compares each state’s seven-day average of new cases from Monday, and the seven-day average from a week prior, May 4. Comparing the averages of two weeks helps smooth out a lot of the noise in how states sometimes inconsistently conduct and report tests.
The latest average captures the first full week in which some states began to ease some of their lockdown measures. Some of the states that skeptics were most worried about, including Florida and Georgia, haven’t seen the rise in total cases that some experts feared. Florida’s new cases have actually declined by 14% compared to the previous week, and Georgia’s fell by 12%.
Nevada leads the pack with a 44% reduction, while several hard-hit states that embraced aggressive lockdowns to help contain early outbreaks — Michigan, New York and New Jersey — all saw reductions of at least 30%.
“It’s an encouraging early sign,” writes Sam Baker of the overall trend in the country. More states show declines than states that still show increases, but California’s still in the latter category, and its population swamps out some of the other gains we seem to be making. New York is declining, but that’s a function of the massive spread of the virus early in the pandemic and the inability to impose a shutdown fast or effectively enough.
Also, despite all the talk about regional approaches, the chart shows a patchwork of statuses that offer little connection to either region or reopening policies. South Dakota never did impose a mandatory shutdown and has seen a spike upward of more than 120% in diagnosed cases. Meanwhile, Florida and Georgia show declines after moving to a somewhat similar posture. Minnesota’s cases have gone up 33% while Wisconsin’s have only gone up 1% despite having similar policies in place for similar periods of time.
What can we learn from this, and specifically from Florida and Georgia? Physician and regular reader Dr. Pradheep Shanker isn’t sure we can read anything into it, at least not yet:
Overall, so far opening up the economy has not shown any predicted surge. Caveats:
1. May be WAY too early. Probably need at least 3 weeks.
2. Are we testing enough in all of these states?
3. Nursing homes are still the driving factor. — Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 13, 2020
Generally speaking, we see a two-week cycle in increased diagnoses and hospitalizations, so we probably do need more time to ensure this trend holds. The point on testing is just as critical; we aren’t doing population-level testing in any of these states, so what we are seeing in general is reporting from somewhat self-selected samples of potentially symptomatic people. As testing expands even in that sense, though, we should see increases in confirmed cases, as expanded testing has produced in Minnesota, not decreases.
This does suggest that reopening might not produce the kind of second wave that epidemiologists fear, or at least we haven’t seen that yet here. We have seen that in other countries, though, including in best-of-class-response South Korea:
Lebanon on Tuesday became the latest country to reimpose restrictions after experiencing a surge of infections, almost exactly two weeks after it appeared to have contained the spread of the virus and began easing up. Authorities ordered a four-day, near-complete lockdown to allow officials time to assess the rise in numbers. The reemergence of coronavirus cases in many parts of Asia is also prompting a return to closures in places that had claimed success in battling the disease or appeared to have eradicated it altogether, including South Korea, regarded as one of the continent’s top success stories. South Korea last week rescinded a go-ahead for bars and clubs to reopen after a spike in cases, hours after officials announced the lifting of previous social distancing restrictions and the start of a “new everyday life with the coronavirus.” South Korean President Moon Jae-in warned his country Sunday to “brace for the pandemic’s second wave,” calling the battle against covid-19 a “prolonged” fight.
The calculation has to be a balance between reopening, social distancing protocols, and health-care resourcing. The virus clearly won’t disappear, and just as clearly we can’t hunker down forever waiting for it to do so. For one thing, the economic wreckage will impact our ability to produce the very health-care resources we need to fight COVID-19. That means smart reopening strategies that maybe don’t include night clubs and concerts, but do include limited-capacity retail and personal service businesses that allow people to return to work.
If these trends continue, perhaps that will boost confidence in such reopening strategies, a critical component of our ability to deal long-term with COVID-19. Hopefully we will find vaccines and/or effective treatments for it very soon, but under no scenario will it be soon enough to keep lockdowns in place until they emerge. If we are to survive economically, we have to adapt and overcome — and in that sense, this early data does indeed look encouraging.


hotair--2020-05-13--Tucker Carlson: Who made this "buffoon," Anthony Fauci, dictator of the coronavirus response?

This reminds me in a way of Carlson ’ s segment on March 9 , at the very beginning of the pandemic and shortly after he traveled to Mar-a-Lago to lobby Trump personally to take the threat from the virus more seriously .
We should pause here and sit with that for a moment .
If not for a talk-show host , the federal response to COVID-19 might have been appreciably worse .
Having Fauci and the heads of the CDC , FDA , etc , warning Trump that a major crisis was at hand was one thing , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s primetime guys confirmed it did it become “ go time.
” Anyway .
The March 9 segment was Tucker ’ s alert to Fox News viewers generally and one very special Fox News viewer in particular that the virus was a big deal , much more serious than the flu .
He ’ s been proved correct about that many times over since then .
But what was also noteworthy about the segment was that he could never quite bring himself to utter Trump ’ s name in complaining about certain people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He got close , nudging viewers that they may have cast a vote for some of the people he had in mind , but the T-word never emerged from his lips .
It reminded me of a batter arguing with an ump in baseball about a called strike .
The ump will allow the batter to complain so long as the batter keeps his eyes forward , towards the mound .
But if he turns around and confronts the ump face to face ?
Then he ’ s showing him up .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to mind last night because of this Carlson rant about Anthony Fauci , springboarding off of Rand Paul ’ s much more polite confrontation with Fauci at yesterday ’ s hearing .
If Tucker ’ s mad that Fauci has too much influence over federal policy , that ’ s fine .
But Fauci has that influence only because a certain unnamed person allows him to .
And Carlson , it seems , has decided that he ’ s not going to risk showing that person up by calling him out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his complaints to be .
So he ’ s forced to call Fauci out instead .
Fauci didn ’ t force certain unnamed people to keep him on as the head of NIAID and trot him out regularly at task force briefings to reassure the public .
Fauci didn ’ t force the White House to adopt the federal guidelines for reopening created by the task force .
Fauci ’ s not even the leader of the task force .
Deborah Birx is .
How is it that the person to whom Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci ’ s prominence in the federal response ?
If President Hillary were following his recommendations , it ’ s unthinkable that he rather than she would be blamed for the government ’ s approach .
The buck stops with the president .
Trumpers need a scapegoat to explain why states aren ’ t moving more quickly to reopen , though , and none of the usual candidates suffice .
The main villain in this is a virus .
Democrats are bit players nationally , influencing only the stimulus part of the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freakishly high approval ratings at the moment .
Biden ’ s locked in a basement somewhere , a total nonentity .
The best populists can do to find someone to blame is adapt “ deep state ” critiques to the federal health-care bureaucracy : Fauci ’ s a career bureaucrat , he ’ s undermining Trump ’ s position by disagreeing with him , and nobody elected him — as if we should have national campaigns to determine who runs the NIH .
Other Republicans are tiring of him as well .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mirror and do the dispassionate debrief , Sen. Paul ’ s going to be closer to right than Fauci , ” said [ Mike Braun ] , who also attended the hearing .
“ I never did like the idea that you treated the entirety of the country , and even counties within a state , the same way.
” … “ He has a very valuable voice in this discussion .
He ’ s got a field of expertise that ’ s important to hear from , ” said Sen. Pat Toomey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s only one of many considerations we have to make as a society .
Because we have to make trade-offs.
” … “ We ’ re in a federalist government .
It ’ s up to the governors of the state to make those decisions , ” said Sen. David Perdue ( R-Ga. ) , who said he has recently eaten out at restaurants twice in Georgia .
“ We ’ ve got to get this economy open again .
We ’ re on the back side of the cycle.
” One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how some of his opinions are distorted .
See where Braun complains about a one-size-fits-all approach to reopening ?
Fauci agrees with that and has said so for weeks .
The federal guidelines which he helped produce explicitly refer to criteria that “ each region or state ” should satisfy before reopening , not the entire U.S.
He ’ s not insisting on one uniform protocol to keep states with minimal outbreaks from reopening .
He supports a federalist approach .
Some Republicans ( and well-known Rand Paul antagonists ) are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeat what I wrote a week ago : “ I ’ m fine with ending lockdowns sooner rather than later because I ’ ve been persuaded by the data I ’ ve seen in reading over the last few weeks that lockdowns don ’ t matter much to people ’ s behavior… As long as people are being given honest , accurate daily information about the state of the epidemic I ’ m okay with experimenting by opening businesses back up and having the public act in accordance with its own level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here ’ s Scott Gottlieb with the good , the bad , and the ugly of reopening now : That ’ s the sort of thing I want to help Americans gauge their personal risk .
Is Tucker with me on that , though ?
The sense I get from Fauci ’ s more strident critics isn ’ t that they resent him for being “ dictatorial ” in setting policy , which of course he has no power to do , but that his skepticism about wide-scale reopenings right now might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his caution is justified or not .
He ’ s talking down the economy , dissuading consumers from being “ warriors ” by risking infection to visit the local Baskin-Robbins .
We need to shut him up somehow .
I ’ m not speaking hypothetically here .
The AP reported a few days ago that the CDC ’ s detailed guidelines for businesses on how to properly reopen were buried by “ political appointees with little explanation , ” presumably because detailed safety precautions might have deterred some businesses from reopening sooner .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about soulless bureaucrats like Fauci failing to prioritize the economy , maybe we should whine a little too about political hacks failing to prioritize people ’ s health because they think a rising Dow is key to their boss ’ s reelection in the fall .
We ’ re left with the segment above , with Carlson transparently trying to talk Trump into either firing Fauci or sidelining him before he ’ s even more of a thorn in the side of the “ reopen now ” push .
He ’ s kidding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already held in sufficiently high esteem by the public that sending him packing would be a PR catastrophe for Trump .
Maybe Trump could get away with it if he elevated another widely respected expert like Birx to do all of the White House ’ s coronavirus messaging going forward , but I think most Americans would treat Fauci ’ s termination as a reason to have even less faith in the federal response than they already do .
The time to silence Fauci was early , before he built a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By not doing that , Trump has created a ( benign ) monster .

