hotair--2020-03-22--Night is coming -- and after that, the dawn: Sunday reflection

As Jesus passed by he saw a man blind from birth .
His disciples asked him , “ Rabbi , who sinned , this man or his parents , that he was born blind ?
” Jesus answered , “ Neither he nor his parents sinned ; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him .
We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day .
Night is coming when no one can work .
While I am in the world , I am the light of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva , and smeared the clay on his eyes , and said to him , “ Go wash in the Pool of Siloam ” —which means Sent— .
So he went and washed , and came back able to see .
His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said , “ Isn ’ t this the one who used to sit and beg ?
” Some said , “ It is , ” but others said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like him.
” He said , “ I am.
” So they said to him , “ How were your eyes opened ?
” He replied , “ The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me , ‘ Go to Siloam and wash. ’ So I went there and washed and was able to see.
” And they said to him , “ Where is he ?
” He said , “ I don ’ t know.
” They brought the one who was once blind to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and opened his eyes on a sabbath .
So then the Pharisees also asked him how he was able to see .
He said to them , “ He put clay on my eyes , and I washed , and now I can see.
” So some of the Pharisees said , “ This man is not from God , because he does not keep the sabbath.
” But others said , “ How can a sinful man do such signs ?
” And there was a division among them .
So they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ What do you have to say about him , since he opened your eyes ?
” He said , “ He is a prophet.
” Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight until they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight .
They asked them , “ Is this your son , who you say was born blind ?
How does he now see ?
” His parents answered and said , “ We know that this is our son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We do not know how he sees now , nor do we know who opened his eyes .
Ask him , he is of age ; he can speak for himself.
” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews , for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Christ , he would be expelled from the synagogue .
For this reason his parents said , “ He is of age ; question him.
” So a second time they called the man who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Give God the praise !
We know that this man is a sinner.
” He replied , “ If he is a sinner , I do not know .
One thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see.
” So they said to him , “ What did he do to you ?
How did he open your eyes ?
” He answered them , “ I told you already and you did not listen .
Why do you want to hear it again ?
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” They ridiculed him and said , “ You are that man ’ s disciple ; we are disciples of Moses !
We know that God spoke to Moses , but we do not know where this one is from.
” The man answered and said to them , “ This is what is so amazing , that you do not know where he is from , yet he opened my eyes .
We know that God does not listen to sinners , but if one is devout and does his will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind .
If this man were not from God , he would not be able to do anything.
” They answered and said to him , “ You were born totally in sin , and are you trying to teach us ?
” Then they threw him out .
When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out , he found him and said , “ Do you believe in the Son of Man ?
” He answered and said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that I may believe in him ?
” Jesus said to him , “ You have seen him , and the one speaking with you is he.
” He said , “ I do believe , Lord , ” and he worshiped him .
Then Jesus said , “ I came into this world for judgment , so that those who do not see might see , and those who do see might become blind.
” Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are we ?
” Jesus said to them , “ If you were blind , you would have no sin ; but now you are saying , ‘ We see , ’ so your sin remains.
” Those who have children will attest to the fact that they occasionally have very poor vision .
For that matter , those of us who were children ourselves will admit to having that problem ourselves in our more honest moods .
For instance , how often did we stare into a refrigerator so full of food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block only to complain , “ There ’ s nothing to eat !
” I ’ d often complain about not finding some object of great momentary importance and accuse everyone who ever had access to the house of having moved it .
My parents would then respond that whatever I was looking for was likely somewhere in the three-foot layer of dirty clothes and books that covered my bedroom from wall to wall .
Nonsense , I ’ d scoff , only to find it in the detritus .
When I actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Jonathan Swift wrote in Works of Thomas Chalkey , “ There are none so blind as those who will not see , ” emphasis mine .
“ The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
” Put another way , ignorance is less of a problem because it can be cured with education .
Willful blindness is much tougher to overcome .
It is akin to a darkness which light will not penetrate .
In today ’ s Gospel and readings , we get two examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out very differently from each other .
In our first reading , the Lord commands the prophet Samuel to seek out Jesse of Bethlehem for the anointing of the next king of Israel .
At this time , of course , Saul was king of Israel , a mighty warrior , but one that had turned away from the Lord ’ s purposes .
In 1 Samuel 10 , the Lord tells the prophet that “ I repent that I have made Saul king , ” as Saul had rebelled against His instructions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not included in today ’ s reading , the Lord also rebukes Samuel in sending him to Jesse .
“ How long will you grieve over Saul , ” God tells Samuel , “ seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel ?
” Samuel appears to have been somewhat blinded by his love for Saul , but Samuel does not allow that to push him away from his calling to serve the Lord .
He goes to Jesse ’ s house , where the Lord explains that Samuel can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F ] or the LORD sees not as man sees ; man looks on the outward appearance , but the LORD looks on the heart.
” When Samuel takes that to heart , he is able to grasp that the Lord has not chosen any of the elder brothers but instead the youngest of the eight — who normally would have no inheritance or significant social stature .
Samuel overcomes his blindness through his devotion to the Lord .
In our Gospel reading , however , the Pharisees offer the kind of willful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In addition , Jesus encounters another kind of blindness , that which assigns blames for afflictions on the afflicted rather than as a consequence of living in a fallen world .
When the disciples see the beggar who was blind from birth , they automatically assume that it was a consequence of specific and individual sin .
Jesus explains that affliction is not a punishment for sin , but instead an opportunity for all of us to work on God ’ s behalf .
“ We have to do the works of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , ” Jesus says .
“ Night is coming when no one can work.
” For some , of course , night was already at hand .
The disciples grasped the lesson , but the Pharisees repeatedly refused to consider it .
This young beggar would have not been unknown to them in the past , so they would have known he had been born blind .
Rather than consider the testimony at face value or test it honestly to ensure it was truthful , the Pharisees in this instance are clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rejection of the miraculous restoration of the man ’ s sight .
They reject the beggar ’ s testimony not once but twice , the testimony of his parents , the testimony of other witnesses , and finally try to use a technicality about the Sabbath rather than deal with the truth .
In the end , they judge the man unreliable for being “ born totally in sin ” — which they just assume — while implying that their spiritual state is better than his .
They would have been better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the young man was .
At least then they would have an excuse for not seeing , rather than the sinful manner in which they willfully blinded themselves to the truth .
It is this willful blindness that Christians must put aside , Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians .
Using a similar motif of darkness and light , Paul instructs the church at Ephesus that they need to “ live as children of light ” after being brought out of the darkness by Christ : Living as children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge or perfect vision .
It does mean being open to the truth and the Word of God , and living a life that gives glory to the Lord through our embrace of His light .
We are learning , as Paul exhorts , taking stumbling steps away from night by embracing God ’ s love and mercy rather than willfully blinding ourselves and forgetting even the truth we have been given .
The more we do that , the more we allow the Lord into our hearts and form our will to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we truly awaken to the dawn of His glory .
The front page image is a detail of “ Healing of the Blind Man ” by Duccio di Buoninsegna , c. 1308 , on display at the National Gallery in the UK .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .
For previous Green Room entries , click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is John 9:1–41:
As Jesus passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes, and said to him, “Go wash in the Pool of Siloam”—which means Sent—. So he went and washed, and came back able to see. His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, “Isn’t this the one who used to sit and beg?” Some said, “It is,” but others said, “No, he just looks like him.” He said, “I am.” So they said to him, “How were your eyes opened?” He replied, “The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went there and washed and was able to see.” And they said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I don’t know.” They brought the one who was once blind to the Pharisees. Now Jesus had made clay and opened his eyes on a sabbath. So then the Pharisees also asked him how he was able to see. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see.” So some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the sabbath.” But others said, “How can a sinful man do such signs?” And there was a division among them. So they said to the blind man again, “What do you have to say about him, since he opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight until they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight. They asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How does he now see?” His parents answered and said, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. We do not know how he sees now, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him, he is of age; he can speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Christ, he would be expelled from the synagogue. For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; question him.” So a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give God the praise! We know that this man is a sinner.” He replied, “If he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see.” So they said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” He answered them, “I told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?” They ridiculed him and said, “You are that man’s disciple; we are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this one is from.” The man answered and said to them, “This is what is so amazing, that you do not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him. It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.” They answered and said to him, “You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out. When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered and said, “Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.” He said, “I do believe, Lord,” and he worshiped him. Then Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.” Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.”
Those who have children will attest to the fact that they occasionally have very poor vision. For that matter, those of us who were children ourselves will admit to having that problem ourselves in our more honest moods. For instance, how often did we stare into a refrigerator so full of food that it would likely feed the whole block only to complain, “There’s nothing to eat!”
I’d often complain about not finding some object of great momentary importance and accuse everyone who ever had access to the house of having moved it. My parents would then respond that whatever I was looking for was likely somewhere in the three-foot layer of dirty clothes and books that covered my bedroom from wall to wall. Nonsense, I’d scoff, only to find it in the detritus. When I actually bothered to look, that is.
As Jonathan Swift wrote in Works of Thomas Chalkey, “There are none so blind as those who will not see,” emphasis mine. “The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.” Put another way, ignorance is less of a problem because it can be cured with education. Willful blindness is much tougher to overcome. It is akin to a darkness which light will not penetrate.
In today’s Gospel and readings, we get two examples of a lack of clarity which turn out very differently from each other. In our first reading, the Lord commands the prophet Samuel to seek out Jesse of Bethlehem for the anointing of the next king of Israel. At this time, of course, Saul was king of Israel, a mighty warrior, but one that had turned away from the Lord’s purposes. In 1 Samuel 10, the Lord tells the prophet that “I repent that I have made Saul king,” as Saul had rebelled against His instructions.
In fact, although this is not included in today’s reading, the Lord also rebukes Samuel in sending him to Jesse. “How long will you grieve over Saul,” God tells Samuel, “seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel?” Samuel appears to have been somewhat blinded by his love for Saul, but Samuel does not allow that to push him away from his calling to serve the Lord. He goes to Jesse’s house, where the Lord explains that Samuel cannot judge by outward appearance. “[F]or the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” When Samuel takes that to heart, he is able to grasp that the Lord has not chosen any of the elder brothers but instead the youngest of the eight — who normally would have no inheritance or significant social stature.
Samuel overcomes his blindness through his devotion to the Lord. In our Gospel reading, however, the Pharisees offer the kind of willful blindness that threatens to become impenetrable. In addition, Jesus encounters another kind of blindness, that which assigns blames for afflictions on the afflicted rather than as a consequence of living in a fallen world. When the disciples see the beggar who was blind from birth, they automatically assume that it was a consequence of specific and individual sin. Jesus explains that affliction is not a punishment for sin, but instead an opportunity for all of us to work on God’s behalf.
“We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day,” Jesus says. “Night is coming when no one can work.”
For some, of course, night was already at hand. The disciples grasped the lesson, but the Pharisees repeatedly refused to consider it. This young beggar would have not been unknown to them in the past, so they would have known he had been born blind. Rather than consider the testimony at face value or test it honestly to ensure it was truthful, the Pharisees in this instance are clearly determined to grasp any theory to justify their rejection of the miraculous restoration of the man’s sight. They reject the beggar’s testimony not once but twice, the testimony of his parents, the testimony of other witnesses, and finally try to use a technicality about the Sabbath rather than deal with the truth. In the end, they judge the man unreliable for being “born totally in sin” — which they just assume — while implying that their spiritual state is better than his.
They would have been better off blind, Jesus tells the Pharisees, as the young man was. At least then they would have an excuse for not seeing, rather than the sinful manner in which they willfully blinded themselves to the truth.
It is this willful blindness that Christians must put aside, Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians. Using a similar motif of darkness and light, Paul instructs the church at Ephesus that they need to “live as children of light” after being brought out of the darkness by Christ:
Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.”
Living as children of light does not mean having perfect knowledge or perfect vision. It does mean being open to the truth and the Word of God, and living a life that gives glory to the Lord through our embrace of His light. We are learning, as Paul exhorts, taking stumbling steps away from night by embracing God’s love and mercy rather than willfully blinding ourselves and forgetting even the truth we have been given.
The more we do that, the more we allow the Lord into our hearts and form our will to His. Only in that way will we truly awaken to the dawn of His glory.
The front page image is a detail of “Healing of the Blind Man” by Duccio di Buoninsegna, c. 1308, on display at the National Gallery in the UK. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.


