hotair--2020-04-21--NY Times: The global coronavirus death toll is 25,000 higher than reported (Update)

Actually , the 28,000 figure ( see update ) is based on data from just 11 countries so the actual global figure must be much higher .
The idea here is the same thing I wrote about several weeks ago with regard to Italy .
Many countries reporting coronavirus deaths are primarily relying on numbers gathered from hospitals .
Those who die at home without a test for the virus aren ’ t being counted in many cases .
But you can judge how many deaths there are by comparing the current numbers with historical averages .
When you do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more unattributed deaths than normal this spring : In the last month , far more people died in these countries than in previous years , The New York Times found .
The totals include deaths from Covid-19 as well as those from other causes , likely including people who could not be treated as hospitals became overwhelmed .
These numbers undermine the notion that many people who have died from the virus may soon have died anyway .
In Paris , more than twice the usual number of people have died each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a bad flu season .
In New York City , the number is now four times the normal amount .
Of course , mortality data in the middle of a pandemic is not perfect .
The disparities between the official death counts and the total rise in deaths most likely reflect limited testing for the virus , rather than intentional undercounting .
Officially , about 165,000 people have died worldwide of the coronavirus as of Tuesday .
But the total death numbers offer a more complete portrait of the pandemic , experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only those Covid-19 deaths that occur in hospitals .
Notice that the dates for each of these estimates vary .
Some are for March and some continue as recently as April 18 .
So the reported deaths won ’ t match the current number in any case .
For instance the official number of deaths in the Netherlands is 3,916 as of today , April 21 .
The article also includes graphs for each individual country .
Here ’ s the one for Spain : The Times doesn ’ t explain why it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the answer appears to be the availability of data .
Most countries don ’ t publish total death figures in a timely manner but that is changing because of the virus .
Of course what I ’ d like to see is this kind of estimate for China .
But even if you could get the historical data for comparison , China seemed to be doing its best to keep quiet the number of deaths from all causes in Wuhan .
At some point , maybe several months from now , we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more accurate picture of the global death toll .
It will be interesting to see if the death toll in countries like China , Iran and Russia wind up appearing miraculous compared to the rest of the world .
Update : The NY Times has issued a correction on this story which reads , “ An earlier version of a chart with this article misstated the average historical number of deaths in France during the first week of April .
It is about 12,000 , not 9,400.
” As a result , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 25,000 deaths .
I changed the headline to reflect that .

Actually, the 28,000 figure (see update) is based on data from just 11 countries so the actual global figure must be much higher. The idea here is the same thing I wrote about several weeks ago with regard to Italy. Many countries reporting coronavirus deaths are primarily relying on numbers gathered from hospitals. Those who die at home without a test for the virus aren’t being counted in many cases. But you can judge how many deaths there are by comparing the current numbers with historical averages. When you do, you find that there are a lot more unattributed deaths than normal this spring:
In the last month, far more people died in these countries than in previous years, The New York Times found. The totals include deaths from Covid-19 as well as those from other causes, likely including people who could not be treated as hospitals became overwhelmed. These numbers undermine the notion that many people who have died from the virus may soon have died anyway. In Paris, more than twice the usual number of people have died each day, far more than the peak of a bad flu season. In New York City, the number is now four times the normal amount. Of course, mortality data in the middle of a pandemic is not perfect. The disparities between the official death counts and the total rise in deaths most likely reflect limited testing for the virus, rather than intentional undercounting. Officially, about 165,000 people have died worldwide of the coronavirus as of Tuesday. But the total death numbers offer a more complete portrait of the pandemic, experts say, especially because most countries report only those Covid-19 deaths that occur in hospitals.
Notice that the dates for each of these estimates vary. Some are for March and some continue as recently as April 18. So the reported deaths won’t match the current number in any case. For instance the official number of deaths in the Netherlands is 3,916 as of today, April 21.
The article also includes graphs for each individual country. Here’s the one for Spain:
The Times doesn’t explain why it selected the particular countries it did but the answer appears to be the availability of data. Most countries don’t publish total death figures in a timely manner but that is changing because of the virus.
Of course what I’d like to see is this kind of estimate for China. But even if you could get the historical data for comparison, China seemed to be doing its best to keep quiet the number of deaths from all causes in Wuhan.
At some point, maybe several months from now, we should have enough data to put together a more accurate picture of the global death toll. It will be interesting to see if the death toll in countries like China, Iran and Russia wind up appearing miraculous compared to the rest of the world.
Update: The NY Times has issued a correction on this story which reads, “An earlier version of a chart with this article misstated the average historical number of deaths in France during the first week of April. It is about 12,000, not 9,400.” As a result, the figure in the story has been changed to 25,000 deaths. I changed the headline to reflect that.


hotair--2020-04-21--Politico: House GOP to "declare war on recess," demand Pelosi recall Congress; <span class='red'>Upd

Politico: House GOP to "declare war on recess," demand Pelosi recall Congress; Update: Hoyer announces House members recalled to DC; Update: Let's get back to work, McCarthy says

How about reopening Congress while reopening the rest of America ?
Tired of getting sidelined in a chamber where they have little leverage in the first place , a handful of House Republicans plan to protest the Brave Sir Robin Recess in Congress this week , Politico reports .
The anger over a lack of access to legislative decisions began rising last week as money ran out of the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) and is building up to a confrontation this week : Republicans have been calling to reopen the economy — and now , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of House Republicans traveled back to D.C. early and are planning to seek recognition on the floor during today ’ s pro forma session .
Their mission : they want to ask about “ the status of the House reopening , ” Rep. Brian Mast ( R-Fla. ) tells your Huddle host , while also drawing attention to Democratic leadership ’ s decision to keep lawmakers away from the Capitol while small business aid has stalled .
The backstory : Last week , Mast started venting his frustrations about being stuck on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his GOP colleagues to return to Washington early this week in protest of the extended recess .
Mast pitched the idea to GOP leadership , who held a conference call over the weekend with other top lawmakers to discuss whether — and how — they should be involved .
( One member raised concern it would look like a “ ragtag ” effort , according to a source familiar with the comments , but Mast said the push “ absolutely ” has the backing of GOP leadership . )
Mast acknowledges that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacting Pelosi on restarting Congress in the short term , since Pelosi ( or whichever Democrat is presiding in today ’ s pro forma session ) can simply refuse to recognize Mast or the other Republicans .
That doesn ’ t make this protest useless , however , especially after Pelosi ’ s unbelievably dumb decision to show off her wealth and status in an appearance on James Corden ’ s streamed show last week .
In a week where jobless claims hit 22 million in a month ’ s time , Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Let them eat ice cream ” indeed .
The House GOP should have been pushing for a couple of weeks for Congress to get back to its work in the middle of a national crisis , but even if this is a bit late , it ’ s still an argument that should be made .
In fact , it should have been made by GOP leadership in both the House and Senate , who have been relatively silent on the recess .
Politico notes that Mast ’ s efforts have leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective to have leadership leading on this point .
The House will return by Thursday anyway to vote on the new deal to replenish PPP , which ran out of funds long before Pelosi ran out of ice cream .
Not only will they consider the deal but also how to conduct business during the pandemic .
Roll Call reports that higher-tech solutions have been discarded in favor of the personal touch : The House is expected to vote as soon as Thursday on a major , but temporary , change to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for proxy voting as travel and large gatherings continue to pose public health risks during the coronavirus pandemic .
Lawmakers are expected to have to return to Washington this week to vote on an update to coronavirus pandemic aid for small businesses , and House leaders plan to use the session to also approve an emergency proxy-voting procedure in response to the health crisis .
The change would allow an absent lawmaker to designate a colleague to vote on House floor matters on their behalf .
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the Senate passes the small-business aid in their Tuesday pro forma session , the House could meet as soon as Thursday at 10 a.m. , when a proxy-voting resolution may be brought for a vote .
Proxy voting would require each member to deputize a colleague in the chamber as their proxy , with specific written instructions on how to vote in each instance .
The letter could come electronically ( fax or e-mail , presumably ) , but it would have to be physically presented at each vote .
Lawmakers discarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader with a blank-check proxy , perhaps a result of watching Pelosi play games with unanimous consent to delay action on PPP and other relief efforts .
Why not just have each member vote remotely via electronic means ?
The House hasn ’ t had time to test that out thoroughly enough , members claim .
Why , it took them three years just to allow electronic voting inside the chamber itself : Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis , the top Republican on the House Administration Committee , told CQ Roll Call in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting procedure should not be made in haste .
“ A change of how Members of Congress vote can not be made overnight , as we saw from the three-year process it took the House to implement the electronic voting system currently used in the House Chamber , ” said Davis , who also serves on the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress .
“ We must first mitigate risks , test the process extensively , and consider the overall integrity of a vote by proxy system.
” It took them three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-house voting system ?
Good Lord .
That would make for an absurd joke about government operations if it weren ’ t true .
Bear in mind , though , that the need for these kinds of systems in the case of emergency has been recognized since the 9/11 attacks almost nineteen years ago .
At least they ’ re taking some action now , even if it ends up being the clunky proxy system that Roll Call describes .
Congress has made itself into a non-essential business in this national emergency and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by their absence .
They should have remained in session all along rather than skedaddle while ordinary Americans paying their salaries put themselves at risk in hospitals , grocery stores , gas stations , and restaurants .
Even if Mast can ’ t get the floor to shame them for going AWOL , the shame remains nonetheless .
And they should stay on the job until the crisis is over , too — just like doctors , nurses , truckers , grocery store clerks , restaurant workers , and so on .
Update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now publicly called for Congress to resume its work , albeit somewhat gently : With the House now in its fourth week of regular session being suspended , I am writing to request that we work to establish a clear , safe , and effective plan for reopening Congress .
In my view , conducting the business of the People ’ s House is the definition of “ essential work ” —just as many of our friends and neighbors continue working to hold up our communities on a daily basis .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance as to how Congress will fulfill its core duties—from deliberation to oversight to legislation—over the coming days and weeks .
Since the onset of this pandemic , Congress has worked expeditiously to undertake the largest relief effort in our country ’ s history .
Nevertheless , I think we can agree that our institution ’ s current posture can not and should not become the norm .
It shouldn ’ t have become a “ norm ” at all .