This reminds me in a way of Carlson’s segment on March 9, at the very beginning of the pandemic and shortly after he traveled to Mar-a-Lago to lobby Trump personally to take the threat from the virus more seriously.
We should pause here and sit with that for a moment. If not for a talk-show host, the federal response to COVID-19 might have been appreciably worse. Having Fauci and the heads of the CDC, FDA, etc, warning Trump that a major crisis was at hand was one thing, but apparently not until one of Fox’s primetime guys confirmed it did it become “go time.”
Anyway. The March 9 segment was Tucker’s alert to Fox News viewers generally and one very special Fox News viewer in particular that the virus was a big deal, much more serious than the flu. He’s been proved correct about that many times over since then. But what was also noteworthy about the segment was that he could never quite bring himself to utter Trump’s name in complaining about certain people being focused on the wrong things. He got close, nudging viewers that they may have cast a vote for some of the people he had in mind, but the T-word never emerged from his lips. It reminded me of a batter arguing with an ump in baseball about a called strike. The ump will allow the batter to complain so long as the batter keeps his eyes forward, towards the mound. But if he turns around and confronts the ump face to face?
Then he’s showing him up. That’s grounds for ejection.
That came to mind last night because of this Carlson rant about Anthony Fauci, springboarding off of Rand Paul’s much more polite confrontation with Fauci at yesterday’s hearing. If Tucker’s mad that Fauci has too much influence over federal policy, that’s fine. But Fauci has that influence only because a certain unnamed person allows him to. And Carlson, it seems, has decided that he’s not going to risk showing that person up by calling him out, no matter how righteous he might feel his complaints to be. So he’s forced to call Fauci out instead.
Tucker Carlson goes after Dr. Fauci and says he wasn’t elected pic.twitter.com/ncEqZq0d6R — Acyn (@Acyn) May 13, 2020
Tucker Carlson calls Dr. Fauci the Chief Buffoon? pic.twitter.com/hv9ZVQmWbf — Acyn (@Acyn) May 13, 2020
Fauci didn’t force governors to lock down.
Fauci didn’t force certain unnamed people to keep him on as the head of NIAID and trot him out regularly at task force briefings to reassure the public.
Fauci didn’t force the White House to adopt the federal guidelines for reopening created by the task force.
Fauci’s not even the leader of the task force. Deborah Birx is.
How is it that the person to whom Fauci ultimately answers has completely escaped blame for Fauci’s prominence in the federal response? If President Hillary were following his recommendations, it’s unthinkable that he rather than she would be blamed for the government’s approach. The buck stops with the president.
Usually.
Trumpers need a scapegoat to explain why states aren’t moving more quickly to reopen, though, and none of the usual candidates suffice. The main villain in this is a virus. Democrats are bit players nationally, influencing only the stimulus part of the federal response, and Democratic governors are enjoying freakishly high approval ratings at the moment. Biden’s locked in a basement somewhere, a total nonentity. The best populists can do to find someone to blame is adapt “deep state” critiques to the federal health-care bureaucracy: Fauci’s a career bureaucrat, he’s undermining Trump’s position by disagreeing with him, and nobody elected him — as if we should have national campaigns to determine who runs the NIH. Other Republicans are tiring of him as well.
“When we get this in the rearview mirror and do the dispassionate debrief, Sen. Paul’s going to be closer to right than Fauci,” said [Mike Braun], who also attended the hearing. “I never did like the idea that you treated the entirety of the country, and even counties within a state, the same way.”… “He has a very valuable voice in this discussion. He’s got a field of expertise that’s important to hear from,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). “But it’s only one of many considerations we have to make as a society. Because we have to make trade-offs.”… “We’re in a federalist government. It’s up to the governors of the state to make those decisions,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who said he has recently eaten out at restaurants twice in Georgia. “We’ve got to get this economy open again. We’re on the back side of the cycle.”
One clue that Fauci’s being scapegoated is how some of his opinions are distorted. See where Braun complains about a one-size-fits-all approach to reopening? Fauci agrees with that and has said so for weeks. The federal guidelines which he helped produce explicitly refer to criteria that “each region or state” should satisfy before reopening, not the entire U.S. He’s not insisting on one uniform protocol to keep states with minimal outbreaks from reopening. He supports a federalist approach.
Some Republicans (and well-known Rand Paul antagonists) are still in his corner.
Dr. Fauci is one of the finest public servants we have ever had. He is not a partisan. His only interest is saving lives. We need his expertise and his judgment to defeat this virus. All Americans should be thanking him. Every day. — Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) May 13, 2020
I’ll repeat what I wrote a week ago: “I’m fine with ending lockdowns sooner rather than later because I’ve been persuaded by the data I’ve seen in reading over the last few weeks that lockdowns don’t matter much to people’s behavior… As long as people are being given honest, accurate daily information about the state of the epidemic I’m okay with experimenting by opening businesses back up and having the public act in accordance with its own level of collective risk tolerance.” Case in point, here’s Scott Gottlieb with the good, the bad, and the ugly of reopening now:
Some states are showing clear declines in new cases per day, while for other states the epidemic is stagnant, or new cases rising. Three rows of selected states below where the epidemic in terms of new daily cases is 1. declining, 2. flattening, 3. rising. h/t Bernstein Research. pic.twitter.com/RF5KhUD53e — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) May 13, 2020
That’s the sort of thing I want to help Americans gauge their personal risk. Is Tucker with me on that, though? The sense I get from Fauci’s more strident critics isn’t that they resent him for being “dictatorial” in setting policy, which of course he has no power to do, but that his skepticism about wide-scale reopenings right now might discourage people from reemerging irrespective of whether his caution is justified or not. He’s talking down the economy, dissuading consumers from being “warriors” by risking infection to visit the local Baskin-Robbins. We need to shut him up somehow.
I’m not speaking hypothetically here. The AP reported a few days ago that the CDC’s detailed guidelines for businesses on how to properly reopen were buried by “political appointees with little explanation,” presumably because detailed safety precautions might have deterred some businesses from reopening sooner. If we’re going to whine about soulless bureaucrats like Fauci failing to prioritize the economy, maybe we should whine a little too about political hacks failing to prioritize people’s health because they think a rising Dow is key to their boss’s reelection in the fall.
We’re left with the segment above, with Carlson transparently trying to talk Trump into either firing Fauci or sidelining him before he’s even more of a thorn in the side of the “reopen now” push. He’s kidding himself, though. Polling shows Fauci is already held in sufficiently high esteem by the public that sending him packing would be a PR catastrophe for Trump. Maybe Trump could get away with it if he elevated another widely respected expert like Birx to do all of the White House’s coronavirus messaging going forward, but I think most Americans would treat Fauci’s termination as a reason to have even less faith in the federal response than they already do. The time to silence Fauci was early, before he built a public profile as a trusted medical voice. By not doing that, Trump has created a (benign) monster.


