hotair--2020-07-06--Cuomo: Who would have guessed that COVID-19 numbers would decline after reopening?

I can think of at least one person who not only predicted it but counted on it , and his name isn ’ t Andrew Cuomo .
“ We ’ re actually down from where we were when we started reopening , ” the governor of New York told the media this afternoon .
“ Which , as you remember , no one predicted.
” The question at the time was whether the states could control the increase , but instead “ we are right where we want to be ” : “ We ’ re actually down from where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Cuomo said .
“ The question was , when you start reopening , activity will go up , number of cases will go up , can you control the increase ?
That was the question .
We haven ’ t needed to control the increase , we ’ ve actually had a slight decline , and now we ’ re basically running flat .
And that is great news .
That is really great news.
” Cuomo said the adjustments that have been made to the phased reopening – such as postponing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City – are helping to keep the numbers low .
… The governor said no decision has been made regarding school reopening in the fall .
“ We obviously very much would like to , ” he said .
That is indeed good news , but the phased reopening plan didn ’ t entirely originate with Cuomo or New York .
The Trump administration developed that plan in April , hoping to get precisely the kind of result Cuomo touts here .
The idea was to phase in reopening steps while testing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and using targeted means to contain outbreaks .
Trump might well tout the exact same results as evidence that this plan works .
He ’ s already unhappy about the reporting on numbers in other states .
Late yesterday , Trump tweeted about the media missing the larger story on the “ China Virus ” : Part of the success of New York , however , might be its earlier failures .
The virus spread rapidly and broadly in the state , thanks to a series of dumb decisions by Cuomo and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The spread might have expedited the beginnings of herd immunity , especially in the Big Apple , which might account for why there isn ’ t a dramatic increase in positive tests — which we should expect from higher testing capability .
On the other hand , the daily count of new cases dropped yesterday across the US as a whole , Johns Hopkins announced this morning , not just New York .
That ’ s good news , but they warn that July 4 festivities might bring a new spike : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases for the first time in four days , according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University , but experts fear Fourth of July celebrations will act like rocket fuel for the nation ’ s surging outbreak .
Leaders in Austin and Houston , Texas , warned Sunday of hospitals nearing capacity , and asked Republican Gov .
Gregg Abbott to allow them to issue local lockdown orders .
Florida meanwhile surpassed 200,000 statewide coronavirus cases and West Virginia saw its biggest two-day jump in cases yet .
Hospital admissions and ICU capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not new cases in general .
There won ’ t be any way to avoid the transmission of the disease in the population , but the key is to keep its kinetic value low enough so that acute cases don ’ t overwhelm health-care capacity .
That might be happening in Texas , but doesn ’ t appear to be happening elsewhere , as the new cases are trending much younger and with fewer co-morbidities .
This was the point of the lockdowns , after all — not to stop transmission entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health-care capacity curve .
Cuomo ’ s correct in noting that New York has managed its reopening to succeed at that objective .
So have many other states , and even Texas and Florida appear to have more of a transmission spike than a true capacity crisis for now .
Let ’ s keep the phased strategy in place — and maybe get the media to report this issue more accurately .
If they had , no one would have been surprised at Cuomo ’ s announcement today .