How about reopening Congress while reopening the rest of America? Tired of getting sidelined in a chamber where they have little leverage in the first place, a handful of House Republicans plan to protest the Brave Sir Robin Recess in Congress this week, Politico reports. The anger over a lack of access to legislative decisions began rising last week as money ran out of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and is building up to a confrontation this week:
Republicans have been calling to reopen the economy — and now, they’re demanding to reopen Congress. A group of House Republicans traveled back to D.C. early and are planning to seek recognition on the floor during today’s pro forma session. Their mission: they want to ask about “the status of the House reopening,” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) tells your Huddle host, while also drawing attention to Democratic leadership’s decision to keep lawmakers away from the Capitol while small business aid has stalled. The backstory: Last week, Mast started venting his frustrations about being stuck on the sidelines during the pandemic and recruited some of his GOP colleagues to return to Washington early this week in protest of the extended recess. Mast pitched the idea to GOP leadership, who held a conference call over the weekend with other top lawmakers to discuss whether — and how — they should be involved. (One member raised concern it would look like a “ragtag” effort, according to a source familiar with the comments, but Mast said the push “absolutely” has the backing of GOP leadership.)
Fellow Florida Republican Rep. Michael Waltz signaled the attack yesterday, Politico notes:
We've known the #PaycheckProtectionProgram was running out of money for over a week. While FL businesses beg for relief, @SpeakerPelosi & Dems comfortably collect their govt paychecks. It's time @SpeakerPelosi stops holding Americans hostage to her will! https://t.co/SPjORBTscd — Rep. Mike Waltz (@michaelgwaltz) April 20, 2020
Mast acknowledges that his rebellion will have little chance of impacting Pelosi on restarting Congress in the short term, since Pelosi (or whichever Democrat is presiding in today’s pro forma session) can simply refuse to recognize Mast or the other Republicans. That doesn’t make this protest useless, however, especially after Pelosi’s unbelievably dumb decision to show off her wealth and status in an appearance on James Corden’s streamed show last week. In a week where jobless claims hit 22 million in a month’s time, Pelosi’s message certainly seemed to be “Let them eat ice cream” indeed.
The House GOP should have been pushing for a couple of weeks for Congress to get back to its work in the middle of a national crisis, but even if this is a bit late, it’s still an argument that should be made. In fact, it should have been made by GOP leadership in both the House and Senate, who have been relatively silent on the recess. Politico notes that Mast’s efforts have leadership backing, but it would be more effective to have leadership leading on this point.
The House will return by Thursday anyway to vote on the new deal to replenish PPP, which ran out of funds long before Pelosi ran out of ice cream. Not only will they consider the deal but also how to conduct business during the pandemic. Roll Call reports that higher-tech solutions have been discarded in favor of the personal touch:
The House is expected to vote as soon as Thursday on a major, but temporary, change to the chamber’s voting rules to allow for proxy voting as travel and large gatherings continue to pose public health risks during the coronavirus pandemic. Lawmakers are expected to have to return to Washington this week to vote on an update to coronavirus pandemic aid for small businesses, and House leaders plan to use the session to also approve an emergency proxy-voting procedure in response to the health crisis. The change would allow an absent lawmaker to designate a colleague to vote on House floor matters on their behalf. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., announced late Monday night that if the Senate passes the small-business aid in their Tuesday pro forma session, the House could meet as soon as Thursday at 10 a.m., when a proxy-voting resolution may be brought for a vote.
Proxy voting would require each member to deputize a colleague in the chamber as their proxy, with specific written instructions on how to vote in each instance. The letter could come electronically (fax or e-mail, presumably), but it would have to be physically presented at each vote. Lawmakers discarded the idea of simply investing their caucus leader with a blank-check proxy, perhaps a result of watching Pelosi play games with unanimous consent to delay action on PPP and other relief efforts.
Why not just have each member vote remotely via electronic means? The House hasn’t had time to test that out thoroughly enough, members claim. Why, it took them three years just to allow electronic voting inside the chamber itself:
Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, the top Republican on the House Administration Committee, told CQ Roll Call in a statement Monday night that the changes to voting procedure should not be made in haste. “A change of how Members of Congress vote cannot be made overnight, as we saw from the three-year process it took the House to implement the electronic voting system currently used in the House Chamber,” said Davis, who also serves on the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress. “We must first mitigate risks, test the process extensively, and consider the overall integrity of a vote by proxy system.”
It took them three years to test and implement the current, in-house voting system? Good Lord. That would make for an absurd joke about government operations if it weren’t true. Bear in mind, though, that the need for these kinds of systems in the case of emergency has been recognized since the 9/11 attacks almost nineteen years ago.
At least they’re taking some action now, even if it ends up being the clunky proxy system that Roll Call describes. Congress has made itself into a non-essential business in this national emergency and has fouled up relief and mitigation efforts by their absence. They should have remained in session all along rather than skedaddle while ordinary Americans paying their salaries put themselves at risk in hospitals, grocery stores, gas stations, and restaurants. Even if Mast can’t get the floor to shame them for going AWOL, the shame remains nonetheless.
Update: Good news:
NEW: House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer says House members have been advised to return to Washington, D.C. for a Thursday vote on the interim coronavirus relief package, and he’s expecting a large number of members to return. https://t.co/EAUp9F16jN — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) April 21, 2020
And they should stay on the job until the crisis is over, too — just like doctors, nurses, truckers, grocery store clerks, restaurant workers, and so on.
Update: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has now publicly called for Congress to resume its work, albeit somewhat gently:
With the House now in its fourth week of regular session being suspended, I am writing to request that we work to establish a clear, safe, and effective plan for reopening Congress. In my view, conducting the business of the People’s House is the definition of “essential work”—just as many of our friends and neighbors continue working to hold up our communities on a daily basis. Unfortunately, members have yet to be given specific guidance as to how Congress will fulfill its core duties—from deliberation to oversight to legislation—over the coming days and weeks. Since the onset of this pandemic, Congress has worked expeditiously to undertake the largest relief effort in our country’s history. Nevertheless, I think we can agree that our institution’s current posture cannot and should not become the norm.
It shouldn’t have become a “norm” at all.


hotair--2020-04-21--Chinese study: Some strains of the virus may be much more dangerous than others

Medical professionals : This is new information , no ?
My layman ’ s understanding was that , until now , scientists believed that the virus ’ s different strains weren ’ t meaningfully different from each other , which is why they were optimistic that a vaccine would have long-lasting effect .
We could vaccinate against the baseline virus and be confident that it would confer immunity against COVID ’ s many distinct mutations .
Now here comes a Chinese study challenging the conventional wisdom .
If you use basic techniques to distinguish one strain from another then yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alike .
But if you use “ ultra-deep ” genome sequencing , you begin to see subtle differences with potentially momentous consequences .
We ’ ve spent weeks spitballing theories for why New York has been hit so much harder than the rest of the country .
It ’ s the density !
Or it ’ s the subway .
Or maybe it ’ s something genetic among the ethnic populations that have suffered most .
But what if it ’ s as simple as New York having been hit by a strain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the strain ( s ) circulating throughout the rest of America ?
Li took an unusual approach to investigate the virus mutation .
She analysed the viral strains isolated from 11 randomly chosen Covid-19 patients from Hangzhou in the eastern province of Zhejiang , and then tested how efficiently they could infect and kill cells .
The deadliest mutations in the Zhejiang patients had also been found in most patients across Europe , while the milder strains were the predominant varieties found in parts of the United States , such as Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found some of these mutations could lead to functional changes in the virus ’ spike protein , a unique structure over the viral envelope enabling the coronavirus to bind with human cells .
Computer simulation predicted that these mutations would increase its infectivity .
To verify the theory , Li and colleagues infected cells with strains carrying different mutations .
The most aggressive strains could generate 270 times as much viral load as the weakest type .
These strains also killed the cells the fastest .
Where did the most common strain in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe .
The region with the most deadly outbreaks in the world , at least if you believe China ’ s numbers .
But that ’ s one implication of this finding .
Even if we believe that China ’ s cooking the books , it ’ s conceivable that the early strain that spread in Wuhan was less deadly than later mutations in other countries .
Which would be ominous , as it would leave us to wonder how much more deadly the virus might get as it continues to mutate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than others would also create some knotty questions in the U.S. about interstate travel .
If all four corners of America are dealing with the same basic disease then limiting travel matters less .
We don ’ t want people from hot spots visiting less affected regions and seeding outbreaks , of course , but hot spots like New York are already cooling off and will hopefully see cases shrink to a minimum in a month or two .
However , if the New York strain is considerably more dangerous than other regional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Yorkers traveling anywhere .
Even if they ’ re no more contagious than people in other regions , they may be carrying something with outsized effects on mortality .
Another implication : Does the Chinese study help explain why tests are so inaccurate ?
Is it possible that some strains of the virus have diverged from each other so much that a diagnostic test targeting one would fail to detect another ?
If you ’ re infected by one strain of the virus , are the antibodies left in your system effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really a variation of the vaccine question posed up top .
There may be a major silver lining to the theory that different strains have wildly different effects , though : Find a strain of the virus that produces few symptoms but triggers enough antibodies to fend off more deadly strains of the disease and you have an effective partial vaccine .
As strange as the thought of “ pox parties ” are for COVID , they ’ d be worth it if you knew that the version of the disease you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downside risk .
Seems like the first step in figuring out if the Chinese study is correct would be to sequence different strains around the country in a basic way and see which ones have higher concentrations of the New York/Europe strain and which don ’ t .
Is the strain more common in areas where deaths and hospitalizations are higher ?
If so , what do we do about isolating those regions — and controlling travel from Europe , since we won ’ t want anyone importing that strain once we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s conceivable that we ’ d have more to fear from travel from NATO countries than we do from China .
One thing that doesn ’ t seem likely , though , is that different strains account for why some people are asymptomatic and others aren ’ t .
You ’ d expect an insular population in which lots of people are infected would be spreading the same strain among themselves , not a variety of different ones , leaving the reason for why some get sick and some don ’ t unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be true that some strains are more or less likely to produce asymptomatic cases , it may not be the case that deadlier European strains are in the “ less likely ” category .
Remember that the study I highlighted last night of a town in Italy , one of the hottest hot spots on Earth , found 43 percent of people who tested positive were asymptomatic .
The question of why so many people don ’ t have symptoms even in areas where the disease is notably deadly remains a @ @