hotair--2020-05-13--Alameda County agrees to allow Tesla's Fremont factory to remain open

On Monday , Elon Musk announced on Twitter that he was reopening his Tesla factory in Fremont , California whether officials in Alameda County liked it or not .
He suggested that if county officials planned to arrest someone , they should limit themselves to him .
Musk wasn ’ t joking about reopening .
Video of the parking lot showed it was mostly full that afternoon .
In response , Alameda County sent a letter saying Musk needed to submit a plan which would have to be approved .
Musk did submit the plan and late last night Alameda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday evening , the Alameda County Public Health Department claimed it had “ agreed ” to allow the Tesla factory to reopen , as if hadn ’ t been totally steamrolled .
It ’ s fairly obvious that Musk was holding all the cards , regardless of whatever kind of face-saving agreement may now be on the table .
Tweeting close to midnight , the Alameda County Public Health Department , which apparently spent all of Tuesday dodging questions from reporters , announced it had “ agreed ” to a “ site-specific plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Minimum Business Operations.
” This will remain in place until next week , officials said , in preparation for a “ possible reopening.
” Here ’ s the full statement published on Twitter .
It notes that the county will be working with the police department to verify social distancing is taking place at the factory : The letter reads like a face-saving effort but overall it looks like the county caved .
As for the part about “ Minimum Business Operations , ” it ’ s not clear that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Musk sent an email thanking all of his returning employees : Just wanted to send you a note of appreciation for working hard to make Tesla successful .
It is so cool seeing the factory come back to life and you are making it happen !
!
An honest day ’ s work spent building products or providing services of use to others is extremely honorable .
I have vastly more respect for someone who takes pride in doing a good job , whatever the profession , than some rich or famous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to be celebrating last night : I don ’ t know if Gov .
Newsom placed calls behind the scenes to county officials but Musk did get support from President Trump yesterday on Twitter .
Naturally , Musk was criticized for being on the same side as Trump .
He joined in mocking the person who wanted to “ let that sink in.
” The remaining questions in all of this is whether Musk will follow through on his threat to move his operations out of the state .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but now that he has his factory open again , maybe he ’ s forgotten about it .
Officials and individuals from other states haven ’ t forgotten though .
They are eagerly trying to lure him away from California .
He doesn ’ t sound eager to leave .
Was he bluffing ?
Reporter Kara Swisher tells CNBC she doesn ’ t think he was .

On Monday, Elon Musk announced on Twitter that he was reopening his Tesla factory in Fremont, California whether officials in Alameda County liked it or not. He suggested that if county officials planned to arrest someone, they should limit themselves to him. Musk wasn’t joking about reopening. Video of the parking lot showed it was mostly full that afternoon. In response, Alameda County sent a letter saying Musk needed to submit a plan which would have to be approved. Musk did submit the plan and late last night Alameda County officials accepted it.
On late Tuesday evening, the Alameda County Public Health Department claimed it had “agreed” to allow the Tesla factory to reopen, as if hadn’t been totally steamrolled. It’s fairly obvious that Musk was holding all the cards, regardless of whatever kind of face-saving agreement may now be on the table. Tweeting close to midnight, the Alameda County Public Health Department, which apparently spent all of Tuesday dodging questions from reporters, announced it had “agreed” to a “site-specific plan” that would allow Tesla to conduct “Minimum Business Operations.” This will remain in place until next week, officials said, in preparation for a “possible reopening.”
Here’s the full statement published on Twitter. It notes that the county will be working with the police department to verify social distancing is taking place at the factory:
Alameda County Update on Tesla, May 12: We received Tesla’s site-specific Fremont COVID-19 Prevention and Control Plan yesterday as anticipated. A site-specific plan is a part of the Governor’s guidance for reopening manufacturing. pic.twitter.com/KsooDIKUYG — Alameda County Health Care Services Agency (@Dare2BWell) May 13, 2020
The letter reads like a face-saving effort but overall it looks like the county caved. As for the part about “Minimum Business Operations,” it’s not clear that’s what is happening at Tesla this week. Musk sent an email thanking all of his returning employees:
Just wanted to send you a note of appreciation for working hard to make Tesla successful. It is so cool seeing the factory come back to life and you are making it happen!! An honest day’s work spent building products or providing services of use to others is extremely honorable. I have vastly more respect for someone who takes pride in doing a good job, whatever the profession, than some rich or famous person who does nothing useful. Gratefully yours,
Musk seemed to be celebrating last night:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1260422298668019712
I don’t know if Gov. Newsom placed calls behind the scenes to county officials but Musk did get support from President Trump yesterday on Twitter.
Thank you! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 12, 2020
Naturally, Musk was criticized for being on the same side as Trump.
Those who always disagree have a closed mind … but, by their very nature, that won’t sink in (sigh) — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 12, 2020
He joined in mocking the person who wanted to “let that sink in.”
Personally, I think we should pic.twitter.com/kfui7W9VTU — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 12, 2020
The remaining questions in all of this is whether Musk will follow through on his threat to move his operations out of the state. That’s what he threatened to do on Saturday but now that he has his factory open again, maybe he’s forgotten about it. Officials and individuals from other states haven’t forgotten though. They are eagerly trying to lure him away from California.
Note is much appreciated — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 11, 2020
He doesn’t sound eager to leave. Was he bluffing? Reporter Kara Swisher tells CNBC she doesn’t think he was.


hotair--2020-05-13--Hmmm: Grenell to declassify intel analysis showing Russia wanted Hillary to win?