hotair--2020-03-22--The middle of a pandemic is no time to be closing all the liquor stores

And yet that ’ s exactly what happened in Pennsylvania .
For those not familiar with the Keystone State , there are no privately owned liquor stores .
All wine and liquor is sold at state-operated packaged goods stores known as Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores , operated under the auspices of the state Liquor Control Board .
Beginning Tuesday night , all of them were shut down by order of Governor Tom Wolf .
Unlike New York , Pennsylvania classified the liquor stores as non-essential businesses .
And just like that , a state with a population of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dry .
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has announced that all Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores and licensee service centers across the state will be closed indefinitely after 9 p.m. Tuesday and the online store closed 5 p.m. Monday .
This follows the heels of Governor Tom Wolf ’ s announcement that all non-essential businesses should be closed to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 .
“ This was a tremendously difficult decision to make , and we understand the disruption our store closures will have on consumers and licensees across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a release .
“ But in these uncertain and unprecedented times , the public health crisis and mitigation effort must take priority over the sale of wine and spirits , as the health and safety of our employees and communities is paramount.
” The sale of booze has long been considered one of the “ recession-proof ” businesses and for good reason .
When times are good , many people like to celebrate by having a drink .
When times are hard , some of us tend to drown our sorrows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for liquor and wine was simply going to dry up because of the pandemic ?
Compare the situation in Pennsylvania to DC , where booze is flying off the shelves , including unprecedented sales of Everclear .
To be fair , the Everclear sales are probably being driven more by people looking for the raw materials to make hand sanitizer than any sudden surge in its popularity as a drink .
Everclear is almost pure ethanol .
The proof is so high that you can burn it as fuel .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my opinion , but it definitely packs a punch .
If Governor Wolf insists on treating the state ’ s liquor and wine stores as a non-essential business , it ’ s not just going to result in unhappy drinkers .
People who live within a reasonable distance of the state ’ s northern border are going to be flooding into New York to do their shopping .
And that ’ s precisely what ’ s already started happening .
The manager of the store where my wife and I do our shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous customers who said they ’ d come up from PA .
This is precisely the sort of mass travel that we ’ re supposed to be avoiding during the era of social distancing and self-isolation .
So is there a compromise available ?
A friend suggested a few possibilities that sound sensible to me so I ’ ll share them here .
And these plans could work in any state where the flow of booze is suddenly being curtailed .
One possibility is that the state could allow on-premise sales of take-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bars and restaurants , assuming they ’ re not also all closed .
In New York , we ’ re allowing such places to remain in operation for take-out food so adding some drinks to the order should be just as feasible .
Another possibility is that Pennsylvania could temporarily authorize liquor sales in grocery stores .
The grocery stores are essential services that will remain open anyway .
They already have to train their workers to check IDs for the sale of tobacco or other age-restricted products .
I ’ m sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would benefit from the added sales .
The authorization could be canceled once the shutdown is lifted .
If the Governor isn ’ t okay with any of those ideas , he could consider relaxing his order a bit and allowing at least some of the state stores to reopen .
But to ensure safety , they could do it with reduced staff and limit the number of customers in the store at any given time .
Or maybe not even have customers in the store .
They could place orders remotely and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff could check IDs without touching them .
Seriously , there should be some reasonable option that addresses the social distancing questions without effectively establishing a new era of prohibition in Pennsylvania .
Things are getting pretty grim out there and I know for a fact that I ’ m not the only one feeling like they could use a drink .

And yet that’s exactly what happened in Pennsylvania. For those not familiar with the Keystone State, there are no privately owned liquor stores. All wine and liquor is sold at state-operated packaged goods stores known as Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores, operated under the auspices of the state Liquor Control Board. Beginning Tuesday night, all of them were shut down by order of Governor Tom Wolf. Unlike New York, Pennsylvania classified the liquor stores as non-essential businesses. And just like that, a state with a population of more than 13 million people effectively went dry.
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has announced that all Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores and licensee service centers across the state will be closed indefinitely after 9 p.m. Tuesday and the online store closed 5 p.m. Monday. This follows the heels of Governor Tom Wolf’s announcement that all non-essential businesses should be closed to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19. “This was a tremendously difficult decision to make, and we understand the disruption our store closures will have on consumers and licensees across the commonwealth,” Board Chairman Tim Holden said in a release. “But in these uncertain and unprecedented times, the public health crisis and mitigation effort must take priority over the sale of wine and spirits, as the health and safety of our employees and communities is paramount.”
The sale of booze has long been considered one of the “recession-proof” businesses and for good reason. When times are good, many people like to celebrate by having a drink. When times are hard, some of us tend to drown our sorrows. Did the Governor think the demand for liquor and wine was simply going to dry up because of the pandemic? Compare the situation in Pennsylvania to DC, where booze is flying off the shelves, including unprecedented sales of Everclear.
To be fair, the Everclear sales are probably being driven more by people looking for the raw materials to make hand sanitizer than any sudden surge in its popularity as a drink. Everclear is almost pure ethanol. The proof is so high that you can burn it as fuel. I’ve tried it and it tastes terrible in my opinion, but it definitely packs a punch.
If Governor Wolf insists on treating the state’s liquor and wine stores as a non-essential business, it’s not just going to result in unhappy drinkers. People who live within a reasonable distance of the state’s northern border are going to be flooding into New York to do their shopping. And that’s precisely what’s already started happening. The manager of the store where my wife and I do our shopping said she’s already spoken to numerous customers who said they’d come up from PA. This is precisely the sort of mass travel that we’re supposed to be avoiding during the era of social distancing and self-isolation.
So is there a compromise available? A friend suggested a few possibilities that sound sensible to me so I’ll share them here. And these plans could work in any state where the flow of booze is suddenly being curtailed.
One possibility is that the state could allow on-premise sales of take-out liquor and wine in sealed containers at bars and restaurants, assuming they’re not also all closed. In New York, we’re allowing such places to remain in operation for take-out food so adding some drinks to the order should be just as feasible.
Another possibility is that Pennsylvania could temporarily authorize liquor sales in grocery stores. The grocery stores are essential services that will remain open anyway. They already have to train their workers to check IDs for the sale of tobacco or other age-restricted products. I’m sure they could handle it and the stores would benefit from the added sales. The authorization could be canceled once the shutdown is lifted.
If the Governor isn’t okay with any of those ideas, he could consider relaxing his order a bit and allowing at least some of the state stores to reopen. But to ensure safety, they could do it with reduced staff and limit the number of customers in the store at any given time. Or maybe not even have customers in the store. They could place orders remotely and pick up their purchase outside where the staff could check IDs without touching them.
Seriously, there should be some reasonable option that addresses the social distancing questions without effectively establishing a new era of prohibition in Pennsylvania. Things are getting pretty grim out there and I know for a fact that I’m not the only one feeling like they could use a drink.


hotair--2020-03-22--Trump wants to help North Korea with the coronavirus?