Medical professionals: This is new information, no? My layman’s understanding was that, until now, scientists believed that the virus’s different strains weren’t meaningfully different from each other, which is why they were optimistic that a vaccine would have long-lasting effect. We could vaccinate against the baseline virus and be confident that it would confer immunity against COVID’s many distinct mutations.
Now here comes a Chinese study challenging the conventional wisdom. If you use basic techniques to distinguish one strain from another then yes, they all look more or less alike. But if you use “ultra-deep” genome sequencing, you begin to see subtle differences with potentially momentous consequences.
We’ve spent weeks spitballing theories for why New York has been hit so much harder than the rest of the country. It’s the density! Or it’s the subway. Or maybe it’s something genetic among the ethnic populations that have suffered most. But what if it’s as simple as New York having been hit by a strain of the disease that’s deadlier than the strain(s) circulating throughout the rest of America?
Li took an unusual approach to investigate the virus mutation. She analysed the viral strains isolated from 11 randomly chosen Covid-19 patients from Hangzhou in the eastern province of Zhejiang, and then tested how efficiently they could infect and kill cells. The deadliest mutations in the Zhejiang patients had also been found in most patients across Europe, while the milder strains were the predominant varieties found in parts of the United States, such as Washington state, according to their paper… They found some of these mutations could lead to functional changes in the virus’ spike protein, a unique structure over the viral envelope enabling the coronavirus to bind with human cells. Computer simulation predicted that these mutations would increase its infectivity. To verify the theory, Li and colleagues infected cells with strains carrying different mutations. The most aggressive strains could generate 270 times as much viral load as the weakest type. These strains also killed the cells the fastest.
Where did the most common strain in New York arrive from? Right, Europe. The region with the most deadly outbreaks in the world, at least if you believe China’s numbers.
But that’s one implication of this finding. Even if we believe that China’s cooking the books, it’s conceivable that the early strain that spread in Wuhan was less deadly than later mutations in other countries. Which would be ominous, as it would leave us to wonder how much more deadly the virus might get as it continues to mutate.
Knowing that some regional strains are deadlier than others would also create some knotty questions in the U.S. about interstate travel. If all four corners of America are dealing with the same basic disease then limiting travel matters less. We don’t want people from hot spots visiting less affected regions and seeding outbreaks, of course, but hot spots like New York are already cooling off and will hopefully see cases shrink to a minimum in a month or two. However, if the New York strain is considerably more dangerous than other regional strains then maybe we don’t New Yorkers traveling anywhere. Even if they’re no more contagious than people in other regions, they may be carrying something with outsized effects on mortality.
Another implication: Does the Chinese study help explain why tests are so inaccurate?
My oncologist suggested to me on Saturday that the mutations might be accounting for the ~30% false negatives they are getting. pic.twitter.com/pWKfuVqlkF — @changingourmindset (@changermindset) April 21, 2020
Is it possible that some strains of the virus have diverged from each other so much that a diagnostic test targeting one would fail to detect another?
Another ominous possibility:
On a long enough time horizon, they could perhaps allow for reinfection as well. This is not a short-term problem, but it may be a long-term one given the massive volume of cases at this point. Things change when you give it a million case-years to evolve instead of a thousand. — ice9 (@__ice9) April 21, 2020
If you’re infected by one strain of the virus, are the antibodies left in your system effective against other strains? That’s really a variation of the vaccine question posed up top.
There may be a major silver lining to the theory that different strains have wildly different effects, though:
If this is true, it would be easy to develop an attenuated vaccine for SARS-2 by selecting a strain with low pathogenicity but decent immunogenicity. — PharmaHeretic (@Pharmaheretic) April 20, 2020
Find a strain of the virus that produces few symptoms but triggers enough antibodies to fend off more deadly strains of the disease and you have an effective partial vaccine. As strange as the thought of “pox parties” are for COVID, they’d be worth it if you knew that the version of the disease you were infected with had far more upside than downside risk.
Seems like the first step in figuring out if the Chinese study is correct would be to sequence different strains around the country in a basic way and see which ones have higher concentrations of the New York/Europe strain and which don’t. Is the strain more common in areas where deaths and hospitalizations are higher? If so, what do we do about isolating those regions — and controlling travel from Europe, since we won’t want anyone importing that strain once we’ve contained it here? It’s conceivable that we’d have more to fear from travel from NATO countries than we do from China.
One thing that doesn’t seem likely, though, is that different strains account for why some people are asymptomatic and others aren’t. You’d expect an insular population in which lots of people are infected would be spreading the same strain among themselves, not a variety of different ones, leaving the reason for why some get sick and some don’t unclear. Plus, even if it turns out to be true that some strains are more or less likely to produce asymptomatic cases, it may not be the case that deadlier European strains are in the “less likely” category. Remember that the study I highlighted last night of a town in Italy, one of the hottest hot spots on Earth, found 43 percent of people who tested positive were asymptomatic. The question of why so many people don’t have symptoms even in areas where the disease is notably deadly remains a mystery.


hotair--2020-04-21--Biden faces backlash over anti-Trump ad... from the left

Team Biden debuted an attack ad against President Trump last weekend .
The subject is Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus , specifically his alleged softness toward China .
It must be a shock to Team Biden now , though , since the ad is receiving criticism from fellow Democrats .
Don ’ t you love a good left on left battle ?
It won ’ t last long because Democrats are really nervous over Joe ’ s ability to go the distance and win in November against President Trump but while we can enjoy it , we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the woke left handle criticism felt from their own as a mirror is held up to them .
It turns out that all the pearl-clutching on the left about racism and xenophobia when President Trump closed off air travel from China at the end of January at the suggestion of experts backfired .
As it turns out , that act is probably the single most important one that Trump did to head off what could have been a far worse outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States .
The coronavirus originated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute of that fact .
Team Biden used video clips of Beijing Joe throughout the ad , mostly highlighting his superior ability to predict the coming devastation of the pandemic .
There is no evidence that he would have done anything differently than Trump , but the problem with the ad for the critics is that Sleepy Joe criticizes Trump for not being even more strict in eliminating entrance into the U.S. for Chinese travelers .
The ad specifically references 40,000 Chinese who were allowed into America .
Chinese-Americans and others on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Isn ’ t that racist and xenophobic ?
Biden supporters loved the ad .
Biden really owned Trump , didn ’ t he ?
Trump critics from the center-right loved it , too .
MSNBC ’ s Joe Scarborough tweeted , “ This is the most devastating political ad I ’ ve seen in years.
” Well , it was a bit too clever by half , say others .
First , here is the ad and a typical tweet in favor of it .
Now the response from a critic on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way , is a civil rights lawyer and deputy legal director , National ACLU , so there ’ s that .
A policy person at the Cato Institute said it shows Biden in a hawkish way against China and we know that liberals aren ’ t interested in any of that kind of thing , don ’ t we ?
She apparently prefers going back to the days of the Obama-Biden administration when they were busy decimating U.S. military readiness .
In an e-mail , Emma Ashford , a research fellow in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute , noted that the ad implied a hawkish foreign policy , with Biden promising to stand up to the Chinese government .
Apparently it is more important to her to go back to the days of the Obama-Biden administration ’ s decimating the readiness of the U.S. military .
“ First , I think politically this does Joe Biden no favors , as it effectively buys into Trump ’ s narrative on the virus , ” Ashford informed me .
“ Clearly , they ’ re trying to criticize Trump here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more broadly , arguing that this was a foreign virus , and he should have dealt with China more strictly , rather than the alternate narrative that pandemics are a known threat , and Trump undermined our ability to respond effectively .
It still pins much of the blame on China.
” The ad , Ashford argues , is “ bad for the future of Democrats ’ foreign policy .
It ’ s going to be very difficult to make progress on cutting the defense budget , ‘ ending endless war , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a Biden administration effectively adopts the Trump administration ’ s model of confrontation with China.
” The ads are trying to paint Trump as weak against China .
They are in response to the Trump campaign ’ s ads showing Biden ’ s connections to China and that extends down to his son , as well .
The problem for the critics on the left is that Biden ’ s message conflates the Chinese government with the Chinese people .
“ Trump praised the Chinese.
” Oops .
On Friday , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad that correctly chides Trump for his botched response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Then the ad added , “ So now , Trump and his allies are launching negative attacks against Joe Biden to hide the truth .
Here are the facts : Joe Biden warned the nation in January that Trump had left us unprepared for an epidemic.
” The ad goes on to say , “ When Trump rolled over for the Chinese , he took their word for it .
Trump praised the Chinese 15 times in January and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world.
” Also in the ad is criticism of the Trump administration ’ s alleged failure to get a team from the CDC into China to get information about the pandemic .
This is a false claim .
There was already a team of analysts on the ground in Beijing .
The number of people had been reduced but there was still an adequate amount there .
When the CDC and WHO offered to send in teams to monitor and do analysis , both were denied by the Chinese government .
Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too happy to go along with the Chinese communist narrative about the coronavirus .
Instead of taking potshots at Trump and his administration ’ s efforts , Biden should be calling out the brutal dictatorship in China that lies and hides the facts from the world .
China lied , thousands died .
Remember , the Biden campaign is all about going back , not moving forward .
Joe Biden , campaigning on uniting the country and on bringing civility back to public discourse , is running campaign ads critical of President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States .
Instead of encouraging people to do as the experts say in order to get through this national shutdown and help the country get back on its feet , Biden is finger-pointing and name-calling .
That ’ s not leadership , it ’ s petty partisan politics and the status quo .