If this turns out to be true , it ’ s at least a narrative changer , if not a game changer .
Fox News host and reporter Ed Henry drops this into his conversation with Tucker Carlson last night , focusing first and mainly on the revelation earlier in the day that acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell had declassified the list of those requesting the unmasking of Michael Flynn from intel intercepts .
When Carlson asks what else Grenell has declassified , Henry adds that the package also contains intel analysis that concluded Russia wanted not Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election — a “ known quantity , ” as well as a family with which Russia had worked in the past .
Instead of including that in the overall analysis to balance out intelligence analysis , John Brennan hid it to preserve the narrative of Russia attempting to help Donald Trump win , Henry says , mentioning that the release could make things “ sticky ” for Brennan : President Trump ’ s spy chief is reportedly declassifying information that shows former CIA Director John Brennan “ suppressed ” intelligence on Russia wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fox News chief White House correspondent Ed Henry said Tuesday evening that “ it could get sticky ” for Brennan , who served as CIA director under former President Barack Obama , due to his role in developing the 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference that determined with “ moderate ” to “ high ” confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin sought to boost Trump ’ s 2016 election chances .
“ There ’ s other intel that may have been more serious suggesting that Russia wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balancing that out in the assessment they put out there in that assessment , and set the narrative that Russia wanted Trump to win , ” Henry reported on Tucker Carlson Tonight .
Noting that Fred Fleitz , a former CIA officer and National Security Council chief of staff , first blew the whistle on Brennan ’ s alleged efforts to hide this information , Henry said he has a separate intelligence source who confirmed this intelligence is among the four or five batches of documents that Richard Grenell , the acting director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declassify .
Gee , why might Russia want Hillary over Donald ?
Jeff Dunetz reminds us : It ’ s at least one possibility , and one apparently supported by intelligence that Brennan allegedly suppressed .
Fleitz wrote about this three weeks ago , citing House Intelligence Committee sources .
It ’ s not that Brennan lied about the intelligence pointing to a Trump-favorable position in Russia , Fleitz wrote .
It ’ s that Brennan suppressed other intelligence that pointed in any other way , a decision driven purely by politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia ’ s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton ’ s election .
They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts , ” Fleitz wrote .
“ House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers , they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he added .
“ Instead , the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win , House Intelligence Committee staff revealed .
They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed , substandard information in the assessment.
” The Senate intelligence panel ’ s 158-page bipartisan report , which was heavily redacted , said investigators found no evidence of political pressure to reach a specific conclusion and determined that the assessment by the CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
” That might explain why Grenell decided to declassify the intel analyses pertaining to the issue .
If they corroborate Fleitz ’ point , Brennan and others who testified before House and Senate committees face not just political consequences .
They could face criminal charges for lying to Congress and obstructing Congress .
Michael Cohen got sentenced to three years in prison for those crimes , and his testimony wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as this particular point would be .
That is , they have good reason to be worried if this is in fact what Grenell declassified , and what it in fact demonstrates .
Their reaction so far to the efforts to scrutinize the work of law enforcement and intelligence officials certainly seems to indicate they ’ re worried about something these days .
Grenell ’ s delivery of this to the Department of Justice almost certainly has gone to John Durham ’ s investigators and prosecutors , who had already taken a keen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this intelligence and his previous testimony .
Don ’ t expect too many revelations on the contents soon , though .
Durham ’ s kept his cards close to the vest .
We ’ ll know if and when a grand jury returns an indictment on the basis of these revelations .
For now , though , this suggests that Russia ’ s efforts in 2016 was to delegitimize the results of the election no matter who won — and thanks to Democrats , succeeded beyond their wildest dreams .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning .
Testimony at the House Intelligence Committee shows that no one ever did verify that it was Russia that hacked the DNC ’ s servers — not even Crowdstrike , the firm hired by the DNC .
Their connections to both Robert Mueller and Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign are notable too , writes Aaron Maté at RealClearInvestigations : CrowdStrike , the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe , acknowledged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee ’ s server .
… Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016 – he was paid by the DNC , which refused to turn over its serves to the FBI .
Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server , Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the data was exfiltrated [ moved electronically ] from the DNC [ servers ] , but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated , ” Henry said .
… The firm ’ s work with the DNC and FBI is also tainted by partisan affiliations .
Before joining CrowdStrike , Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller .
Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council , the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democrat law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier — which was also treated as central evidence in the investigation .
Sussmann played a critical role in generating the Trump-Russia collusion allegation .
Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele has testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server theory , alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do have evidence of exfiltration , of course .
The DNC e-mails got widely published , so of course the data was exfiltrated at some point , by someone .
But it seems we have much less certainty as to who did the intrusion , who did the exfiltration , when it occurred , and whether there were multiple entities involved in the whole process .
That also might end up changing a narrative or two down the road .

If this turns out to be true, it’s at least a narrative changer, if not a game changer. Fox News host and reporter Ed Henry drops this into his conversation with Tucker Carlson last night, focusing first and mainly on the revelation earlier in the day that acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell had declassified the list of those requesting the unmasking of Michael Flynn from intel intercepts. When Carlson asks what else Grenell has declassified, Henry adds that the package also contains intel analysis that concluded Russia wanted not Donald Trump but Hillary Clinton to win the election — a “known quantity,” as well as a family with which Russia had worked in the past.
Instead of including that in the overall analysis to balance out intelligence analysis, John Brennan hid it to preserve the narrative of Russia attempting to help Donald Trump win, Henry says, mentioning that the release could make things “sticky” for Brennan:
President Trump’s spy chief is reportedly declassifying information that shows former CIA Director John Brennan “suppressed” intelligence on Russia wanting Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election. Fox News chief White House correspondent Ed Henry said Tuesday evening that “it could get sticky” for Brennan, who served as CIA director under former President Barack Obama, due to his role in developing the 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference that determined with “moderate” to “high” confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin sought to boost Trump’s 2016 election chances. “There’s other intel that may have been more serious suggesting that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win, rather than balancing that out in the assessment they put out there in that assessment, and set the narrative that Russia wanted Trump to win,” Henry reported on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Noting that Fred Fleitz, a former CIA officer and National Security Council chief of staff, first blew the whistle on Brennan’s alleged efforts to hide this information, Henry said he has a separate intelligence source who confirmed this intelligence is among the four or five batches of documents that Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, is working to declassify.
Gee, why might Russia want Hillary over Donald? Jeff Dunetz reminds us:
While the reports that the Russians tried to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election were believable, it was hard to understand that they were trying to make Trump, rather than Hillary president. Between the Uranium One and Skolkovo deals, Hillary helped Putin and the Russian Oligarchs make tons of money.
It’s at least one possibility, and one apparently supported by intelligence that Brennan allegedly suppressed. Fleitz wrote about this three weeks ago, citing House Intelligence Committee sources. It’s not that Brennan lied about the intelligence pointing to a Trump-favorable position in Russia, Fleitz wrote. It’s that Brennan suppressed other intelligence that pointed in any other way, a decision driven purely by politics, Fleitz argued:
“More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts,” Fleitz wrote. “House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election,” he added. “Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.” The Senate intelligence panel’s 158-page bipartisan report, which was heavily redacted, said investigators found no evidence of political pressure to reach a specific conclusion and determined that the assessment by the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency “presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
That might explain why Grenell decided to declassify the intel analyses pertaining to the issue. If they corroborate Fleitz’ point, Brennan and others who testified before House and Senate committees face not just political consequences. They could face criminal charges for lying to Congress and obstructing Congress. Michael Cohen got sentenced to three years in prison for those crimes, and his testimony wasn’t anywhere near as consequential to congressional investigations as this particular point would be.
That is, they have good reason to be worried if this is in fact what Grenell declassified, and what it in fact demonstrates. Their reaction so far to the efforts to scrutinize the work of law enforcement and intelligence officials certainly seems to indicate they’re worried about something these days. Grenell’s delivery of this to the Department of Justice almost certainly has gone to John Durham’s investigators and prosecutors, who had already taken a keen interest in Brennan’s actions with this intelligence and his previous testimony.
Don’t expect too many revelations on the contents soon, though. Durham’s kept his cards close to the vest. We’ll know if and when a grand jury returns an indictment on the basis of these revelations. For now, though, this suggests that Russia’s efforts in 2016 was to delegitimize the results of the election no matter who won — and thanks to Democrats, succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
That’s not the only narrative changer out this morning. Testimony at the House Intelligence Committee shows that no one ever did verify that it was Russia that hacked the DNC’s servers — not even Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC. Their connections to both Robert Mueller and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are notable too, writes Aaron Maté at RealClearInvestigations:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server. … Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016 – he was paid by the DNC, which refused to turn over its serves to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC [servers], but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated,” Henry said. … The firm’s work with the DNC and FBI is also tainted by partisan affiliations. Before joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller. Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democrat law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier — which was also treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele has testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump Organization.
One point on exfiltration: We do have evidence of exfiltration, of course. The DNC e-mails got widely published, so of course the data was exfiltrated at some point, by someone. But it seems we have much less certainty as to who did the intrusion, who did the exfiltration, when it occurred, and whether there were multiple entities involved in the whole process. That also might end up changing a narrative or two down the road.