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un ’ s sister is claiming that President Trump sent a letter to her brother offering help with the coronavirus pandemic .
The White House isn ’ t commenting on the report yet , but she was pretty specific about the contents .
At the same time , Kim ’ s state news agency continues to claim that they don ’ t really need any help because there are no cases of COVID-19 in their country .
Assuming the report about the letter is accurate , this would be an unusual example of “ viral diplomacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Associated Press ) President Donald Trump sent a personal letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un , seeking to maintain good relations and offering cooperation in fighting the viral pandemic , Kim ’ s sister said Sunday .
The latest correspondence came as Kim observed the firing of tactical guided weapons over the weekend , drawing criticism from South Korea , as the nuclear talks remain deadlocked .
In a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency , Kim ’ s sister and senior ruling party official , Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter at a time when “ big difficulties and challenges lie ahead in the way of developing ties ” between the countries .
I suppose the first question to tackle here is whether or not the report is true .
I don ’ t see why it wouldn ’ t be .
This would be a dumb thing for North Korea to try to fake since all Trump would have to do is send out a tweet saying that he never sent any such letter .
Also , Trump is still keen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of normalizing relations with North Korea and denuclearizing the peninsula .
Trying to leverage the pandemic to get Kim somewhat closer to compliance sounds like something Trump would absolutely attempt .
Do we believe that North Korea doesn ’ t have a COVID-19 problem ?
We ’ re used to Kim ’ s regime lying to the world about any number of things and the virus is now so endemic around the world that it sounds unlikely at first glance .
But then again , I could probably count the number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea on a daily basis without removing my shoes and socks .
We call it a “ hermit nation ” for a reason .
I suppose it ’ s possible that nobody has brought the virus in yet so they really don ’ t have it .
So if we are to assume that the letter was sent , is this really a good idea ?
I don ’ t think we can fault the President for continuing to beat his head against this particular wall because at least he ’ s trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , North Korea isn ’ t doing much to show that they deserve any of our generosity .
In her announcement , Kim Yo Jong spoke about the difficulties of working on any sort of bilateral relationship “ under the cruel environment which the U.S. is keen to provide.
” That ’ s an obvious reference to the sanctions that are currently still in place .
It ’ s also a fairly strong signal that Kim is sticking to his plan to not do anything to denuclearize unless we lift a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is the same impasse we ’ ve been stuck at for months on end .
Also , the letter was allegedly received just as Kim was supervising the test launch of two more ballistic missiles .
He ’ s clearly called an end to the moratorium on all such testing , so we ’ re losing ground there instead of making progress .
With all of that in mind , why should we bother trying to give them any help with the pandemic , particularly when they ’ re claiming they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also unclear what sort of help we could send anyway .
We ’ re still coming up short in terms of doctors , hospital beds , surgical masks and ventilators to meet our own needs .
If North Korea does wind up needing help to fight the virus , Kim should go ask China or Russia for a hand .
They ’ re his new buddies anyway .

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s sister is claiming that President Trump sent a letter to her brother offering help with the coronavirus pandemic. The White House isn’t commenting on the report yet, but she was pretty specific about the contents. At the same time, Kim’s state news agency continues to claim that they don’t really need any help because there are no cases of COVID-19 in their country. Assuming the report about the letter is accurate, this would be an unusual example of “viral diplomacy” on the part of the president. (Associated Press)
President Donald Trump sent a personal letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, seeking to maintain good relations and offering cooperation in fighting the viral pandemic, Kim’s sister said Sunday. The latest correspondence came as Kim observed the firing of tactical guided weapons over the weekend, drawing criticism from South Korea, as the nuclear talks remain deadlocked. In a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency, Kim’s sister and senior ruling party official, Kim Yo Jong, praised Trump for sending the letter at a time when “big difficulties and challenges lie ahead in the way of developing ties” between the countries.
I suppose the first question to tackle here is whether or not the report is true. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be. This would be a dumb thing for North Korea to try to fake since all Trump would have to do is send out a tweet saying that he never sent any such letter. Also, Trump is still keen to bring home a win in terms of normalizing relations with North Korea and denuclearizing the peninsula. Trying to leverage the pandemic to get Kim somewhat closer to compliance sounds like something Trump would absolutely attempt.
Do we believe that North Korea doesn’t have a COVID-19 problem? We’re used to Kim’s regime lying to the world about any number of things and the virus is now so endemic around the world that it sounds unlikely at first glance. But then again, I could probably count the number of people who travel into or out of North Korea on a daily basis without removing my shoes and socks. We call it a “hermit nation” for a reason. I suppose it’s possible that nobody has brought the virus in yet so they really don’t have it.
So if we are to assume that the letter was sent, is this really a good idea? I don’t think we can fault the President for continuing to beat his head against this particular wall because at least he’s trying something. But at the same time, North Korea isn’t doing much to show that they deserve any of our generosity. In her announcement, Kim Yo Jong spoke about the difficulties of working on any sort of bilateral relationship “under the cruel environment which the U.S. is keen to provide.”
That’s an obvious reference to the sanctions that are currently still in place. It’s also a fairly strong signal that Kim is sticking to his plan to not do anything to denuclearize unless we lift a lot of the sanctions first. In other words, this is the same impasse we’ve been stuck at for months on end.
Also, the letter was allegedly received just as Kim was supervising the test launch of two more ballistic missiles. He’s clearly called an end to the moratorium on all such testing, so we’re losing ground there instead of making progress. With all of that in mind, why should we bother trying to give them any help with the pandemic, particularly when they’re claiming they neither need nor want it? It’s also unclear what sort of help we could send anyway. We’re still coming up short in terms of doctors, hospital beds, surgical masks and ventilators to meet our own needs.
If North Korea does wind up needing help to fight the virus, Kim should go ask China or Russia for a hand. They’re his new buddies anyway.


hotair--2020-03-22--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

The top story on the shows this morning , and on every Sunday to come until the end of time , is the coronavirus epidemic that ’ s beginning to burn through the United States .
The top guest : Anthony Fauci , of course , who ’ ll probably be on each week going forward to update the country on how bad the last seven days were , how soon it ’ ll be until we can *somewhat* relax social distancing measures , and why you shouldn ’ t necessarily believe everything the president tells you .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to plead for patience by the public with the lockdown orders being given amid widespread economic decay .
Also on “ Face the Nation ” will be Scott Gottlieb , the “ shadow czar ” of the coronavirus response and another face we ’ ll see regularly on Sunday from now on .
Gottlieb does his best to be optimistic on social media , talking up possible treatments , cheerleading social distancing as the right way to go , and so on , but for at least the next six weeks his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hospitals in New York and elsewhere .
He ’ s been sober about that , warning repeatedly of a “ hard couple of months ” to come over , so there ’ ll be no change of message this morning .
But both he and Fauci have promoted the belief that we should be in a meaningfully better position in May or June as the “ first wave ” of COVID-19 makes its way through .
If we aren ’ t , people will lose faith in them too and their advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward .
Former Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn will be on “ Face the Nation ” as well to discuss the Senate GOP ’ s stimulus plan and why it ’ s almost certainly insufficient .
And FEMA administrator Peter Gaynor is set for “ State of the Union ” to discuss emergency measures the feds are taking to supplement care in the hardest-hit parts of the country , foremost NYC .
The full line-up is at the AP .