Team Biden debuted an attack ad against President Trump last weekend. The subject is Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, specifically his alleged softness toward China. It must be a shock to Team Biden now, though, since the ad is receiving criticism from fellow Democrats.
Don’t you love a good left on left battle? It won’t last long because Democrats are really nervous over Joe’s ability to go the distance and win in November against President Trump but while we can enjoy it, we should. There is nothing better than watching the woke left handle criticism felt from their own as a mirror is held up to them. It turns out that all the pearl-clutching on the left about racism and xenophobia when President Trump closed off air travel from China at the end of January at the suggestion of experts backfired. As it turns out, that act is probably the single most important one that Trump did to head off what could have been a far worse outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. The coronavirus originated in Wuhan China. There is no dispute of that fact.
Team Biden used video clips of Beijing Joe throughout the ad, mostly highlighting his superior ability to predict the coming devastation of the pandemic. There is no evidence that he would have done anything differently than Trump, but the problem with the ad for the critics is that Sleepy Joe criticizes Trump for not being even more strict in eliminating entrance into the U.S. for Chinese travelers. The ad specifically references 40,000 Chinese who were allowed into America. Chinese-Americans and others on the left say, hold on, Joe. Isn’t that racist and xenophobic?
Biden supporters loved the ad. Biden really owned Trump, didn’t he? Trump critics from the center-right loved it, too. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough tweeted, “This is the most devastating political ad I’ve seen in years.” Well, it was a bit too clever by half, say others. First, here is the ad and a typical tweet in favor of it.
This @JoeBiden ad is one of the very best I've ever seen. pic.twitter.com/3VGUSjjXJC — Matt Rogers 🗳 (@Politidope) April 18, 2020
Now the response from a critic on the left. The critic, by the way, is a civil rights lawyer and deputy legal director, National ACLU, so there’s that.
Wow @JoeBiden. Already trying to out-Trump Trump. This kind of fearmongering is causing violent attacks on Asian Americans. If you are trying to reform your past history of racist policymaking, like your 1994 crime bill, you had better do some homework. This ain’t it. pic.twitter.com/ePHiVGQFf3 — Cecillia Wang 王德棻 (@WangCecillia) April 19, 2020
A policy person at the Cato Institute said it shows Biden in a hawkish way against China and we know that liberals aren’t interested in any of that kind of thing, don’t we? She apparently prefers going back to the days of the Obama-Biden administration when they were busy decimating U.S. military readiness.
In an e-mail, Emma Ashford, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, noted that the ad implied a hawkish foreign policy, with Biden promising to stand up to the Chinese government. Apparently it is more important to her to go back to the days of the Obama-Biden administration’s decimating the readiness of the U.S. military. “First, I think politically this does Joe Biden no favors, as it effectively buys into Trump’s narrative on the virus,” Ashford informed me. “Clearly, they’re trying to criticize Trump here, but they’re buying his argument more broadly, arguing that this was a foreign virus, and he should have dealt with China more strictly, rather than the alternate narrative that pandemics are a known threat, and Trump undermined our ability to respond effectively. It still pins much of the blame on China.” The ad, Ashford argues, is “bad for the future of Democrats’ foreign policy. It’s going to be very difficult to make progress on cutting the defense budget, ‘ending endless war,’ or other progressive priorities in foreign policy if a Biden administration effectively adopts the Trump administration’s model of confrontation with China.”
The ads are trying to paint Trump as weak against China. They are in response to the Trump campaign’s ads showing Biden’s connections to China and that extends down to his son, as well. The problem for the critics on the left is that Biden’s message conflates the Chinese government with the Chinese people. “Trump praised the Chinese.” Oops.
On Friday, Biden’s presidential campaign responded with an ad that correctly chides Trump for his botched response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Then the ad added, “So now, Trump and his allies are launching negative attacks against Joe Biden to hide the truth. Here are the facts: Joe Biden warned the nation in January that Trump had left us unprepared for an epidemic.” The ad goes on to say, “When Trump rolled over for the Chinese, he took their word for it. Trump praised the Chinese 15 times in January and February as the coronavirus spread across the world.”
Also in the ad is criticism of the Trump administration’s alleged failure to get a team from the CDC into China to get information about the pandemic. This is a false claim. There was already a team of analysts on the ground in Beijing. The number of people had been reduced but there was still an adequate amount there. When the CDC and WHO offered to send in teams to monitor and do analysis, both were denied by the Chinese government.
“The problem was China, not that we didn’t have CDC people in China,” said Scott McNabb, a former CDC epidemiologist who is now a research professor with Emory University. He pointed to China’s censorship as the main culprit in the spread of the pandemic, which has infected at least 435,470 people worldwide, killed 19,598 and upended the global economy.
Biden and Democrats, in general, are only too happy to go along with the Chinese communist narrative about the coronavirus. Instead of taking potshots at Trump and his administration’s efforts, Biden should be calling out the brutal dictatorship in China that lies and hides the facts from the world. China lied, thousands died.
Remember, the Biden campaign is all about going back, not moving forward. Joe Biden, campaigning on uniting the country and on bringing civility back to public discourse, is running campaign ads critical of President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. Instead of encouraging people to do as the experts say in order to get through this national shutdown and help the country get back on its feet, Biden is finger-pointing and name-calling. That’s not leadership, it’s petty partisan politics and the status quo.


hotair--2020-04-21--NYC Mayor shocked to hear newly released "empty the jails" inmates commit new crimes

The “ empty the jails ” initiative has really been picking up steam in cities around the country .
This is particularly true of New York City , where Mayor Bill de Blasio authorized the release of roughly 1,500 inmates , including more than 650 from Riker ’ s Island .
This was ostensibly done to avoid a massive outbreak of COVID-19 in the jails .
So what did the newly released inmates do with their newfound freedom ?
Some of them simply went home to wait out the pandemic , I suppose .
But according to the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were back in jail in a matter of days , having committed a fresh round of crimes .
So what did Hizzoner think about all of this ?
He was really disappointed in the convicts , calling it “ unconscionable ” that anyone would take advantage of the system in this fashion .
( Daily Wire ) After learning that inmates released from Rikers Island because of the coronavirus were committing new crimes , groundhog murderer Bill de Blasio lamented dolefully that the criminals ’ actions were “ unconscionable.
” De Blasio mourned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it ’ s unconscionable just on a human level that folks were shown mercy and this is what some of them have done.
” De Blasio protested that few released criminals had committed new crimes , saying , “ We do see some recidivism .
I have not seen a huge amount , but any amount is obviously troubling .
We ’ re going to just keep buckling down on it , making sure there ’ s close monitoring and supervision to the maximum step possible .
And the NYPD is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing.
” Yes , it ’ s simply terrible , isn ’ t it Mr. Mayor ?
If only someone could have seen this coming .
But who could possibly imagine that people who commit a sufficient number of serious crimes to wind up behind bars might go back out on the streets and commit more crimes ?
So what happened to the ones who were almost immediately caught breaking the law yet again ?
At least half of them were released for a second time .
They no doubt received a strongly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it again , however .
We shouldn ’ t pretend that this policy of emptying the jails was something that de Blasio was forced into accepting because of the pandemic .
In May of last year , long before anyone had ever heard of the novel coronavirus and when life was still “ normal ” in most regards , Bill de Blasio went on record saying he wanted to triple the number of teens released from jail without bail .
This would include people accused of crimes including armed robbery , assault , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a case of the Mayor being forced into action by a crisis .
This was de Blasio not letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste .
And the people paying the price are the lawful citizens being once again victimized by criminals who the NYPD had already managed to capture and convict one or more times .
None of this had to happen , and yet here we are .