hotair--2020-05-13--Kushner: I can't commit to the election happening as scheduled since it's not my decision to make

I think he ’ s getting a bad rap for this from the media , although I understand the suspicion Trump ’ s adversaries harbor that you-know-who might try to pull shenanigans involving the election if he ’ s staring at a big deficit in polling come October .
The correct answer here is “ The White House can ’ t postpone the election since federal law requires it to happen on a certain day.
” His actual answer treats the question as though it ’ s gauging the probability of a massive second wave of COVID-19 in the fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kushner takes the conservative approach to that : He can ’ t rule out a devastating second wave but he ’ s confident that it won ’ t happen and that the country won ’ t shut down again even if it did .
He ’ s not trying to create political space here for Trump to declare on October 25th or whatever , with Biden poised to win in a landslide , that we ’ ll have to hold off voting for awhile because of coronavirus .
But Robert Tracinski ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ habit of making the unthinkable seem thinkable , and then ho-hum acceptable .
This has been the pattern all along , the method by which Trump gets his supporters to accept his proverbial Fifth Avenue shootings : First insist it ’ s not real , that he didn ’ t do it , that it ’ s all a hoax .
Then admit it ’ s real but it ’ s being overblown and taken out of context by the media .
Then defiantly proclaim that sure , of course he did it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s perfect , it ’ s what everybody does , so why are you making such a big deal out of it ?
It ’ s Ukraine all over again .
Step one : “ Of course he ’ s not trying to postpone the election , you paranoid Never Trump crank.
” Step two , after reports inevitably surface this fall that Trump has begun raising the idea privately with aides and confidants : “ He probably just meant that he wanted to postpone the election by a few days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s anonymous sources.
” Step three , after he ends up musing publicly about postponing the election indefinitely : “ This is a Flight 93 election and the president needs to do what he can to protect the country from a Democratic takeover.
” The essence of Trump , and Trumpism , is to press any advantage in the name of victory or self-aggrandizement .
( Again , Ukraine all over again . )
He ’ s a “ winner.
” He does what it takes to win , full stop .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans love about him .
I always come back to the story Paul Ryan told of finally figuring out one day that when Trump called him a “ boy scout ” it wasn ’ t meant as a compliment .
It was a way of calling Ryan a chump , the sort of loser who operates according to a certain personal code and therefore doesn ’ t fight to exploit opportunities to benefit himself .
What kind of “ boy scout ” would sit by and let an election happen as scheduled if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Trump ’ s insistence in the fall of 2016 when he was down big in the polls that the election was “ rigged ” and his claims after the fact that Clinton won the popular vote only because of help from illegal immigrants are of a piece with that .
There ’ s no such thing as a fair-and-square defeat in Trump ’ s mind .
At the very , very least , if the election takes place as scheduled and he loses , he ’ ll allege cheating or unfairness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made dark insinuations about mail-in voting .
If he ’ s willing to do all that , why wouldn ’ t he look for “ creative ” ways to avert defeat beforehand ?
In the end , I don ’ t think Trump could get enough advisors to go along with him in a scheme to postpone the election .
He might not recognize how transgressive that is in the context of American history , and certain advisors like Kushner might recognize it and not care , but most of his team wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent that it ’ s an issue this fall , it might duplicate that weird reversal Trump underwent a few weeks ago when he insisted during a coronavirus briefing that the president has total authority on when to reopen the country and then ended up telling governors a few days later that they ’ ll call their own shots .
Once his advisors explain to him that he lacks authority , he ’ ll probably drop it .
Plus , if we ’ re hit with a big enough wave of COVID-19 this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thought in people ’ s heads , he might be so weary of having to manage the epidemic that he may welcome the opportunity to return to the private sector .
He can blame the “ unfairness ” of the virus and the Democrats ’ insistence on sustained lockdowns for his defeat .
And then spend the next year trash-talking President Biden on Twitter .

I think he’s getting a bad rap for this from the media, although I understand the suspicion Trump’s adversaries harbor that you-know-who might try to pull shenanigans involving the election if he’s staring at a big deficit in polling come October.
When asked if there was a chance the presidential election could be postponed past November 3 due to the pandemic, Jared Kushner said that isn’t his decision. “I’m not sure I can commit one way or the other, but right now that’s the plan” https://t.co/cyqN8VpHbk #TIME100Talks pic.twitter.com/SrzDbUAcwz — TIME (@TIME) May 12, 2020
The correct answer here is “The White House can’t postpone the election since federal law requires it to happen on a certain day.” His actual answer treats the question as though it’s gauging the probability of a massive second wave of COVID-19 in the fall that might make in-person voting personally risky. Kushner takes the conservative approach to that: He can’t rule out a devastating second wave but he’s confident that it won’t happen and that the country won’t shut down again even if it did. He’s not trying to create political space here for Trump to declare on October 25th or whatever, with Biden poised to win in a landslide, that we’ll have to hold off voting for awhile because of coronavirus.
I think.
But Robert Tracinski’s right that Team Trump has a habit of making the unthinkable seem thinkable, and then ho-hum acceptable.
This has been the pattern all along, the method by which Trump gets his supporters to accept his proverbial Fifth Avenue shootings: First insist it’s not real, that he didn’t do it, that it’s all a hoax. Then admit it’s real but it’s being overblown and taken out of context by the media. Then defiantly proclaim that sure, of course he did it. It’s normal, it’s perfect, it’s what everybody does, so why are you making such a big deal out of it?
It’s Ukraine all over again. Step one: “Of course he’s not trying to postpone the election, you paranoid Never Trump crank.”
Step two, after reports inevitably surface this fall that Trump has begun raising the idea privately with aides and confidants: “He probably just meant that he wanted to postpone the election by a few days. Figures that you would trust the media’s anonymous sources.”
Step three, after he ends up musing publicly about postponing the election indefinitely: “This is a Flight 93 election and the president needs to do what he can to protect the country from a Democratic takeover.”
The essence of Trump, and Trumpism, is to press any advantage in the name of victory or self-aggrandizement. (Again, Ukraine all over again.) He’s a “winner.” He does what it takes to win, full stop. That’s what many of his fans love about him. I always come back to the story Paul Ryan told of finally figuring out one day that when Trump called him a “boy scout” it wasn’t meant as a compliment. It was a way of calling Ryan a chump, the sort of loser who operates according to a certain personal code and therefore doesn’t fight to exploit opportunities to benefit himself.
What kind of “boy scout” would sit by and let an election happen as scheduled if the results were likely to embarrass him?
Trump’s insistence in the fall of 2016 when he was down big in the polls that the election was “rigged” and his claims after the fact that Clinton won the popular vote only because of help from illegal immigrants are of a piece with that. There’s no such thing as a fair-and-square defeat in Trump’s mind. At the very, very least, if the election takes place as scheduled and he loses, he’ll allege cheating or unfairness of some kind. He’s already made dark insinuations about mail-in voting. If he’s willing to do all that, why wouldn’t he look for “creative” ways to avert defeat beforehand?
Anyway, Kushner has clarified:
On Tuesday night, Mr. Kushner sought to clarify his earlier interview. “I have not been involved in, nor am I aware of, any discussions about trying to change the date of the presidential election,” he said. A White House official said Mr. Kushner was fully aware that the date was set by federal law.
In the end, I don’t think Trump could get enough advisors to go along with him in a scheme to postpone the election. He might not recognize how transgressive that is in the context of American history, and certain advisors like Kushner might recognize it and not care, but most of his team wouldn’t condone it. To the extent that it’s an issue this fall, it might duplicate that weird reversal Trump underwent a few weeks ago when he insisted during a coronavirus briefing that the president has total authority on when to reopen the country and then ended up telling governors a few days later that they’ll call their own shots. Once his advisors explain to him that he lacks authority, he’ll probably drop it. Plus, if we’re hit with a big enough wave of COVID-19 this fall that postponing the election is even a thought in people’s heads, he might be so weary of having to manage the epidemic that he may welcome the opportunity to return to the private sector. He can blame the “unfairness” of the virus and the Democrats’ insistence on sustained lockdowns for his defeat. And then spend the next year trash-talking President Biden on Twitter.