The top story on the shows this morning, and on every Sunday to come until the end of time, is the coronavirus epidemic that’s beginning to burn through the United States. The top guest: Anthony Fauci, of course, who’ll probably be on each week going forward to update the country on how bad the last seven days were, how soon it’ll be until we can *somewhat* relax social distancing measures, and why you shouldn’t necessarily believe everything the president tells you. He’ll chat with “Face the Nation” to plead for patience by the public with the lockdown orders being given amid widespread economic decay.
Also on “Face the Nation” will be Scott Gottlieb, the “shadow czar” of the coronavirus response and another face we’ll see regularly on Sunday from now on. Gottlieb does his best to be optimistic on social media, talking up possible treatments, cheerleading social distancing as the right way to go, and so on, but for at least the next six weeks his outlook will be complicated by the chaos in hospitals in New York and elsewhere. He’s been sober about that, warning repeatedly of a “hard couple of months” to come over, so there’ll be no change of message this morning. But both he and Fauci have promoted the belief that we should be in a meaningfully better position in May or June as the “first wave” of COVID-19 makes its way through. If we aren’t, people will lose faith in them too and their advice won’t be as heeded going forward.
Former Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn will be on “Face the Nation” as well to discuss the Senate GOP’s stimulus plan and why it’s almost certainly insufficient. And FEMA administrator Peter Gaynor is set for “State of the Union” to discuss emergency measures the feds are taking to supplement care in the hardest-hit parts of the country, foremost NYC. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-03-22--Stunning NYT headline: "Senate Democrats blocked action on a trillion-dollar stimulus plan"; <span c

Stunning NYT headline: "Senate Democrats blocked action on a trillion-dollar stimulus plan"; Update: McConnell schedules revote for 9:45 am; Update: Romney "shocked" at Dems

It ’ s stunning because it ’ s true , and it hints that Democrats might have miscalculated how much political cover they have in this coronavirus crisis .
After three days of bipartisan negotiations , Senate Democrats suddenly decided to block the CARES Act on a procedural vote .
The New York Times leaves no doubt as to which party made the move , and which party risks getting blamed for the fallout : Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked action on an emerging deal to prop up an economy devastated by the coronavirus pandemic , paralyzing the progress of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package they said failed to adequately protect workers or impose strict enough restrictions on bailed-out businesses .
The party-line vote was a stunning setback after three days of fast-paced negotiations between senators and administration officials to reach a bipartisan compromise on legislation that is expected to be the largest economic stimulus package in American history — now expected to cost $ 1.8 trillion or more .
In a 47-to-47 vote , the Senate fell short of the 60 votes that would have been needed to advance the measure , even as talks continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House to salvage a compromise .
The failure to move forward shook financial markets and threatened an ambitious timeline set by the Trump administration and leading Republicans to move the rescue package through the Senate on Monday and enact it within days .
In voting to block action , Democrats risked a political backlash if they are seen as obstructing progress on a measure that is widely regarded as crucial to aid desperate Americans and prop up a flagging economy .
The deal began to unravel when Nancy Pelosi announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and planned to write a House Democrat plan for Phase 3 coronavirus relief .
An infuriated Mitch McConnell ripped Democrats for pulling a last-minute partisan stunt while Americans desperately need relief , and markets need a show of confidence : “ I want everybody to fully understand if we aren ’ t able to act tomorrow , it will because of our colleagues on the other side continuing to dither when the country expects us to come together and address this problem , ” he said from the Senate floor .
McConnell noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped five percent , adding that “ the notion that we have time to play games here with the American economy and the American people is utterly absurd.
” … The floor drama came after Schumer , McConnell , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to try to break the stalemate .
“ All of the sudden the Democratic leader and the speaker of the House shows up , and we ’ re back to square one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiddling with the emotions of the American people , fiddling with the markets , fiddling with our health care , ” McConnell said .
“ She ’ s the Speaker of the House , not the Speaker of the Senate .
We don ’ t have one .
We were doing just fine until that intervention , ” McConnell added .
Senate Democrats rushed to blame McConnell and the Senate GOP for partisanship , but it didn ’ t convince the New York Times .
And if it didn ’ t convince the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough to see who they will convince .
Pelosi and Schumer have had significantly sympathetic media treatment thus far in the crisis , but torpedoing a trillion-plus rescue package at the eleventh hour — perhaps the thirteenth hour , arguably — is one partisan trick too many for the Paper of Record .
Of course , by the morning , the headline and the treatment may have changed .
It ’ s tough to memory-hole coverage these days , however … Update : The Gray Lady ’ s already rewriting their narrative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Note that this headline is a section headline in a live-update report , but … yeah , this is not unexpected .
Update , 10:31 pm ET : To be fair , the NYT ’ s live-update page still has the same headline for that section , and that ’ s also in the main headline .
Also , Mitch McConnell wants a do-over — and note just when he plans to demand another vote on cloture : By that time , some of Schumer ’ s caucus might be having second thoughts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite Senate Republican is ripping them tonight : Voters need to feel confident that the country ’ s leadership is taking this seriously .
Donald Trump has been making that impression for at least the last ten days .
This makes Democrats look seriously , if not fatally , unserious — and market psychology will tank if it continues .

It’s stunning because it’s true, and it hints that Democrats might have miscalculated how much political cover they have in this coronavirus crisis. After three days of bipartisan negotiations, Senate Democrats suddenly decided to block the CARES Act on a procedural vote. The New York Times leaves no doubt as to which party made the move, and which party risks getting blamed for the fallout:
Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked action on an emerging deal to prop up an economy devastated by the coronavirus pandemic, paralyzing the progress of a nearly $2 trillion government rescue package they said failed to adequately protect workers or impose strict enough restrictions on bailed-out businesses. The party-line vote was a stunning setback after three days of fast-paced negotiations between senators and administration officials to reach a bipartisan compromise on legislation that is expected to be the largest economic stimulus package in American history — now expected to cost $1.8 trillion or more. In a 47-to-47 vote, the Senate fell short of the 60 votes that would have been needed to advance the measure, even as talks continued between behind the scenes between Democrats and the White House to salvage a compromise. The failure to move forward shook financial markets and threatened an ambitious timeline set by the Trump administration and leading Republicans to move the rescue package through the Senate on Monday and enact it within days. In voting to block action, Democrats risked a political backlash if they are seen as obstructing progress on a measure that is widely regarded as crucial to aid desperate Americans and prop up a flagging economy.
The deal began to unravel when Nancy Pelosi announced that she would not accept the Senate bill and planned to write a House Democrat plan for Phase 3 coronavirus relief. An infuriated Mitch McConnell ripped Democrats for pulling a last-minute partisan stunt while Americans desperately need relief, and markets need a show of confidence:
“I want everybody to fully understand if we aren’t able to act tomorrow, it will because of our colleagues on the other side continuing to dither when the country expects us to come together and address this problem,” he said from the Senate floor. McConnell noted that during the vote the stock futures dropped five percent, adding that “the notion that we have time to play games here with the American economy and the American people is utterly absurd.” … The floor drama came after Schumer, McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to try to break the stalemate. “All of the sudden the Democratic leader and the speaker of the House shows up, and we’re back to square one. We’re fiddling here, fiddling with the emotions of the American people, fiddling with the markets, fiddling with our health care,” McConnell said. “She’s the Speaker of the House, not the Speaker of the Senate. We don’t have one. We were doing just fine until that intervention,” McConnell added.
Senate Democrats rushed to blame McConnell and the Senate GOP for partisanship, but it didn’t convince the New York Times. And if it didn’t convince the New York Times, it’s tough to see who they will convince. Pelosi and Schumer have had significantly sympathetic media treatment thus far in the crisis, but torpedoing a trillion-plus rescue package at the eleventh hour — perhaps the thirteenth hour, arguably — is one partisan trick too many for the Paper of Record.
Of course, by the morning, the headline and the treatment may have changed. It’s tough to memory-hole coverage these days, however …
Update: The Gray Lady’s already rewriting their narrative, at least in the lead headline:
https://twitter.com/randOmuos/status/1241904526753320960
Note that this headline is a section headline in a live-update report, but … yeah, this is not unexpected.
Update, 10:31 pm ET: To be fair, the NYT’s live-update page still has the same headline for that section, and that’s also in the main headline. Also, Mitch McConnell wants a do-over — and note just when he plans to demand another vote on cloture:
Mcconnell says the Senate will take a re-vote of the procedural vote at 9:45 a.m. tomorrow — 15 minutes after the markets open, he notes in an extra bit of pressure on the Ds. — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) March 23, 2020
By that time, some of Schumer’s caucus might be having second thoughts.
Update: Even the Democrats’ favorite Senate Republican is ripping them tonight:
As for funds for companies, it’s to keep entities that employ millions of Americans from folding—it’s to save jobs. Keep this up a little longer and we will go from social distancing to social destruction. — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) March 23, 2020
Voters need to feel confident that the country’s leadership is taking this seriously. Donald Trump has been making that impression for at least the last ten days. This makes Democrats look seriously, if not fatally, unserious — and market psychology will tank if it continues.


hotair--2020-03-22--Medical experts weigh in on when we might return to "normal"