The “empty the jails” initiative has really been picking up steam in cities around the country. This is particularly true of New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio authorized the release of roughly 1,500 inmates, including more than 650 from Riker’s Island. This was ostensibly done to avoid a massive outbreak of COVID-19 in the jails. So what did the newly released inmates do with their newfound freedom? Some of them simply went home to wait out the pandemic, I suppose. But according to the New York Post, at least fifty of them were back in jail in a matter of days, having committed a fresh round of crimes.
So what did Hizzoner think about all of this? He was really disappointed in the convicts, calling it “unconscionable” that anyone would take advantage of the system in this fashion. (Daily Wire)
After learning that inmates released from Rikers Island because of the coronavirus were committing new crimes, groundhog murderer Bill de Blasio lamented dolefully that the criminals’ actions were “unconscionable.” De Blasio mourned during his morning briefing, “I think it’s unconscionable just on a human level that folks were shown mercy and this is what some of them have done.” De Blasio protested that few released criminals had committed new crimes, saying, “We do see some recidivism. I have not seen a huge amount, but any amount is obviously troubling. We’re going to just keep buckling down on it, making sure there’s close monitoring and supervision to the maximum step possible. And the NYPD is going to keep doing what they’re doing.”
Yes, it’s simply terrible, isn’t it Mr. Mayor? If only someone could have seen this coming. But who could possibly imagine that people who commit a sufficient number of serious crimes to wind up behind bars might go back out on the streets and commit more crimes?
So what happened to the ones who were almost immediately caught breaking the law yet again? At least half of them were released for a second time. They no doubt received a strongly worded letter warning them not to do it again, however.
We shouldn’t pretend that this policy of emptying the jails was something that de Blasio was forced into accepting because of the pandemic. In May of last year, long before anyone had ever heard of the novel coronavirus and when life was still “normal” in most regards, Bill de Blasio went on record saying he wanted to triple the number of teens released from jail without bail. This would include people accused of crimes including armed robbery, assault, and burglary.
So this wasn’t a case of the Mayor being forced into action by a crisis. This was de Blasio not letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste. And the people paying the price are the lawful citizens being once again victimized by criminals who the NYPD had already managed to capture and convict one or more times. None of this had to happen, and yet here we are.


hotair--2020-04-21--Breaking: Deal reached on replenishing PPP, says Schumer; Update: Not yet?

Well over a day late , and probably a dollar short too , although it will take a week or two to determine that .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN that an agreement has been reached to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , the small-business rescue fund that ran out of money last week .
Schumer predicted that it would pass the Senate later today : Democrats and the White House “ came to an agreement on just about every issue ” during late-night negotiations , Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Tuesday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure later in the day .
“ I think we will be able to pass this today , ” Schumer said on CNN .
The nearly $ 500 billion coronavirus relief package features an injection of funds into a new and heavily oversubscribed small-business loan fund that ran out of cash last week , as well as funding for hospitals and a national COVID-19 testing program .
That ’ s not all that got included in this package .
The new bill will spend close to $ 400 billion on the PPP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for direct administration by Treasury rather than lending it through banks .
The intent is to rescue businesses underserved by lenders , which Schumer argues will focus mainly on women- and minority-owned businesses .
As Democrats demanded , they will also get more money earmarked for hospitals and testing .
They came up short on relief for state and local governments , though : Schumer said the new small-business loan funds would include $ 125 billion set aside for the “ unbanked , ” which he described as largely minority- and women-owned businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have strong relationships with traditional lenders .
The New York Democrat also said hospitals would get $ 65 billion in the deal and that the legislation would include $ 30 billion for a national testing program .
Those figures are slightly different from what negotiators had been saying for the past few days , when the money for hospitals had been cited as $ 75 billion , with $ 25 billion for testing .
Schumer calls the money for testing , as well as a commitment to a national testing strategy , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe , but the White House has already been taking that tack lately anyway , with Donald Trump ’ s DPA order for 20 million more test swabs being his latest move in that arena .
Schumer also claims credit for more restrictions on qualifying for PPP loans , but that was a problem Congress created in the first place by writing the bill poorly .
Had they been in session rather than in recess , they could have fixed that issue as soon as it came up , rather than a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For the most part , Republicans got what they wanted out of these negotiations .
They had to concede less than $ 100 billion of spending on hospitals and testing that they planned to include in Phase 4 anyway , and got a big new tranche for PPP to reopen — with some common-sense restrictions .
The only significant win Democrats got out of delaying this bill for a week was to get an expedited schedule for Phase 4 , which was paid for by lots and lots of unemployed Americans who might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , as Schumer claims ?
The Senate has a pro forma session scheduled for 4 pm ET today , which Mitch McConnell set up every day in case a deal dropped for a relatively quick unanimous-consent vote .
The trick will be getting it past the House , which will have to meet on Thursday as objections to the process will almost certainly force Pelosi to recall the lower chamber again .
More on that in a later post .
Update : Politico throws a little cold water on Schumer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats and the Trump administration have reached a deal on a new round of coronavirus aid , though staffers working on the bill cautioned negotiations were not complete .
… Aides in both parties said they were still finalizing the legislation and Schumer said staffers were still working out the particulars of the massive package , which will mark Congress ’ s fourth major infusion of coronavirus aid .
They have a few hours to knock out the remaining details .
If Schumer got out over his skis on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bargaining table .

Well over a day late, and probably a dollar short too, although it will take a week or two to determine that. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN that an agreement has been reached to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the small-business rescue fund that ran out of money last week. Schumer predicted that it would pass the Senate later today:
“There is still a few more i’s to dot and t’s to cross, but we have a deal and I believe we’ll pass it today,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says about a $450 billion deal to help small businesses and expand coronavirus testing.https://t.co/SzGYN8l6wK pic.twitter.com/JTnN2quWYH — New Day (@NewDay) April 21, 2020
Democrats and the White House “came to an agreement on just about every issue” during late-night negotiations, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Tuesday morning, predicting that the Senate would pass the measure later in the day. “I think we will be able to pass this today,” Schumer said on CNN. The nearly $500 billion coronavirus relief package features an injection of funds into a new and heavily oversubscribed small-business loan fund that ran out of cash last week, as well as funding for hospitals and a national COVID-19 testing program.
That’s not all that got included in this package. The new bill will spend close to $400 billion on the PPP, but sets aside $125 billion for direct administration by Treasury rather than lending it through banks. The intent is to rescue businesses underserved by lenders, which Schumer argues will focus mainly on women- and minority-owned businesses.
As Democrats demanded, they will also get more money earmarked for hospitals and testing. They came up short on relief for state and local governments, though:
Schumer said the new small-business loan funds would include $125 billion set aside for the “unbanked,” which he described as largely minority- and women-owned businesses and rural businesses that don’t have strong relationships with traditional lenders. The New York Democrat also said hospitals would get $65 billion in the deal and that the legislation would include $30 billion for a national testing program. Those figures are slightly different from what negotiators had been saying for the past few days, when the money for hospitals had been cited as $75 billion, with $25 billion for testing.
Schumer calls the money for testing, as well as a commitment to a national testing strategy, a big win for Democrats. Er, maybe, but the White House has already been taking that tack lately anyway, with Donald Trump’s DPA order for 20 million more test swabs being his latest move in that arena. Schumer also claims credit for more restrictions on qualifying for PPP loans, but that was a problem Congress created in the first place by writing the bill poorly. Had they been in session rather than in recess, they could have fixed that issue as soon as it came up, rather than a week after all the money ran out.
For the most part, Republicans got what they wanted out of these negotiations. They had to concede less than $100 billion of spending on hospitals and testing that they planned to include in Phase 4 anyway, and got a big new tranche for PPP to reopen — with some common-sense restrictions. The only significant win Democrats got out of delaying this bill for a week was to get an expedited schedule for Phase 4, which was paid for by lots and lots of unemployed Americans who might otherwise had jobs.
Will it pass today, as Schumer claims? The Senate has a pro forma session scheduled for 4 pm ET today, which Mitch McConnell set up every day in case a deal dropped for a relatively quick unanimous-consent vote. The trick will be getting it past the House, which will have to meet on Thursday as objections to the process will almost certainly force Pelosi to recall the lower chamber again. More on that in a later post.
Update: Politico throws a little cold water on Schumer’s dotted-Is and crossed Ts:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats and the Trump administration have reached a deal on a new round of coronavirus aid, though staffers working on the bill cautioned negotiations were not complete. … Aides in both parties said they were still finalizing the legislation and Schumer said staffers were still working out the particulars of the massive package, which will mark Congress’s fourth major infusion of coronavirus aid.
They have a few hours to knock out the remaining details. If Schumer got out over his skis on this, good luck returning to the bargaining table.


hotair--2020-04-21--The price of oil is now literally less than zero dollars per barrel