hotair--2020-05-13--NYT reporter went too far in criticizing COVID-19 response... says NYT

It ’ s not every day that a New York Times writer is called on the carpet by his editors for going too far in offering his personal opinions instead of sticking with the facts of a story .
It happened , though , to Donald McNeil Jr. , the paper ’ s science and health reporter .
McNeil was interviewed by CNN ” s Christiane Amanpour and he is not at all happy with the Trump administration ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
He pointedly speaks favorably of the Chinese government and blasts the American government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by many on the left – to blame Trump , not China – McNeil got carried away , even for the New York Times .
He specifically pointed to the Trump administration ’ s response during the first two months of the pandemic outbreak .
“ We were in a headless-chicken phase , and yes , it ’ s the president ’ s fault , it is not China ’ s fault , ” McNeil Jr. said .
“ You know , the head of the Chinese CDC was on the phone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Jan. 8 , and the two agencies were talking on Jan. 19 .
The Chinese had a test on Jan. 13 ; the Germans had a test on Jan. 16 .
We fiddled around for two months , we had a test on March 5 and it didn ’ t work .
We didn ’ t have 10,000 people tested until March 15.
” “ And suppression from the top- I mean , the real coverup was the person in this country who was saying , you know , ‘ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is worse , it ’ s all going to go away , it ’ s nothing , ' ” McNeil Jr. continued .
“ And that encouraged everybody around him to say , ‘ It ’ s nothing , it ’ s nothing , it ’ s nothing . '
” “ Getting rid of Alex Azar was a mistake- he was actually leading a dramatic response , ” McNeil Jr. said about the HHS secretary .
“ And then , in February he was replaced with Mike Pence , who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump assigning Pence as the leader of the White House coronavirus task force .
McNeil Jr. went on to mock the president , saying he ’ s “ the same guy who said inject yourself with disinfectant ” and that his “ grasp of the science ” isn ’ t even “ at a third-grade level.
” McNeil criticizes Trump for a slow acknowledgment of the seriousness of the pandemic .
That ’ s one take and the preferred one by Trump critics .
It can also be said that Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a measured response .
That included trying not to overreact by immediately shutting down the country .
Here ’ s the kicker , though , in McNeil ’ s rant – he admits his own bosses at the New York Times had to be convinced of the magnitude of the coming crisis .
He admits he wasn ’ t listened to by his higher-ups at the newspaper , at least initially .
He said to Amanpour that it “ took a while to get them… to believe this.
” It took a while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing pandemic and that is not a commonplace event .
It is good to be skeptical and to keep a cool head .
Rushing to make a response without gathering facts and charting out a plan can lead to unintended consequences that do nothing to control the damages of a pandemic in the long run .
Mostly this sounds like an attempt for McNeil to pat himself on the back and say , see , he was right from the beginning .
The Orange Man is bad and McNeil is all-knowing .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – he is right to lay most of the blame at the feet of the CDC .
I continue to be amazed that the CDC isn ’ t held to account for its sheer incompetence in getting a test out quickly .
It seems to me that the CDC ’ s insistence that the test comes from the agency instead of allowing private companies to work on a test alongside the CDC ’ s efforts was an unforced error in the extreme .
Time was wasted and the CDC should have to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mind you , as we ’ re still in the throes of the pandemic , but later during the lessons learned phase of this crisis .
When asked by Fox News for a statement , the NYT offered up on that spoke to the seriousness of their reporter ’ s breach of professionalism while still standing by his reporting .
Let ’ s just say that the Washington Post ’ s media critic , Erik Wemple , is not impressed with the NYT ’ s statement .
Granted , his employer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .
There was no mention of McNeil violating the NYT ’ s own guidelines , just a fuzzy kind of declaration that McNeil was spoken to and he ’ s a good reporter , in management ’ s opinion .
The guidelines state , “ Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio , television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times on its reporters expressing personal views.
” Wemple rightly criticizes McNeil for specifically calling for the resignation of Dr. Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That comment was solely activism , not factual reporting from McNeil .
Unfortunately , he later tepidly justified McNeil ’ s poor behavior .
In reporting about the Orange Man ’ s administration , what ’ s a reporter to do but talk about all the incompetence ?
Wemple just couldn ’ t quite bring himself to stick with the professional criticism , he slipped in his own personal opinion .
“ What ’ s an experienced health reporter to say ?
” How about just sticking with facts , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McNeil sure didn ’ t set himself apart from other CNN guests .
He was spouting the company line – Trump is bad and incompetent .
The Chinese government must be so happy .
Their propaganda campaign is working well with Trump ’ s opponents .