The state-wide shutdowns have only been in place for a couple of weeks at most , but people are already starting to get understandably jumpy .
Even if we assume that the governments , both state and federal , are handling this pandemic in the wisest way possible , when does it all end ?
When can we declare this emergency to be in our rearview mirror and have our lives return to some semblance of normality ?
This weekend , the Boston Globe put that question to some experts in epidemiology and the answers aren ’ t terribly comforting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s one of the hardest questions to answer in epidemiology , and it ’ s one of the things that everybody is most interested in , ” said Samuel Scarpino , an epidemiologist at Northeastern University .
“ We ’ re going to have to be very cautious because we don ’ t want to waste all the sacrifices that we ’ ve already made.
” The first sign that the tide has started to turn , scientists say , will be a decline in new cases over several consecutive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Boston , that peak is likely at least a few weeks away , Scarpino said .
New coronavirus-related hospitalizations should fall a week or two after the number of new cases declines , in light of the time it takes for the disease to progress .
That would indicate that the economically devastating social distancing measures are working .
Even then , it will be too soon to fully return to normal , specialists say .
Just because there was a peak doesn ’ t mean it was the peak .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is regional peaks that may … may… pass in “ a few weeks , ” taking us well into April already .
Others are saying months .
If the reported numbers of new cases start to drop , that means that the social distancing is “ working , ” but the relief may be temporary .
There could be multiple peaks in the same regions .
In other words , even if you live in an area that has peaked and the restrictions are loosened , as soon as people get out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ normal ” things , another peak may be on the way the following month .
This could turn into a vicious cycle that doesn ’ t end until a vaccine is widely developed or a reliable cure is found .
And that could be well into 2021 .
The whole question of whether or not this strategy is “ working ” is one that ’ s been under very vocal debate here in New York .
Even if the “ stay home ” orders flatten the curve and the spread seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then ?
Do we try to stop anyone from coming into the state until the vaccine is deployed ?
Even if that were possible ( spoiler alert : it ’ s not ) , it only takes one superspreader with no visible symptoms to show up at a store , apartment complex or any crowded area and we ’ d be right back where we are now .
And all of the economic devastation that ’ s currently raining down on us because we ’ ve shut the economy down would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m coming across as something of a downer today , but the scope of this disaster has really started sinking in for me lately .
If we take the best , realistic scenarios being painted by medical experts as gospel , we may keep the total number of deaths down in the tens or hundreds of thousands but wind up in a new great depression .
I certainly hope that ’ s wrong , but if this stretches on well into the summer , it ’ s tough to see how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Be safe out there and take care of each other as best you can .

The state-wide shutdowns have only been in place for a couple of weeks at most, but people are already starting to get understandably jumpy. Even if we assume that the governments, both state and federal, are handling this pandemic in the wisest way possible, when does it all end? When can we declare this emergency to be in our rearview mirror and have our lives return to some semblance of normality? This weekend, the Boston Globe put that question to some experts in epidemiology and the answers aren’t terribly comforting, at least in my opinion.
“That’s one of the hardest questions to answer in epidemiology, and it’s one of the things that everybody is most interested in,” said Samuel Scarpino, an epidemiologist at Northeastern University. “We’re going to have to be very cautious because we don’t want to waste all the sacrifices that we’ve already made.” The first sign that the tide has started to turn, scientists say, will be a decline in new cases over several consecutive weeks, even as testing expands. In Boston, that peak is likely at least a few weeks away, Scarpino said. New coronavirus-related hospitalizations should fall a week or two after the number of new cases declines, in light of the time it takes for the disease to progress. That would indicate that the economically devastating social distancing measures are working. Even then, it will be too soon to fully return to normal, specialists say. Just because there was a peak doesn’t mean it was the peak.
So the rosiest scenario that these epidemiologists see is regional peaks that may … may… pass in “a few weeks,” taking us well into April already. Others are saying months. If the reported numbers of new cases start to drop, that means that the social distancing is “working,” but the relief may be temporary. There could be multiple peaks in the same regions.
In other words, even if you live in an area that has peaked and the restrictions are loosened, as soon as people get out and start going to work and doing other “normal” things, another peak may be on the way the following month. This could turn into a vicious cycle that doesn’t end until a vaccine is widely developed or a reliable cure is found. And that could be well into 2021.
The whole question of whether or not this strategy is “working” is one that’s been under very vocal debate here in New York. Even if the “stay home” orders flatten the curve and the spread seems to have stopped for a time, what then? Do we try to stop anyone from coming into the state until the vaccine is deployed? Even if that were possible (spoiler alert: it’s not), it only takes one superspreader with no visible symptoms to show up at a store, apartment complex or any crowded area and we’d be right back where we are now. And all of the economic devastation that’s currently raining down on us because we’ve shut the economy down would have been basically for nothing.
Sorry if I’m coming across as something of a downer today, but the scope of this disaster has really started sinking in for me lately. If we take the best, realistic scenarios being painted by medical experts as gospel, we may keep the total number of deaths down in the tens or hundreds of thousands but wind up in a new great depression. I certainly hope that’s wrong, but if this stretches on well into the summer, it’s tough to see how the economy just jumps straight back into gear.
Be safe out there and take care of each other as best you can.


hotair--2020-03-23--PM Boris Johnson announces 'stay at home' order for at least the next three weeks

Prime Minister Boris Johnson just announced a new lockdown order for the United Kingdom .
Johnson said people should not be leaving their homes except in a few specific cases : Though huge numbers are complying – and I thank you all – the time has now come for us all to do more .
From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction – you must stay at home .
Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households .
That is why people will only be allowed to leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposes : • shopping for basic necessities , as infrequently as possible ; • one form of exercise a day – for example a run , walk , or cycle – alone or with members of your household ; • any medical need , to provide care or to help a vulnerable person ; and • travelling to and from work , but only where this is absolutely necessary and can not be done from home .
That ’ s all – these are the only reasons you should leave your home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ If your friends ask you to meet , you should say no .
You should not be meeting family members who do not live in your home .
You should not be going shopping except for essentials like food and medicine – and you should do this as little as you can .
And use food delivery services where you can .
If you don ’ t follow the rules , the police will have the powers to enforce them , including through fines and dispersing gatherings .
Johnson took the first step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordered all cafes , bars , restaurants , theaters , gyms and nightclubs to close for business .
But as recently as this morning , some were posting photos of London Underground trains packed with people : Parks were also full of people carrying on as usual this weekend : Clearly , not everyone was staying home .
Scenes like this may have helped to prompt today ’ s order which will shutter all non-essential businesses .
The government has issued two pages of specific guidance which you can read here .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a callback to that great Boris Johnson Brexit video : Interestingly , there is some unease among police about being asked to break up groups of people who are not abiding by the lockdown order : It is seen as anathema to the British model of policing by consent , and officers being citizens in uniform : “ There is absolute reluctance , ” said one source .
“ It ’ s a total change of policing style.
” Officers will hope to use “ persuasion ” to convince those not complying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With police forces expected to be stretched as officers go sick or have to self isolate , chiefs do not want to have to devote massive resources to enforcing the lockdown – and may not have them .
Ken Marsh , chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation , is begging the public to go along with this : It ’ s interesting that in the UK you see a lot of people following the guidance and staying home but once again the people who are out exercising or just soaking up the sun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exempt .
I suspect there ’ s some “ moral licensing ” going on here which also partly explains why San Francisco ’ s Embarcadero was crowded with joggers and people exercising during their lockdown and perhaps it partly explains why Florida ’ s beaches were crowded with fit young people as well .
The idea of moral licensing is that people give themselves a pass based upon their own self-conception or identity .
So if you see yourself as healthy and fit you are more likely to give yourself a pass on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging in otherwise health behavior like jogging .
That ’ s why Johnson has to limit exercise outings to once per day in this announcement .
Jogging does not make you immune .
I guess we ’ ll find out by tomorrow morning whether this is taken any more seriously .