This is a trend we touched on yesterday when I was discussing putting the Renewable Fuel Standard on hold .
It deals with the downward trend in oil prices owing to a combination of surging production and declining demand .
But the phrase “ downward trend ” seems a bit of an undersell at this point .
As of last night , crude oil futures were trading in negative values .
Yes , you read that correctly .
The price of oil has gone to less than zero .
( CNN ) US oil prices crashed Monday to a record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roiled by an epic collapse in demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic .
Global stocks are mixed as investors brace for more companies to reveal how much the crisis is costing them .
US oil futures were down below $ 0 a barrel , their worst level since NYMEX opened oil futures trading in 1983 .
Monday ’ s plunge comes after prices hit an 18-year low last week as markets realized that record output cuts agreed by OPEC , Russia and other producers aren ’ t nearly enough to offset the loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia and various OPEC suppliers provided a brief bit of relief but it wasn ’ t nearly enough to prevent this collapse from happening .
The real question for many of us is what this actually means .
How can the price of something be less than zero dollars ?
The Associated Press clearly knew this would be confusing to some people and put out a brief explainer this morning .
The world is awash in oil , there ’ s little demand for it and we ’ re running out of places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nutshell explains Monday ’ s strange and unprecedented action in the market for crude oil futures contracts , where traders essentially offered to pay someone else to deal with the oil they were due to have delivered next month .
The price of U.S. benchmark crude that would be delivered in May was selling for around $ 15 a barrel Monday morning , but fell as low as - $ 40 per barrel during the day .
It was the first time that the price on a futures contract for oil has gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global market for oil trading work is based pretty much entirely on “ futures.
” In other words , nobody is placing an order for thousands of barrels of oil , paying for it and waiting for the tanker to show up with their delivery .
Buyers bid on oil that will be delivered in the coming months based on what they think the average price will be at that time .
You don ’ t even need to ever physically take delivery of the actual oil .
You can sell your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hopefully turning a profit if the price changes .
Right now the reverse of that phenomenon is in effect .
Buyers who thought they ’ d gotten a great deal when they bid on oil at fifteen dollars per barrel are facing a glut of product .
With nowhere to put the oil if it arrives , they were at one point yesterday literally offering to pay someone else as much as 40 dollars per barrel to take the oil off their hands .
Those of you who invest in the stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ akin to short-selling when it goes horribly wrong .
So how does this get fixed ?
In the short term , it basically doesn ’ t .
Convincing oil producers to stop drilling is a tough sell , but if nobody is willing to pay them they will do it .
Some operations will have to be idled and the workers at those locations will be out of a job .
That process started a couple of weeks ago .
Baker-Hughs is reporting that the United States oil rig count fell by more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not seen since 2016 .
As we always say , this too shall pass .
But until demand picks back up and travel patterns return to normal , the demand won ’ t exist to consume the amounts of oil and gas we ’ ve been producing , so it ’ s not really possible to say how long it will take at this point .

This is a trend we touched on yesterday when I was discussing putting the Renewable Fuel Standard on hold. It deals with the downward trend in oil prices owing to a combination of surging production and declining demand. But the phrase “downward trend” seems a bit of an undersell at this point. As of last night, crude oil futures were trading in negative values. Yes, you read that correctly. The price of oil has gone to less than zero. (CNN)
US oil prices crashed Monday to a record low as the market continues to be roiled by an epic collapse in demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Global stocks are mixed as investors brace for more companies to reveal how much the crisis is costing them. US oil futures were down below $0 a barrel, their worst level since NYMEX opened oil futures trading in 1983. Monday’s plunge comes after prices hit an 18-year low last week as markets realized that record output cuts agreed by OPEC, Russia and other producers aren’t nearly enough to offset the loss in demand.
The recent deal between Russia and various OPEC suppliers provided a brief bit of relief but it wasn’t nearly enough to prevent this collapse from happening. The real question for many of us is what this actually means. How can the price of something be less than zero dollars? The Associated Press clearly knew this would be confusing to some people and put out a brief explainer this morning.
The world is awash in oil, there’s little demand for it and we’re running out of places to put it. That in a nutshell explains Monday’s strange and unprecedented action in the market for crude oil futures contracts, where traders essentially offered to pay someone else to deal with the oil they were due to have delivered next month. The price of U.S. benchmark crude that would be delivered in May was selling for around $15 a barrel Monday morning, but fell as low as -$40 per barrel during the day. It was the first time that the price on a futures contract for oil has gone negative, analysts say.
The way the global market for oil trading work is based pretty much entirely on “futures.” In other words, nobody is placing an order for thousands of barrels of oil, paying for it and waiting for the tanker to show up with their delivery. Buyers bid on oil that will be delivered in the coming months based on what they think the average price will be at that time. You don’t even need to ever physically take delivery of the actual oil. You can sell your futures to someone else after the fact, hopefully turning a profit if the price changes.
Right now the reverse of that phenomenon is in effect. Buyers who thought they’d gotten a great deal when they bid on oil at fifteen dollars per barrel are facing a glut of product. With nowhere to put the oil if it arrives, they were at one point yesterday literally offering to pay someone else as much as 40 dollars per barrel to take the oil off their hands. Those of you who invest in the stock market probably recognize this practice as something akin to short-selling when it goes horribly wrong.
So how does this get fixed? In the short term, it basically doesn’t. Convincing oil producers to stop drilling is a tough sell, but if nobody is willing to pay them they will do it. Some operations will have to be idled and the workers at those locations will be out of a job. That process started a couple of weeks ago. Baker-Hughs is reporting that the United States oil rig count fell by more than sixty last week, hitting levels not seen since 2016.
As we always say, this too shall pass. But until demand picks back up and travel patterns return to normal, the demand won’t exist to consume the amounts of oil and gas we’ve been producing, so it’s not really possible to say how long it will take at this point.


hotair--2020-04-21--Too easy: Team Trump puts a cherry on Pelosi's ice cream in "Nancy Antoinette" ad

This dunk was so easy that it almost feels as though Team Trump should get a mild penalty for not getting this ad published last week .
As it is , though , their new web-only ( thus far ) spot hammers Nancy Pelosi for her epically dumb tour of her twin $ 12,000 fridges as a demonstration of how we ’ re all in this together .
Not only are we all not “ here ” in Nancy ’ s Thurston Howell kitchen , 22 million Americans got a whole lot further away from any such luxury over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans losing their jobs in an economic meltdown while Nancy Antoinette shows off her skills at hoarding expensive ice cream , rather than bring Congress back to do the jobs we ’ re paying them to do in a national crisis .
Pelosi might not understand messaging , but Team Trump certainly does ( via Townhall ’ s Beth Baumann ) : “ Not everyone has a $ 24,000 freezer , ” the ad declares .
Subtle it ain ’ t , but effective it will almost certainly be .
Whoever thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea in the midst of a historic crisis , and especially whomever tweeted it over Nancy Pelosi ’ s official House Speaker account while the House has gone AWOL , should be fired .
If that person ’ s name is Nancy Pelosi , all the more so .
The ad is too long for TV spots at the moment , but the Trump campaign should cut these into 60-second and 30-second spots ASAP and get them on the air in swing states .
GOP down-ballot candidates should feast on this as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might turn into one expensive banana split for House and Senate Democrats .
Addendum : Where ’ s the national media on this ?
I ’ m so old that I can recall when Donald Trump ’ s extra scoop of ice cream at dessert was a national crisis .

This dunk was so easy that it almost feels as though Team Trump should get a mild penalty for not getting this ad published last week. As it is, though, their new web-only (thus far) spot hammers Nancy Pelosi for her epically dumb tour of her twin $12,000 fridges as a demonstration of how we’re all in this together. Not only are we all not “here” in Nancy’s Thurston Howell kitchen, 22 million Americans got a whole lot further away from any such luxury over the past month. You know … the Americans losing their jobs in an economic meltdown while Nancy Antoinette shows off her skills at hoarding expensive ice cream, rather than bring Congress back to do the jobs we’re paying them to do in a national crisis.
Pelosi might not understand messaging, but Team Trump certainly does (via Townhall’s Beth Baumann):
“Not everyone has a $24,000 freezer,” the ad declares. Subtle it ain’t, but effective it will almost certainly be. Whoever thought that exchange with James Corden was a good idea in the midst of a historic crisis, and especially whomever tweeted it over Nancy Pelosi’s official House Speaker account while the House has gone AWOL, should be fired. If that person’s name is Nancy Pelosi, all the more so.
The ad is too long for TV spots at the moment, but the Trump campaign should cut these into 60-second and 30-second spots ASAP and get them on the air in swing states. GOP down-ballot candidates should feast on this as well, especially in House races. That might turn into one expensive banana split for House and Senate Democrats.
Addendum: Where’s the national media on this? I’m so old that I can recall when Donald Trump’s extra scoop of ice cream at dessert was a national crisis.


hotair--2020-04-21--Primary voters most likely to say they're bothered by Biden being a white man in his 70s are ... whi

Primary voters most likely to say they're bothered by Biden being a white man in his 70s are ... white Democrats