It’s not every day that a New York Times writer is called on the carpet by his editors for going too far in offering his personal opinions instead of sticking with the facts of a story. It happened, though, to Donald McNeil Jr., the paper’s science and health reporter.
McNeil was interviewed by CNN”s Christiane Amanpour and he is not at all happy with the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. He pointedly speaks favorably of the Chinese government and blasts the American government. While this has been a standard response by many on the left – to blame Trump, not China – McNeil got carried away, even for the New York Times. He specifically pointed to the Trump administration’s response during the first two months of the pandemic outbreak.
“We were in a headless-chicken phase, and yes, it’s the president’s fault, it is not China’s fault,” McNeil Jr. said. “You know, the head of the Chinese CDC was on the phone to Robert Redfield on Jan. 1, again on Jan. 8, and the two agencies were talking on Jan. 19. The Chinese had a test on Jan. 13; the Germans had a test on Jan. 16. We fiddled around for two months, we had a test on March 5 and it didn’t work. We didn’t have 10,000 people tested until March 15.” “And suppression from the top- I mean, the real coverup was the person in this country who was saying, you know, ‘This is not an important virus, the flu is worse, it’s all going to go away, it’s nothing,'” McNeil Jr. continued. “And that encouraged everybody around him to say, ‘It’s nothing, it’s nothing, it’s nothing.'” “Getting rid of Alex Azar was a mistake- he was actually leading a dramatic response,” McNeil Jr. said about the HHS secretary. “And then, in February he was replaced with Mike Pence, who’s a sycophant.” That was in reference to Trump assigning Pence as the leader of the White House coronavirus task force. McNeil Jr. went on to mock the president, saying he’s “the same guy who said inject yourself with disinfectant” and that his “grasp of the science” isn’t even “at a third-grade level.”
Donald G. McNeil Jr: The CDC “is a great agency but it’s incompetently led, and I think Dr Redfield should resign.” pic.twitter.com/7tUPDGsE86 — Christiane Amanpour (@camanpour) May 12, 2020
McNeil criticizes Trump for a slow acknowledgment of the seriousness of the pandemic. That’s one take and the preferred one by Trump critics. It can also be said that Trump was trying to keep Americans calm and use a measured response. That included trying not to overreact by immediately shutting down the country. Here’s the kicker, though, in McNeil’s rant – he admits his own bosses at the New York Times had to be convinced of the magnitude of the coming crisis. He admits he wasn’t listened to by his higher-ups at the newspaper, at least initially. He said to Amanpour that it “took a while to get them… to believe this.”
It took a while, Mr. McNeil because it was a developing pandemic and that is not a commonplace event. It is good to be skeptical and to keep a cool head. Rushing to make a response without gathering facts and charting out a plan can lead to unintended consequences that do nothing to control the damages of a pandemic in the long run. Mostly this sounds like an attempt for McNeil to pat himself on the back and say, see, he was right from the beginning. The Orange Man is bad and McNeil is all-knowing.
I’ll give McNeil this, though – he is right to lay most of the blame at the feet of the CDC. I continue to be amazed that the CDC isn’t held to account for its sheer incompetence in getting a test out quickly. It seems to me that the CDC’s insistence that the test comes from the agency instead of allowing private companies to work on a test alongside the CDC’s efforts was an unforced error in the extreme. Time was wasted and the CDC should have to answer for its mistakes. Not right now, mind you, as we’re still in the throes of the pandemic, but later during the lessons learned phase of this crisis.
When asked by Fox News for a statement, the NYT offered up on that spoke to the seriousness of their reporter’s breach of professionalism while still standing by his reporting.
“In an interview with Christiane Amanpour today, Donald McNeil, Jr. went too far in expressing his personal views. His editors have discussed the issue with him to reiterate that his job is to report the facts and not to offer his own opinions. We are confident that his reporting on science and medicine for The Times has been scrupulously fair and accurate.”
Let’s just say that the Washington Post’s media critic, Erik Wemple, is not impressed with the NYT’s statement. Granted, his employer is a competitor but he makes a good point. There was no mention of McNeil violating the NYT’s own guidelines, just a fuzzy kind of declaration that McNeil was spoken to and he’s a good reporter, in management’s opinion. The guidelines state, “Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times on its reporters expressing personal views.”
Wemple rightly criticizes McNeil for specifically calling for the resignation of Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC. That comment was solely activism, not factual reporting from McNeil. Unfortunately, he later tepidly justified McNeil’s poor behavior. In reporting about the Orange Man’s administration, what’s a reporter to do but talk about all the incompetence? Wemple just couldn’t quite bring himself to stick with the professional criticism, he slipped in his own personal opinion. “What’s an experienced health reporter to say?” How about just sticking with facts, you know, like the guidelines state?
Mr. McNeil sure didn’t set himself apart from other CNN guests. He was spouting the company line – Trump is bad and incompetent. The Chinese government must be so happy. Their propaganda campaign is working well with Trump’s opponents.


hotair--2020-05-13--Yes, the virus can survive on money in several ways

Yesterday we discussed the issue of strip clubs being unable to reopen in New York and the difficulties inherent in operating such a business while observing social distancing protocols .
That produced some “ interesting ” feedback in my inbox to say the least , but several questions arose over the idea that cash transactions ( such as tipping dancers ) could potentially transmit the novel coronavirus .
Since I wrote that without really doing a deep dive on the subject , I decided to check around and see if there was any data on this specific question .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a report on the same day addressing the subject .
It turns out that the risk of transmission of the virus on paper currency is definitely lower than person-to-person contact , but it ’ s still probably possible .
We need to specify “ probably ” here because nobody has actually thought to do a test to confirm it yet .
Can the coronavirus survive on paper currency ?
Yes , but experts say the risk of getting the virus from cash is low compared with person-to-person spread , which is the main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many businesses worldwide have banned cash transactions and governments are taking extra precautions .
When it ’ s an option , use touch-free payment methods , such as purchasing goods over the phone or online , says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
If you must use cash or a debit card , the agency recommends using hand sanitizer immediately after paying .
The closest thing we have to solid data on this question is a different test showing that the virus could survive on cardboard for at least 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly early on in the pandemic before this garbage virus started mutating like something out of a Steven King novel .
Opting for a credit card instead of cash isn ’ t much better unless you ’ re swiping the card yourself .
A separate test found that the virus was still viable on smooth plastic surfaces for up to three days .
The only truly safe payment methods appear to be via your phone or other devices completing the transaction online .
But that brings us back to the issue of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of particular concern in the case of the aforementioned exotic dancers , but it really could apply to any sort of transaction where tipping is a common courtesy .
In most stores these days you will find a scanner for your credit card where you complete your transaction and it might have an option for tipping that way .
In the case of car services such as Uber and Lyft , their app includes a tipping option at the end of every ride .
But that doesn ’ t cover every situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have credit card readers set up around the stage and they would be rather expensive to install and maintain .
And the dancers don ’ t tend to carry mobile readers around with them .
( Not to mention not having anyplace to hold them by the end of the dance . )
Delivery people who bring your orders to your door probably don ’ t have a way to conduct a credit card transaction .
Up until now , my wife and I have been taping cash to our front door along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drivers when they leave things on our porch , but now I ’ m starting to wonder if even that is a good idea .
I suppose if they are wearing gloves and/or washing their hands thoroughly after handling cash it should be okay .
So is this question the beginning of yet another way that the novel coronavirus is changing America permanently ?
This could be pushing us further and further toward a cashless society , something I ’ ve long resisted since the idea was first proposed .
But perhaps there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Yesterday we discussed the issue of strip clubs being unable to reopen in New York and the difficulties inherent in operating such a business while observing social distancing protocols. That produced some “interesting” feedback in my inbox to say the least, but several questions arose over the idea that cash transactions (such as tipping dancers) could potentially transmit the novel coronavirus. Since I wrote that without really doing a deep dive on the subject, I decided to check around and see if there was any data on this specific question.
As it happens, the Associated Press published a report on the same day addressing the subject. It turns out that the risk of transmission of the virus on paper currency is definitely lower than person-to-person contact, but it’s still probably possible. We need to specify “probably” here because nobody has actually thought to do a test to confirm it yet.
Can the coronavirus survive on paper currency? Yes, but experts say the risk of getting the virus from cash is low compared with person-to-person spread, which is the main way people get infected. Still, many businesses worldwide have banned cash transactions and governments are taking extra precautions. When it’s an option, use touch-free payment methods, such as purchasing goods over the phone or online, says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If you must use cash or a debit card, the agency recommends using hand sanitizer immediately after paying.
The closest thing we have to solid data on this question is a different test showing that the virus could survive on cardboard for at least 24 hours. And that test was done fairly early on in the pandemic before this garbage virus started mutating like something out of a Steven King novel.
Opting for a credit card instead of cash isn’t much better unless you’re swiping the card yourself. A separate test found that the virus was still viable on smooth plastic surfaces for up to three days. The only truly safe payment methods appear to be via your phone or other devices completing the transaction online.
But that brings us back to the issue of how you tip people. This would be of particular concern in the case of the aforementioned exotic dancers, but it really could apply to any sort of transaction where tipping is a common courtesy. In most stores these days you will find a scanner for your credit card where you complete your transaction and it might have an option for tipping that way. In the case of car services such as Uber and Lyft, their app includes a tipping option at the end of every ride.
But that doesn’t cover every situation. Strip clubs don’t tend to have credit card readers set up around the stage and they would be rather expensive to install and maintain. And the dancers don’t tend to carry mobile readers around with them. (Not to mention not having anyplace to hold them by the end of the dance.) Delivery people who bring your orders to your door probably don’t have a way to conduct a credit card transaction. Up until now, my wife and I have been taping cash to our front door along with a thank you note for delivery drivers when they leave things on our porch, but now I’m starting to wonder if even that is a good idea. I suppose if they are wearing gloves and/or washing their hands thoroughly after handling cash it should be okay.
So is this question the beginning of yet another way that the novel coronavirus is changing America permanently? This could be pushing us further and further toward a cashless society, something I’ve long resisted since the idea was first proposed. But perhaps there’s just no way around it.