Prime Minister Boris Johnson just announced a new lockdown order for the United Kingdom. Johnson said people should not be leaving their homes except in a few specific cases:
Though huge numbers are complying – and I thank you all – the time has now come for us all to do more. From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction – you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households. That is why people will only be allowed to leave their home for the following very limited purposes: shopping for basic necessities, as infrequently as possible;
one form of exercise a day – for example a run, walk, or cycle – alone or with members of your household;
any medical need, to provide care or to help a vulnerable person; and
travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home. That’s all – these are the only reasons you should leave your home. You should not be meeting friends. If your friends ask you to meet, you should say no. You should not be meeting family members who do not live in your home. You should not be going shopping except for essentials like food and medicine – and you should do this as little as you can. And use food delivery services where you can. If you don’t follow the rules, the police will have the powers to enforce them, including through fines and dispersing gatherings.
Johnson took the first step toward a lockdown last Friday when he ordered all cafes, bars, restaurants, theaters, gyms and nightclubs to close for business. But as recently as this morning, some were posting photos of London Underground trains packed with people:
London’s central line at 0700 THIS MORNING 🤷🏻♂ via @sgfmann Business as usual? This is everyone’s failure, governments, TfL and every numpty who doesn’t need to be on that train WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT LISTENING? pic.twitter.com/DWcSl5t7dZ — Darren McCaffrey (@DarrenEuronews) March 23, 2020
Social distancing in action on the London Underground… I’ve had to let two trains go this morning because they were so packed pic.twitter.com/MYJJQBdK5G — Alfie Tobutt (@AlfieTobutt) March 23, 2020
Parks were also full of people carrying on as usual this weekend:
East London’s swarming, Parks&markets,canal from window(metre wide)packed for 2nd day.800 people died in Italy yest. SELFISH UK esp young not doing their part.Close ALL non essential businesses.Curfew,lockdown,fines @GOVUK @BorisJohnson @wto @UKLabour ENFORCE IT #CoronaCrisisuk pic.twitter.com/RWZ9TCVifY — Tom (@tcrandrews) March 22, 2020
Clearly, not everyone was staying home. Scenes like this may have helped to prompt today’s order which will shutter all non-essential businesses. The government has issued two pages of specific guidance which you can read here. One person summed up today’s announcement with a callback to that great Boris Johnson Brexit video:
Interestingly, there is some unease among police about being asked to break up groups of people who are not abiding by the lockdown order:
It is seen as anathema to the British model of policing by consent, and officers being citizens in uniform: “There is absolute reluctance,” said one source. “It’s a total change of policing style.” Officers will hope to use “persuasion” to convince those not complying, and want to avoid flashpoints. With police forces expected to be stretched as officers go sick or have to self isolate, chiefs do not want to have to devote massive resources to enforcing the lockdown – and may not have them.
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, is begging the public to go along with this:
One thing I would say straight off the bat to the public is: ‘Please, please, you’ve got to come with us on this one, you’ve got to help with this, otherwise it’s going to get really, really impossible’…
It’s interesting that in the UK you see a lot of people following the guidance and staying home but once again the people who are out exercising or just soaking up the sun in the park seem to feel themselves exempt. I suspect there’s some “moral licensing” going on here which also partly explains why San Francisco’s Embarcadero was crowded with joggers and people exercising during their lockdown and perhaps it partly explains why Florida’s beaches were crowded with fit young people as well. The idea of moral licensing is that people give themselves a pass based upon their own self-conception or identity. So if you see yourself as healthy and fit you are more likely to give yourself a pass on the lockdown, especially if you are engaging in otherwise health behavior like jogging. That’s why Johnson has to limit exercise outings to once per day in this announcement. Jogging does not make you immune.
I guess we’ll find out by tomorrow morning whether this is taken any more seriously.


hotair--2020-03-23--Has China begun walking back its COVID-19 propaganda?

Either Beijing has begun to reconsider its attempts to blame the US for the coronavirus outbreak , its foreign ministry might have an internal war on its hands , or they ’ re getting nervous enough to try to play games .
Its official spokesman Zhao Lijian continues to insist on Twitter and elsewhere that the US may have originated COVID-19 , such as in this tweet from over the weekend : A little over a week earlier , Zhao had argued that not only had it been in the US first but that the American military had spread it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Donald Trump , but also the semi-official state media outlet South China Morning Post : Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian took to Twitter on Friday to double down on an unproven claim that the US military brought the new coronavirus to the central city of Wuhan , where the outbreak began .
Zhao urged his more than 287,000 followers in two tweets on Friday morning to widely share an allegation from a Canada-based conspiracy website that the coronavirus – which has become a global pandemic – originated in the US rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought to be its source .
“ This is so astonishing that it changed many things I used to believe in , ” he wrote on his official account .
The allegation was apparently linked to the US Army ’ s participation in the international Military World Games held in Wuhan in October , which drew competitors from more than 100 countries .
Although the SCMP report treated Zhao ’ s claims with a disapproving dollop of skepticism , the Chinese government seemed content with allowing Zhao to conduct pushback on its behalf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case until last night , when its ambassador to the US took a public swipe at Zhao for peddling his “ crazy ” theories .
Cui Tiankai told Axios on HBO ’ s Jonathan Swan that the accusations were “ very harmful , ” and outside Zhao ’ s purview in any case : The differences spilled into public view Monday after China ’ s ambassador to the U.S. reaffirmed his opposition to promoting theories that the virus that causes Covid-19 originated in an American military lab .
Ambassador Cui Tiankai said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that he stood by his Feb. 9 statement that it would be “ crazy ” to spread such theories , even though a foreign ministry spokesman has repeatedly floated the idea on Twitter in recent weeks .
“ Such speculation will help nobody .
It ’ s very harmful , ” Cui told Axios .
“ Eventually , we must have an answer to where the virus originally came from .
But this is the job for the scientists to do , not for diplomats.
” Cui ’ s comments represent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zhao Lijian , who has publicly questioned whether the virus originated in China and even touted the idea that it may have been introduced by U.S. Army athletes .
Such public differences are rare among Chinese officials who are famous for their ability to stick closely to the Communist Party ’ s official line .
The developments suggest that China ’ s foreign ministry may be having second thoughts about taking a more confrontational approach toward President Donald Trump .
The foreign ministry later Monday posted a Chinese-language transcript of Cui ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Geng Shuang , told reporters “ the virus should not be linked to a specific country or region to avoid stigmatization.
” The question now is — which one ’ s the CCP official line ?
They seemed pretty sanguine about letting Zhao pass around his theories of the coronavirus ; Zhao ’ s retweeting his earlier tweet today , in fact .
On the other hand , SCMP amplified Cui ’ s take and called it an “ oblique rebuke of fellow Chinese diplomats ” in today ’ s edition : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Chinese diplomats who spread unproven claims that the US may have been responsible for starting the global pandemic .
Cui made the comment after Zhao , the most active tweeter in the Chinese government , triggered an uproar by saying on Twitter that the US military may have brought the coronavirus to China .
Several other Chinese diplomats , including the Chinese ambassadors to South Africa and Egypt , have retweeted Zhao ’ s posts suggesting the virus had an American origin .
… It is rare for Chinese diplomats to openly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cui ’ s remarks suggested that Zhao ’ s aggressive tweets may have prompted criticism within China ’ s diplomacy team .
“ Cui is China ’ s US ambassador , and his interest is in ensuring stable bilateral relations , ” Adam Ni , diplomacy analyst and director at the Australia-based China Policy Centre , said .
Cui ’ s comments are not all that “ oblique , ” which is itself notable for a country in which subtlety is a diplomatic art form .
It suggests not just disapproval , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in Beijing .
Or — and this seems more likely — a decision by Xi Jinping to play good cop/bad cop with the US , allowing some deniability to its propaganda campaign .
Cui has a higher rank in the foreign ministry than Zhao , which makes his voice more official , but it ’ s tough to ignore that Beijing still has Zhao in position as its official diplomatic representative .
It ’ s the equivalent of speaking out of both sides of one ’ s mouth .
It does also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s risking its standing with this propaganda campaign .
They should know by now that Trump won ’ t simply stop punching back , but will likely escalate the rhetoric and increase pressure in the US to curtail business with China in the future .
That will happen with or without a propaganda war , but this isn ’ t helping to improve China ’ s longer-rang economic access .
Maybe they ’ re realizing that now , or at least perhaps Cui is .