This reminds me of the progressive poll last fall showing that 98 percent of Latinos , when asked how they label themselves racially or ethnically , chose something other than the trendily woke-ish “ Latinx.
” “ Latinx ” isn ’ t a term normal people use .
It ’ s a term used by political activists , the sort of people who lay awake at night troubled by the gendering inherent in the terms “ Latino ” and “ Latina.
” That sort of person spends a lot of time online .
And they tend to be very , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds another case of white liberals out-woking their minority counterparts : Young Democrats from ages 18 to 29 are also more likely to say they ’ re bothered by the fact that Biden ’ s an old white guy than other age groups , as are highly educated lefties with postgrad degrees .
But the racial divide is a standout .
It makes me think of this op-ed from last year measuring ways that white Democrats are more progressive on racial questions than black Democrats are .
For example , asked to rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own race versus other races , black Clinton voters split 85/59 .
White Clinton voters split 70/80 — i.e .
they felt more positive about other races than their own .
They were also far more likely than black Americans generally were to say that diversity made America a better place .
And white Democrats were more likely than black Democrats to say they want to see immigration increased .
That ’ s not all : In the case of Biden , it may be that white Dems and black Dems are grading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a white Democrat , having an old white guy on top of the ticket may seem regressive no matter who it is .
Biden fails the diversity test in its crudest form .
To a black Democrat , it may be that an old white guy is more acceptable if he happens to be the loyal former VP to the first black president .
That is , it may be black liberals more so than white ones who are more likely to believe not all white people are equally “ problematic , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s choicer terms .
Here ’ s my favorite part of the Pew poll .
Democrats who say they ’ re bothered by Biden ’ s old-white-maleness are more likely to vote for him over Trump than Democrats who are unbothered : It makes sense in a way .
The wokest Democrats are also the Democrats who are most likely to detest Trump .
Whatever objections they have to Biden are overwhelmed by their objections to the president .
But intuitively it ’ s odd that someone *less* bothered by Grandpa Joe is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Either way , notes Tiana Lowe , that ’ s a mighty small contingent of anti-Biden voters .
During the 2016 election , some 15 percent of Bernie voters said they wouldn ’ t support Clinton over Trump .
Biden looks like he ’ ll have a more unified party than that this fall , which is a big deal in swing states .
Relatedly , there ’ s another demographic group with enormous influence in November whom Trump should keep an eye on .
Josh Kraushaar ’ s been following Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normally a reliable pro-GOP contingent .
Not lately , though : The latest Morning Consult poll found that 65-and-older voters prioritized defeating the coronavirus over healing the economy by nearly a 6-to-1 ratio .
And over the past month , they ’ ve become the group most disenchanted with Trump ’ s handling of the crisis .
In mid-March , seniors were more supportive of Trump than any other age group ( plus-19 net approval ) .
Now , their net approval of the president has dropped 20 points and is lower than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
Those findings were matched by a new NBC/WSJ poll , which tested the presidential matchup between Trump and Joe Biden .
Among seniors 65 and older , Biden led Trump by 9 points , 52 to 43 percent .
That ’ s a dramatic 16-point swing from Hillary Clinton ’ s showing in the 2016 election ; she lost seniors by 7 points to Trump ( 52-45 percent ) .
That ’ s a disaster in the making for the president .
The trend ’ s not all due to coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with senior citizens throughout the primary and would be a threat to Trump within that group even in normal times .
But since seniors are the group most at risk from the COVID epidemic , it stands to reason that they might have special cause to hold a grudge over how the White House mismanaged the earliest phase of containment .
Given that seniors famously turn out to vote at high rates , if Trump can ’ t do something to erase Biden ’ s advantage among them in the next six months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s something to think about the next time he ’ s tempted to push the “ reopen now !
” message or retweet a clip of someone on Fox suggesting that we ’ re just going to have to accept a certain frightful number of deaths in order to get back to business .
Seniors know which group those deaths are mostly going to come from .
A 75-year-old at a MAGA rally might be willing to fall on his sword to revive the Trump economy but most people that age will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s perpetual Biden VP auditioner Stacey Abrams being told by Gayle King that she ’ s “ extremely qualified ” to be vice president .
She ’ s 46 and has never held federal or statewide office .
What ?

This reminds me of the progressive poll last fall showing that 98 percent of Latinos, when asked how they label themselves racially or ethnically, chose something other than the trendily woke-ish “Latinx.” “Latinx” isn’t a term normal people use. It’s a term used by political activists, the sort of people who lay awake at night troubled by the gendering inherent in the terms “Latino” and “Latina.”
That sort of person spends a lot of time online. And they tend to be very, very white.
Pew’s latest finds another case of white liberals out-woking their minority counterparts:
Young Democrats from ages 18 to 29 are also more likely to say they’re bothered by the fact that Biden’s an old white guy than other age groups, as are highly educated lefties with postgrad degrees. But the racial divide is a standout. It makes me think of this op-ed from last year measuring ways that white Democrats are more progressive on racial questions than black Democrats are. For example, asked to rate how positive their feelings are about their own race versus other races, black Clinton voters split 85/59. White Clinton voters split 70/80 — i.e. they felt more positive about other races than their own. They were also far more likely than black Americans generally were to say that diversity made America a better place. And white Democrats were more likely than black Democrats to say they want to see immigration increased. That’s not all:
The Hidden Tribes study from the More in Common organization — which groups the American electorate on the basis of its views — helps identify the leading proponents of racial liberalism: Of the seven major voting blocs, the most racially liberal are the Progressive Activists, who form just 8 percent of the population. This group is over 80 percent white and only 3 percent African-American. Similarly, a Pew Research Center report finds that the “Solid Liberals” group is overwhelmingly white, and that minority Democrats are more conservative.
In the case of Biden, it may be that white Dems and black Dems are grading him in slightly different ways. To a white Democrat, having an old white guy on top of the ticket may seem regressive no matter who it is. Biden fails the diversity test in its crudest form. To a black Democrat, it may be that an old white guy is more acceptable if he happens to be the loyal former VP to the first black president. That is, it may be black liberals more so than white ones who are more likely to believe not all white people are equally “problematic,” to borrow one of the left’s choicer terms.
Here’s my favorite part of the Pew poll. Democrats who say they’re bothered by Biden’s old-white-maleness are more likely to vote for him over Trump than Democrats who are unbothered:
It makes sense in a way. The wokest Democrats are also the Democrats who are most likely to detest Trump. Whatever objections they have to Biden are overwhelmed by their objections to the president. But intuitively it’s odd that someone *less* bothered by Grandpa Joe is also *less* likely to vote for him.
Either way, notes Tiana Lowe, that’s a mighty small contingent of anti-Biden voters. During the 2016 election, some 15 percent of Bernie voters said they wouldn’t support Clinton over Trump. Biden looks like he’ll have a more unified party than that this fall, which is a big deal in swing states.
Relatedly, there’s another demographic group with enormous influence in November whom Trump should keep an eye on. Josh Kraushaar’s been following Trump’s support among senior citizens, normally a reliable pro-GOP contingent. Not lately, though:
The latest Morning Consult poll found that 65-and-older voters prioritized defeating the coronavirus over healing the economy by nearly a 6-to-1 ratio. And over the past month, they’ve become the group most disenchanted with Trump’s handling of the crisis. In mid-March, seniors were more supportive of Trump than any other age group (plus-19 net approval). Now, their net approval of the president has dropped 20 points and is lower than any age group outside of the youngest Americans. Those findings were matched by a new NBC/WSJ poll, which tested the presidential matchup between Trump and Joe Biden. Among seniors 65 and older, Biden led Trump by 9 points, 52 to 43 percent. That’s a dramatic 16-point swing from Hillary Clinton’s showing in the 2016 election; she lost seniors by 7 points to Trump (52-45 percent).
That’s a disaster in the making for the president. The trend’s not all due to coronavirus, I bet: Biden performed well with senior citizens throughout the primary and would be a threat to Trump within that group even in normal times. But since seniors are the group most at risk from the COVID epidemic, it stands to reason that they might have special cause to hold a grudge over how the White House mismanaged the earliest phase of containment. Given that seniors famously turn out to vote at high rates, if Trump can’t do something to erase Biden’s advantage among them in the next six months he’s cooked. That’s something to think about the next time he’s tempted to push the “reopen now!” message or retweet a clip of someone on Fox suggesting that we’re just going to have to accept a certain frightful number of deaths in order to get back to business. Seniors know which group those deaths are mostly going to come from. A 75-year-old at a MAGA rally might be willing to fall on his sword to revive the Trump economy but most people that age will not.
Via the Free Beacon, here’s perpetual Biden VP auditioner Stacey Abrams being told by Gayle King that she’s “extremely qualified” to be vice president. She’s 46 and has never held federal or statewide office. What?


hotair--2020-04-21--Celebs join former first lady in 'couch party' to push for mail-in voting