hotair--2020-05-13--Report: Your positive virus antibody test probably doesn't mean you're safe

I ’ m sure you wanted to kick off your Wednesday morning with some great news , but I ’ m afraid this isn ’ t it .
As you likely know by now , the big debate raging in Washington and all across the country at the moment is over the question of whether we ’ re “ testing enough ” to pin down the spread of the novel coronavirus .
The President says we are .
Speaker Pelosi says we aren ’ t .
That ’ s just politics as usual and you could insert virtually any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus and get the same result .
But as we rush to test as many people as possible , is that really getting us anywhere ?
On a more personal note , if you sign up to be tested for antibodies and get a positive result , an indication that you ’ ve already been exposed to the virus , does that mean that you ’ re good to go about your normal life because you are now immune ?
This report at CNN suggests that all of this testing may not really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until we know a lot more about this virus and get hard data on the efficacy of the tests being used , we really can ’ t draw any conclusion .
In today ’ s reality , testing positive for antibodies to Covid-19 means nothing of the sort .
In fact , it may not mean much at all — at least right now .
There are still too many unknowns , both about the accuracy of the antibody tests that are available and about the nature of the virus itself .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still not where we need to be .
It ’ s a brutal truth , but one that needs to be told , ” said CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta in the May 5 episode of his podcast , called “ Coronavirus : Fact vs. Fiction.
” “ And this is exactly why I keep advising people to behave like you have the virus , ” Gupta said .
While much of this is new to me , we ’ re definitely seeing something very different than the way most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past .
Traditionally , if you were vaccinated against a disease , you had a reasonable expectation that you wouldn ’ t catch it .
Similarly , if you contracted a particular disease and survived it ( think of chickenpox back in the day ) , that also conferred immunity on you and you were good to go .
But the coronavirus is still far too new and too many unknowns remain .
First of all , the tests being used are coming from a wide variety of sources and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A recent study of five commonly used diagnostic tests performed at the Cleveland Clinic found 15 % of them delivering false negatives .
A separate study done in China found the error rate to be 40 % .
That ’ s closing in on 50 % , at which point you ’ d have just as much luck flipping a coin as going down to the clinic to be tested .
The report also indicates that some of the newer antigen diagnostic tests are nowhere near sensitive enough .
If you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver a negative result because your body hasn ’ t had time to build up a sufficient volume of antigens .
So you could test negative today and still come down with the disease the following week even if you ’ re locked up in your house like a hermit .
And finally , the presence of antibodies in your blood means that you have been exposed to the virus .
But sadly , it doesn ’ t mean that you are immune .
The report lists a few possible explanations for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hole in the entire “ herd immunity ” theory if it ’ s true .
One big potential problem , as Karen reported last night , is that the virus appears to be continually mutating .
There are potentially as many as four distinct strains going around including the original one from China and others that mutated when they landed and spread in Europe , Africa , and South America before arriving on our shores .
Being “ immune ” to one of them doesn ’ t necessarily mean that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not trying to play Debby Downer this morning , nor do I think we need to needlessly delay reopening the country for business .
But as we continue to gather data on this pandemic , it seems foolish for people to completely disregard the safety precautions we ’ re currently taking as they go about their business .
And now , that even applies to those who had the disease and recovered .

I’m sure you wanted to kick off your Wednesday morning with some great news, but I’m afraid this isn’t it. As you likely know by now, the big debate raging in Washington and all across the country at the moment is over the question of whether we’re “testing enough” to pin down the spread of the novel coronavirus. The President says we are. Speaker Pelosi says we aren’t. That’s just politics as usual and you could insert virtually any other topic of debate in place of the virus and get the same result.
But as we rush to test as many people as possible, is that really getting us anywhere? On a more personal note, if you sign up to be tested for antibodies and get a positive result, an indication that you’ve already been exposed to the virus, does that mean that you’re good to go about your normal life because you are now immune? This report at CNN suggests that all of this testing may not really be proving anything. In fact, until we know a lot more about this virus and get hard data on the efficacy of the tests being used, we really can’t draw any conclusion.
In today’s reality, testing positive for antibodies to Covid-19 means nothing of the sort. In fact, it may not mean much at all — at least right now. There are still too many unknowns, both about the accuracy of the antibody tests that are available and about the nature of the virus itself. “It is clear that we’re still not where we need to be. It’s a brutal truth, but one that needs to be told,” said CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta in the May 5 episode of his podcast, called “Coronavirus: Fact vs. Fiction.” “And this is exactly why I keep advising people to behave like you have the virus,” Gupta said.
While much of this is new to me, we’re definitely seeing something very different than the way most of us thought about the concept of vaccines in the past. Traditionally, if you were vaccinated against a disease, you had a reasonable expectation that you wouldn’t catch it. Similarly, if you contracted a particular disease and survived it (think of chickenpox back in the day), that also conferred immunity on you and you were good to go.
But the coronavirus is still far too new and too many unknowns remain. First of all, the tests being used are coming from a wide variety of sources and not all are of equal quality and accuracy. A recent study of five commonly used diagnostic tests performed at the Cleveland Clinic found 15% of them delivering false negatives. A separate study done in China found the error rate to be 40%. That’s closing in on 50%, at which point you’d have just as much luck flipping a coin as going down to the clinic to be tested.
The report also indicates that some of the newer antigen diagnostic tests are nowhere near sensitive enough. If you were only recently infected, the tests frequently deliver a negative result because your body hasn’t had time to build up a sufficient volume of antigens. So you could test negative today and still come down with the disease the following week even if you’re locked up in your house like a hermit.
And finally, the presence of antibodies in your blood means that you have been exposed to the virus. But sadly, it doesn’t mean that you are immune. The report lists a few possible explanations for this, but it sort of shoots a hole in the entire “herd immunity” theory if it’s true. One big potential problem, as Karen reported last night, is that the virus appears to be continually mutating. There are potentially as many as four distinct strains going around including the original one from China and others that mutated when they landed and spread in Europe, Africa, and South America before arriving on our shores. Being “immune” to one of them doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re immune to all of them.
I’m not trying to play Debby Downer this morning, nor do I think we need to needlessly delay reopening the country for business. But as we continue to gather data on this pandemic, it seems foolish for people to completely disregard the safety precautions we’re currently taking as they go about their business. And now, that even applies to those who had the disease and recovered.