Either Beijing has begun to reconsider its attempts to blame the US for the coronavirus outbreak, its foreign ministry might have an internal war on its hands, or they’re getting nervous enough to try to play games. Its official spokesman Zhao Lijian continues to insist on Twitter and elsewhere that the US may have originated COVID-19, such as in this tweet from over the weekend:
US CDC admitted some #COVID19 patients were misdiagnosed as flu during 2019 flu season. 34 million infected & 20000 died. If #COVID19 began last September, & US has been lack of testing ability, how many would have been infected? US should find out when patient zero appeared. — Lijian Zhao 赵立坚 (@zlj517) March 22, 2020
A little over a week earlier, Zhao had argued that not only had it been in the US first but that the American military had spread it into China. That drew the attention of Donald Trump, but also the semi-official state media outlet South China Morning Post:
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian took to Twitter on Friday to double down on an unproven claim that the US military brought the new coronavirus to the central city of Wuhan, where the outbreak began. Zhao urged his more than 287,000 followers in two tweets on Friday morning to widely share an allegation from a Canada-based conspiracy website that the coronavirus – which has become a global pandemic – originated in the US rather than the Wuhan seafood market that is thought to be its source. “This is so astonishing that it changed many things I used to believe in,” he wrote on his official account. The allegation was apparently linked to the US Army’s participation in the international Military World Games held in Wuhan in October, which drew competitors from more than 100 countries.
Although the SCMP report treated Zhao’s claims with a disapproving dollop of skepticism, the Chinese government seemed content with allowing Zhao to conduct pushback on its behalf. At least, that was the case until last night, when its ambassador to the US took a public swipe at Zhao for peddling his “crazy” theories. Cui Tiankai told Axios on HBO’s Jonathan Swan that the accusations were “very harmful,” and outside Zhao’s purview in any case:
The differences spilled into public view Monday after China’s ambassador to the U.S. reaffirmed his opposition to promoting theories that the virus that causes Covid-19 originated in an American military lab. Ambassador Cui Tiankai said in an interview with “Axios on HBO” that he stood by his Feb. 9 statement that it would be “crazy” to spread such theories, even though a foreign ministry spokesman has repeatedly floated the idea on Twitter in recent weeks. “Such speculation will help nobody. It’s very harmful,” Cui told Axios. “Eventually, we must have an answer to where the virus originally came from. But this is the job for the scientists to do, not for diplomats.” Cui’s comments represent a sharp public rebuke to foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, who has publicly questioned whether the virus originated in China and even touted the idea that it may have been introduced by U.S. Army athletes. Such public differences are rare among Chinese officials who are famous for their ability to stick closely to the Communist Party’s official line. The developments suggest that China’s foreign ministry may be having second thoughts about taking a more confrontational approach toward President Donald Trump. The foreign ministry later Monday posted a Chinese-language transcript of Cui’s remarks on its website and another spokesman, Geng Shuang, told reporters “the virus should not be linked to a specific country or region to avoid stigmatization.”
The question now is — which one’s the CCP official line? They seemed pretty sanguine about letting Zhao pass around his theories of the coronavirus; Zhao’s retweeting his earlier tweet today, in fact. On the other hand, SCMP amplified Cui’s take and called it an “oblique rebuke of fellow Chinese diplomats” in today’s edition:
The comments represent an oblique rebuke of fellow Chinese diplomats who spread unproven claims that the US may have been responsible for starting the global pandemic. Cui made the comment after Zhao, the most active tweeter in the Chinese government, triggered an uproar by saying on Twitter that the US military may have brought the coronavirus to China. Several other Chinese diplomats, including the Chinese ambassadors to South Africa and Egypt, have retweeted Zhao’s posts suggesting the virus had an American origin. … It is rare for Chinese diplomats to openly disagree with each other. Analysts said Cui’s remarks suggested that Zhao’s aggressive tweets may have prompted criticism within China’s diplomacy team. “Cui is China’s US ambassador, and his interest is in ensuring stable bilateral relations,” Adam Ni, diplomacy analyst and director at the Australia-based China Policy Centre, said.
Cui’s comments are not all that “oblique,” which is itself notable for a country in which subtlety is a diplomatic art form. It suggests not just disapproval, but an outright split within the diplomatic corps and in Beijing. Or — and this seems more likely — a decision by Xi Jinping to play good cop/bad cop with the US, allowing some deniability to its propaganda campaign. Cui has a higher rank in the foreign ministry than Zhao, which makes his voice more official, but it’s tough to ignore that Beijing still has Zhao in position as its official diplomatic representative. It’s the equivalent of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth.
It does also suggest that Beijing recognizes that it’s risking its standing with this propaganda campaign. They should know by now that Trump won’t simply stop punching back, but will likely escalate the rhetoric and increase pressure in the US to curtail business with China in the future. That will happen with or without a propaganda war, but this isn’t helping to improve China’s longer-rang economic access. Maybe they’re realizing that now, or at least perhaps Cui is.


hotair--2020-03-23--Fauci, doctors warn Trump: It's too soon to reopen for business

A sequel to this post from earlier this afternoon .
One way to approach the question of “ Should we reopen next week ?
” is to rephrase it this way : If we ’ re going to reopen after two weeks , why did we shut down at all ?
You might say , “ Well , we slowed it down a bit.
” Right — temporarily , for two weeks , with little change in U.S. capabilities between the start of the shutdown and the end apart from a modest increase in daily testing .
We forced millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
If we ’ re going to tell Americans to go to work and assume the risk of infection , we shouldn ’ t have shut down at all .
Let ’ em keep earning those paychecks until everyone at their business is sick and/or dead and the business collapses because it can ’ t be staffed anymore .
Plus , if we hadn ’ t bothered shutting down , we wouldn ’ t need to worry right now about that $ 2 trillion relief package that Congress is debating .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first payment in a series to come , to support Americans while they ’ re being asked to stay home for a month or more while testing capacity improves and masks hopefully become more widely available .
The feds would keep taxpayers going with checks plus relief for businesses while a strategy is developed to gradually reopen parts of the country .
Areas with low rates of infection will go first , with frequent testing and contact tracing there , then areas with higher rates of infection will open up .
Does Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place for next week ?
Does he have any reason to believe testing will be ready by then in the capacity we need ?
That masks will be available ?
Or is the plan just to send people out there to take their chances — in which case , again , why did we shut down at all ?
If he follows through with this , literally every doctor in the country next week will be shouting “ BAD IDEA BAD IDEA BAD IDEA ” into any microphone put in front of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around him right now : Fauci , a member of the president ’ s coronavirus task force , and other leading public health experts have told administration officials and Republican lawmakers that prematurely scaling back social distancing measures would hamper efforts to contain the virus and devastate U.S. hospitals , according to the people with knowledge of the conversations who , like others , spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private deliberations .
More than 30,000 people in the United States have tested positive for coronavirus , a number expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and potentially overwhelm America ’ s health care infrastructure… Public health experts are strongly warning against the idea of loosening social distancing measures .
Marc Lipsitch , professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health and director of Harvard ’ s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics , said “ every well-informed infectious epidemiolist I know of ” believes the United States should be tightening the restrictions .
“ We haven ’ t yet even seen signs that the growth is slowing , much less reversing .
Now is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could transmit the virus , not loosen them , ” Lipsitch said .
“ If we let up now we can be virtually certain that health care will be overwhelmed in many if not all parts of the country .
This is the view of every well-informed infectious epidemiologist I know of.
” Supposedly the administration is looking at options “ such as whether people can go back to work if they are able to avoid public transportation , or if they can go back to work if they are not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age will play into it too , with older people asked to stay home .
Although there ’ ll still be plenty of people at the hospital in that case .
Here ’ s another question related to “ Should we reopen next week ?
” : If we do , how resolute will Trump be in sticking to *that* plan once the media is filled with apocalyptic reports about the scenes in U.S. hospitals ?
We ’ re destined to hear about some apocalyptic scenes in New York City soon either way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that he and Andrew Cuomo have done everything they can think of to limit the damage .
The president called for widespread social distancing ; he and Steve Mnuchin are onboard with a massive fiscal relief package .
He ’ s doing what he can , however belatedly , to put out this fire as it starts to burn .
What happens once the policy changes , though , and he decides to risk letting it burn in the name of sending people back to work early ?
Media will be littered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relaxed our measures way too soon .
Lots of Americans will soon have firsthand experience with loved ones dying .
The economy will tank anyway as deaths begin to thin out the labor force .
Imagine , say , a week of coverage like that next month .
Or , if you want something less apocalyptic , imagine that the White House encourages only those states where the infection rate is currently low to go ahead and reopen for business — again , against the advice of every epidemiologist in America .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infection rates there explode and suddenly local ERs are overwhelmed .
Trump will be blamed .
What does he do then ?
Does he … reverse the “ reopened for business ” policy and go back to condoning shutdowns ?
If so , how long will it be before he ’ s complaining about an economic slowdown in those states and starts thinking about reopening them for business again ?
That is , when does this cycle of him underreacting , then supposedly “ overreacting , ” then underreacting etc end ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( as in most things ) are mainly a function of “ What can I do at this particular moment to minimize my own blame for what ’ s happening ?
” In February the answer was happy talk about the threat from the virus and the health of the economy .
He didn ’ t want to risk tanking the Dow by leveling with people ; he spent too much energy over the past three years taking credit for the rising stock market to risk spooking it .
Then the calculus changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreading and it was serious , so suddenly he took it seriously and begin ordering shutdowns to limit the disease ’ s spread , which was both the responsible and the blame-minimizing thing to do .
But now the shutdown is causing economic devastation and he knows who ’ s likely to bear some blame for that in November .
So rather than stick to the responsible course of action and try to ease the economic pain with federal relief , he ’ s suddenly scrambling to limit his blame for the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so I say again : What happens if people go back to work next week and infections explode while doctors howl that Trump moved way , way too soon ?
Whom do you think the public will blame for the mass deaths that result ?
And what will Trump do once that becomes clear to him ?
The wrinkle in his “ let ’ s go back to work ” push is that lots of people won ’ t comply .
His base may take their cues from him on all things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be watching figures like Fauci and Scott Gottlieb for their cues on when it ’ s safe to go out again .
That ’ ll slow growth .
Some governors will also find themselves in a terrible dilemma over whether to contradict the presidential signals on whether it ’ s safe to reopen .
It may be easy for someone like Gavin Newsom , whose home state is solidly blue , to defy Trump and keep California locked down .
But Republicans like Mike DeWine who grasp the threat may insist on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be truly stuck , torn between MAGA fans who want things reopened because Trump says things are more or less cool now and doctors who are screaming at him that it ’ ll be a cataclysm for the elderly to have people out and about spreading infection .
What if most governors just ignore Trump and maintain the lockdowns in the name of public health ?
If they do , what will Congress say when it comes time for a new fiscal relief package for residents of states where the shutdowns persist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grumbling online about Anthony Fauci today that he ’ s being set up as the fall guy in MAGAworld for the protracted economic pain .
Fauci didn ’ t help himself by giving an interview recently in which he dared to suggest that our president often says things that are “ unhelpful ” ( “ I can ’ t jump in front of the microphone and push him down ” ) .
But before we blame this week ’ s unemployment numbers on him , let ’ s please note that there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts that aggressive social distancing is the right move — including Trump ’ s own former head advisor on pandemics : I continue not to understand what the “ let ’ s get back to work ” people imagine will happen to the economy if Trump starts relaxing restrictions next week .
There ’ ll be an initial surge on Wall Street , hiring will restart , and then … what ?
What happens to the Dow and to GDP as the illness spreads and starts taking people out ?
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work ” solution when millions are too sick to physically go back to the job ?
And I don ’ t just mean office workers .
I mean cops .
But yeah , of course we can ’ t stay in a deep freeze forever .
That ’ s why boosting detection in the form of more testing , urgently , is so important .
Exit quotation from this depressing Times piece : “ If it were possible to wave a magic wand and make all Americans freeze in place for 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiologists say , the whole epidemic would sputter to a halt.
” Good luck with that .