Former First Lady Michelle Obama launched a get-out-the-vote initiative in 2018 .
It is called When We All Vote .
She enlisted some of her celebrity friends in the entertainment world of television , movies , and music to capture the attention of young people and others who may be first-time voters .
During the great hunkering down period we all find ourselves in right now , activists have had to be a little more creative than simply organizing rallies and special events .
Everything is being done online now so Michelle Obama ( or her people ) came up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her initiative .
Couch parties were born .
These virtual events are meant to be like an online house party featuring Michelle and her friends , hosted by DJ D-Nice .
She co-hosted one Monday night .
The website for When We All Vote offered a national call to action “ with thousands of volunteers , partners and even a few celebrity supporters.
” The celebrities and public figures participating with her were Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson , Board Chair Valarie Jarrett and President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s participation Monday night amounted to her phoning in for a conference call .
“ Americans should never have to choose between making their voices heard and keeping themselves and their families safe , ” said Obama via a statement .
“ We know that barriers to voting existed before this crisis , especially for young people and communities of color .
Expanding access to vote-by-mail , online voter registration and early voting are critical steps for this moment— and they ’ re long overdue .
There is nothing partisan about striving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country ; making the democracy we all cherish more accessible ; and protecting our neighbors , friends and loved ones as they participate in this cornerstone of American life.
” Additionally , after the call , When We All Vote hosted DJ D-Nice ’ s Club Quarantine – don ’ t look at me , I don ’ t make up these names – which was billed as a Couch Party 2.0 .
These couch parties were hosted by volunteers and partner organizations .
When We All Vote Ambassadors Kelly Rowland , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCreary and Erica Campbell were to “ drop into ” these parties to thank and encourage volunteers .
The event was described as non-partisan but you ’ ll note that none of the names mentioned in the advertising were conservative or Republican voters .
In case you aren ’ t familiar with her , Erica Campbell , for example , is a Christian gospel singer but openly boasted about praying for Trump ’ s impeachment as far back as 2017 .
( Her sister Tina , the other member of the singing duo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a post in Breitbart points out , Michelle ’ s initiative is full of former Obama officials .
What a surprise .
It ’ s especially important to push mail-in voting now , using the coronavirus pandemic as a perfect excuse for it .
You know , because the Orange Man is bad .
Voting should never be difficult and never be a partisan issue , ” Michelle Obama told viewers via phone Monday evening during the online drive .
The former first lady spoke about the recent Wisconsin primaries , which took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , and how the organization ’ s members need to push vote-by-mail for the elections in November .
“ I don ’ t think you need me to tell you that this work is more urgent than ever before , ” she said .
Valerie Jarrett stressed that “ voting transcends politics ” , whatever that means , and that everyone should be able to vote by mail .
But why stop there ?
She also added , “ Every single American should be able to register to vote online.
” Yikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Motor Voter Act bring about enough problems , like illegal immigrants voting in elections ?
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson tossed in some hot takes about mail-in voting , too .
Hanks was a bit incoherent , though , if you ask me , tying in Type 2 Diabetes .
I don ’ t understand why he thinks anyone would think that disease stops him from voting .
They are the official Hollywood faces of COVID-19 these days since Hanks spread the word of their diagnosis while in Australia and their stories as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supposed to question his reasoning .
Truth is , most states offer vote by mail , some placing restrictions ( like Texas ) and others have completely gone to mail-in voting , like the States of Washington , Hawaii , Oregon , and Colorado .
While Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to make mail-in voting a nationwide reality for everyone , Republicans and President Trump point to the increased risks of voter fraud and irregularities .
Senior citizens and disabled people have used mail-in voting for years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Election Assistance Commission says about one-quarter of all voters in the 2018 midterm elections voted by mail .
Currently , 28 states , other than the ones that have gone completely with mail-in voting , allow voters to request a mail-in ballot without requiring a reason .
Despite what Valerie Jarrett says , voting is , in fact , by nature a political and partisan activity .
Voting does not “ transcend politics ” – it is politics .
Battles between the two major parties are being waged in courthouses around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
On March 30 , 27 New Mexico county clerks petitioned the state Supreme Court to conduct their June 2 primary almost entirely by mail and allow all voters to be mailed an absentee ballot .
State Republicans sued to oppose both changes .
In Texas , the Democratic Party sued the state ’ s Republican leadership in federal court on April 7 to allow no-excuse absentee voting .
Texas law requires voters to provide an excuse , such as disability , when requesting an absentee ballot .
In Georgia , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state last Wednesday in federal court for requiring voters to pay their own postage when submitting mail-in absentee ballots and applications , arguing that was tantamount to a poll tax .
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our way of life and now how we vote is on the line , too .
Never let a crisis go to waste .

Former First Lady Michelle Obama launched a get-out-the-vote initiative in 2018. It is called When We All Vote. She enlisted some of her celebrity friends in the entertainment world of television, movies, and music to capture the attention of young people and others who may be first-time voters.
During the great hunkering down period we all find ourselves in right now, activists have had to be a little more creative than simply organizing rallies and special events. Everything is being done online now so Michelle Obama (or her people) came up with a way to continue on with her initiative. Couch parties were born. These virtual events are meant to be like an online house party featuring Michelle and her friends, hosted by DJ D-Nice. She co-hosted one Monday night. The website for When We All Vote offered a national call to action “with thousands of volunteers, partners and even a few celebrity supporters.” The celebrities and public figures participating with her were Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, Board Chair Valarie Jarrett and President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Vanita Gupta. Obama’s participation Monday night amounted to her phoning in for a conference call.
“Americans should never have to choose between making their voices heard and keeping themselves and their families safe,” said Obama via a statement. “We know that barriers to voting existed before this crisis, especially for young people and communities of color. Expanding access to vote-by-mail, online voter registration and early voting are critical steps for this moment— and they’re long overdue. There is nothing partisan about striving to live up to the promise of our country; making the democracy we all cherish more accessible; and protecting our neighbors, friends and loved ones as they participate in this cornerstone of American life.”
Additionally, after the call, When We All Vote hosted DJ D-Nice’s Club Quarantine – don’t look at me, I don’t make up these names – which was billed as a Couch Party 2.0. These couch parties were hosted by volunteers and partner organizations. When We All Vote Ambassadors Kelly Rowland, Michelle Williams, Alyssa Milano, Kelly McCreary and Erica Campbell were to “drop into” these parties to thank and encourage volunteers.
The event was described as non-partisan but you’ll note that none of the names mentioned in the advertising were conservative or Republican voters. In case you aren’t familiar with her, Erica Campbell, for example, is a Christian gospel singer but openly boasted about praying for Trump’s impeachment as far back as 2017. (Her sister Tina, the other member of the singing duo is a Trump supporter.)
As a post in Breitbart points out, Michelle’s initiative is full of former Obama officials. What a surprise.
Michelle Obama was the marquee speaker at the virtual “couch party” organized by When We All Vote, a voter registration group that bills itself as non-partisan but is stacked with former Obama administration officials. In addition to Jarrett, its leaders include Tina Tchen, who served as Michelle Obama’s chief of staff, and Kyle Lierman, who served as a policy advisor in the White House Office of Public Engagement.
It’s especially important to push mail-in voting now, using the coronavirus pandemic as a perfect excuse for it. You know, because the Orange Man is bad.
Voting should never be difficult and never be a partisan issue,” Michelle Obama told viewers via phone Monday evening during the online drive. The former first lady spoke about the recent Wisconsin primaries, which took place in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, and how the organization’s members need to push vote-by-mail for the elections in November. “I don’t think you need me to tell you that this work is more urgent than ever before,” she said.
Valerie Jarrett stressed that “voting transcends politics”, whatever that means, and that everyone should be able to vote by mail. But why stop there? She also added, “Every single American should be able to register to vote online.” Yikes. Didn’t Clinton’s Motor Voter Act bring about enough problems, like illegal immigrants voting in elections?
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson tossed in some hot takes about mail-in voting, too. Hanks was a bit incoherent, though, if you ask me, tying in Type 2 Diabetes. I don’t understand why he thinks anyone would think that disease stops him from voting. They are the official Hollywood faces of COVID-19 these days since Hanks spread the word of their diagnosis while in Australia and their stories as they recovered. I’m probably not supposed to question his reasoning.
Co-chairs Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson appeared remotely from Los Angeles, to liven up the virtual party with star power. “I want to vote no matter where I am,” said Hanks, who played a toy xylophone and appeared in a giddy mood. “I have Diabetes type 2 and I still want to be able to vote.” Wilson called vote by mail a “great compromise” and said that “we as Americans should be able to request the options” of a mail-in ballot.
Truth is, most states offer vote by mail, some placing restrictions (like Texas) and others have completely gone to mail-in voting, like the States of Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, and Colorado. While Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to make mail-in voting a nationwide reality for everyone, Republicans and President Trump point to the increased risks of voter fraud and irregularities.
Senior citizens and disabled people have used mail-in voting for years in most states. A report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission says about one-quarter of all voters in the 2018 midterm elections voted by mail. Currently, 28 states, other than the ones that have gone completely with mail-in voting, allow voters to request a mail-in ballot without requiring a reason.
Despite what Valerie Jarrett says, voting is, in fact, by nature a political and partisan activity. Voting does not “transcend politics” – it is politics. Battles between the two major parties are being waged in courthouses around the country in preparation for the 2020 presidential election.
On March 30, 27 New Mexico county clerks petitioned the state Supreme Court to conduct their June 2 primary almost entirely by mail and allow all voters to be mailed an absentee ballot. State Republicans sued to oppose both changes. In Texas, the Democratic Party sued the state’s Republican leadership in federal court on April 7 to allow no-excuse absentee voting. Texas law requires voters to provide an excuse, such as disability, when requesting an absentee ballot. In Georgia, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Republican secretary of state last Wednesday in federal court for requiring voters to pay their own postage when submitting mail-in absentee ballots and applications, arguing that was tantamount to a poll tax.
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our way of life and now how we vote is on the line, too. Never let a crisis go to waste.