A sequel to this post from earlier this afternoon. One way to approach the question of “Should we reopen next week?” is to rephrase it this way:
If we’re going to reopen after two weeks, why did we shut down at all?
You might say, “Well, we slowed it down a bit.” Right — temporarily, for two weeks, with little change in U.S. capabilities between the start of the shutdown and the end apart from a modest increase in daily testing.
We forced millions of people to lose their jobs for that? If we’re going to tell Americans to go to work and assume the risk of infection, we shouldn’t have shut down at all. Let ’em keep earning those paychecks until everyone at their business is sick and/or dead and the business collapses because it can’t be staffed anymore.
Plus, if we hadn’t bothered shutting down, we wouldn’t need to worry right now about that $2 trillion relief package that Congress is debating. I thought that was going to be the first payment in a series to come, to support Americans while they’re being asked to stay home for a month or more while testing capacity improves and masks hopefully become more widely available. The feds would keep taxpayers going with checks plus relief for businesses while a strategy is developed to gradually reopen parts of the country. Areas with low rates of infection will go first, with frequent testing and contact tracing there, then areas with higher rates of infection will open up.
Does Trump have a strategy like that already in place for next week? Does he have any reason to believe testing will be ready by then in the capacity we need? That masks will be available? Or is the plan just to send people out there to take their chances — in which case, again, why did we shut down at all?
If he follows through with this, literally every doctor in the country next week will be shouting “BAD IDEA BAD IDEA BAD IDEA” into any microphone put in front of them. Starting with the doctors who are around him right now:
Fauci, a member of the president’s coronavirus task force, and other leading public health experts have told administration officials and Republican lawmakers that prematurely scaling back social distancing measures would hamper efforts to contain the virus and devastate U.S. hospitals, according to the people with knowledge of the conversations who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private deliberations. More than 30,000 people in the United States have tested positive for coronavirus, a number expected to dramatically increase in the coming days and potentially overwhelm America’s health care infrastructure… Public health experts are strongly warning against the idea of loosening social distancing measures. Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and director of Harvard’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, said “every well-informed infectious epidemiolist I know of” believes the United States should be tightening the restrictions. “We haven’t yet even seen signs that the growth is slowing, much less reversing. Now is the time to tighten restrictions on contacts that could transmit the virus, not loosen them,” Lipsitch said. “If we let up now we can be virtually certain that health care will be overwhelmed in many if not all parts of the country. This is the view of every well-informed infectious epidemiologist I know of.”
Supposedly the administration is looking at options “such as whether people can go back to work if they are able to avoid public transportation, or if they can go back to work if they are not in areas with high infection rates.” Maybe age will play into it too, with older people asked to stay home. Although there’ll still be plenty of people at the hospital in that case.
Here’s another question related to “Should we reopen next week?”: If we do, how resolute will Trump be in sticking to *that* plan once the media is filled with apocalyptic reports about the scenes in U.S. hospitals? We’re destined to hear about some apocalyptic scenes in New York City soon either way but Trump can respond to those by saying that he and Andrew Cuomo have done everything they can think of to limit the damage. The president called for widespread social distancing; he and Steve Mnuchin are onboard with a massive fiscal relief package. He’s doing what he can, however belatedly, to put out this fire as it starts to burn. What happens once the policy changes, though, and he decides to risk letting it burn in the name of sending people back to work early? Media will be littered with comments from epidemiologists warning that we relaxed our measures way too soon. Lots of Americans will soon have firsthand experience with loved ones dying. The economy will tank anyway as deaths begin to thin out the labor force.
Imagine, say, a week of coverage like that next month. Or, if you want something less apocalyptic, imagine that the White House encourages only those states where the infection rate is currently low to go ahead and reopen for business — again, against the advice of every epidemiologist in America. Then, within three weeks or whatever, the infection rates there explode and suddenly local ERs are overwhelmed. Trump will be blamed. What does he do then? Does he … reverse the “reopened for business” policy and go back to condoning shutdowns? If so, how long will it be before he’s complaining about an economic slowdown in those states and starts thinking about reopening them for business again?
That is, when does this cycle of him underreacting, then supposedly “overreacting,” then underreacting etc end? I think his actions to this point (as in most things) are mainly a function of “What can I do at this particular moment to minimize my own blame for what’s happening?” In February the answer was happy talk about the threat from the virus and the health of the economy. He didn’t want to risk tanking the Dow by leveling with people; he spent too much energy over the past three years taking credit for the rising stock market to risk spooking it. Then the calculus changed: Coronavirus was here and it was spreading and it was serious, so suddenly he took it seriously and begin ordering shutdowns to limit the disease’s spread, which was both the responsible and the blame-minimizing thing to do. But now the shutdown is causing economic devastation and he knows who’s likely to bear some blame for that in November. So rather than stick to the responsible course of action and try to ease the economic pain with federal relief, he’s suddenly scrambling to limit his blame for the coming recession by reopening businesses too early.
And so I say again: What happens if people go back to work next week and infections explode while doctors howl that Trump moved way, way too soon? Whom do you think the public will blame for the mass deaths that result? And what will Trump do once that becomes clear to him?
The wrinkle in his “let’s go back to work” push is that lots of people won’t comply. His base may take their cues from him on all things, including epidemiology, but everyone else will be watching figures like Fauci and Scott Gottlieb for their cues on when it’s safe to go out again. That’ll slow growth. Some governors will also find themselves in a terrible dilemma over whether to contradict the presidential signals on whether it’s safe to reopen. It may be easy for someone like Gavin Newsom, whose home state is solidly blue, to defy Trump and keep California locked down. But Republicans like Mike DeWine who grasp the threat may insist on a prolonged shutdown. And Ron DeSantis might be truly stuck, torn between MAGA fans who want things reopened because Trump says things are more or less cool now and doctors who are screaming at him that it’ll be a cataclysm for the elderly to have people out and about spreading infection.
What if most governors just ignore Trump and maintain the lockdowns in the name of public health? If they do, what will Congress say when it comes time for a new fiscal relief package for residents of states where the shutdowns persist?
I sense from some of the grumbling online about Anthony Fauci today that he’s being set up as the fall guy in MAGAworld for the protracted economic pain. Fauci didn’t help himself by giving an interview recently in which he dared to suggest that our president often says things that are “unhelpful” (“I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down”). But before we blame this week’s unemployment numbers on him, let’s please note that there’s virtual unanimity among doctors and other experts that aggressive social distancing is the right move — including Trump’s own former head advisor on pandemics:
The strategy was developed carefully in 2005-2007. It considered economic and social costs and contemplated a targeted, layered mitigation approach that would be implemented in a staggered fashion where and when needed. That was the initial conception, and it remains sound. — Thomas P. Bossert (@TomBossert) March 23, 2020
Accepting an unmitigated spread was not a credible or even practical option. — Thomas P. Bossert (@TomBossert) March 23, 2020
In hot spots, the containment effort ahead will require different testing, isolation, and quarantine standards in highly seeded areas. The deescalation and slow return effort will require serious contact tracing, testing capacity, and ideally a serological blood test. — Thomas P. Bossert (@TomBossert) March 23, 2020
That said, this is a balance. We must release the clamp on our economy, objectively speaking. The trick will be doing it carefully and in different degrees depending on the locality. — Thomas P. Bossert (@TomBossert) March 23, 2020
I continue not to understand what the “let’s get back to work” people imagine will happen to the economy if Trump starts relaxing restrictions next week. There’ll be an initial surge on Wall Street, hiring will restart, and then … what? What happens to the Dow and to GDP as the illness spreads and starts taking people out? What’s the “let’s get back to work” solution when millions are too sick to physically go back to the job? And I don’t just mean office workers. I mean cops.
But yeah, of course we can’t stay in a deep freeze forever. That’s why boosting detection in the form of more testing, urgently, is so important. Exit quotation from this depressing Times piece: “If it were possible to wave a magic wand and make all Americans freeze in place for 14 days while sitting six feet apart, epidemiologists say, the whole epidemic would sputter to a halt.” Good luck with that.