I can think of at least one person who not only predicted it but counted on it, and his name isn’t Andrew Cuomo. “We’re actually down from where we were when we started reopening,” the governor of New York told the media this afternoon. “Which, as you remember, no one predicted.” The question at the time was whether the states could control the increase, but instead “we are right where we want to be”:
NEW: “Since we started reopening…the numbers have actually declined,” New York Gov. Cuomo says. “We’re actually down from where we were when we started reopening which…no one predicted.” https://t.co/NeShia6kKX pic.twitter.com/zfNwMasPcX — ABC News (@ABC) July 6, 2020
“We’re actually down from where we were when we started reopening,” Cuomo said. “The question was, when you start reopening, activity will go up, number of cases will go up, can you control the increase? That was the question. We haven’t needed to control the increase, we’ve actually had a slight decline, and now we’re basically running flat. And that is great news. That is really great news.” Cuomo said the adjustments that have been made to the phased reopening – such as postponing indoor dining at restaurants in New York City – are helping to keep the numbers low. … The governor said no decision has been made regarding school reopening in the fall. “We obviously very much would like to,” he said.
That is indeed good news, but the phased reopening plan didn’t entirely originate with Cuomo or New York. The Trump administration developed that plan in April, hoping to get precisely the kind of result Cuomo touts here. The idea was to phase in reopening steps while testing, making adjustments when testing indicated higher risk and using targeted means to contain outbreaks.
Trump might well tout the exact same results as evidence that this plan works. He’s already unhappy about the reporting on numbers in other states. Late yesterday, Trump tweeted about the media missing the larger story on the “China Virus”:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1279906540791779334
Part of the success of New York, however, might be its earlier failures. The virus spread rapidly and broadly in the state, thanks to a series of dumb decisions by Cuomo and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. The spread might have expedited the beginnings of herd immunity, especially in the Big Apple, which might account for why there isn’t a dramatic increase in positive tests — which we should expect from higher testing capability.
On the other hand, the daily count of new cases dropped yesterday across the US as a whole, Johns Hopkins announced this morning, not just New York. That’s good news, but they warn that July 4 festivities might bring a new spike:
The United States dipped under 50,000 new coronavirus cases for the first time in four days, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University, but experts fear Fourth of July celebrations will act like rocket fuel for the nation’s surging outbreak. Leaders in Austin and Houston, Texas, warned Sunday of hospitals nearing capacity, and asked Republican Gov. Gregg Abbott to allow them to issue local lockdown orders. Florida meanwhile surpassed 200,000 statewide coronavirus cases and West Virginia saw its biggest two-day jump in cases yet.
Hospital admissions and ICU capacity are the key metrics in this pandemic, not new cases in general. There won’t be any way to avoid the transmission of the disease in the population, but the key is to keep its kinetic value low enough so that acute cases don’t overwhelm health-care capacity. That might be happening in Texas, but doesn’t appear to be happening elsewhere, as the new cases are trending much younger and with fewer co-morbidities. This was the point of the lockdowns, after all — not to stop transmission entirely, but just to get ahead of the health-care capacity curve.
Cuomo’s correct in noting that New York has managed its reopening to succeed at that objective. So have many other states, and even Texas and Florida appear to have more of a transmission spike than a true capacity crisis for now. Let’s keep the phased strategy in place — and maybe get the media to report this issue more accurately. If they had, no one would have been surprised at Cuomo’s announcement today.


hotair--2020-07-06--Electoral model: Trump has a 91% chance of winning

Not sure I ’ ve seen a bolder political prediction this year .
I ’ m going to disagree with the idea that the president is a 91 percent favorite to win right now , and disagree more forcefully that he ’ s going to lock down 362 electoral votes en route to victory .
I think there ’ s still a vaguely plausible scenario in which he wins in November , especially if the solid jobs reports keep piling up , but he ’ ll certainly have fewer EVs this time than he had against Hillary .
Established in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor Helmut Norpoth , the Primary Model correctly picked the victors in multiple presidential elections — including the last one… “ The Primary Model gives Trump a 91 % chance of winning in November .
This model has picked the winner in all but two elections since 1912 , when primaries were introduced , including , of course , Trump ’ s victory in 2016 , ” Mr. Norpoth tells Inside the Beltway in a statement .
“ As for polls showing Trump trailing Joe Biden right now , remember 2016 .
Polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain victory .
But this is not the only failure , ” he continues .
“ As a rule , the candidate with the stronger primary performance wins against the candidate with the weaker primary performance , ” Norpoth writes in explaining his model ’ s success .
On the other hand , that same webpage begins with the words , “ Caution : The massive disruptions caused by the Coronavirus outbreak may prompt me to revise the forecast , especially if there is a crack in Trump support.
” He said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 29 but noted at the time that Trump ’ s job approval hadn ’ t yet been dented by COVID-19 .
“ In fact , in the early goings [ of the pandemic ] he got a little uptick , ” Norpoth noted of the president ’ s approval rating .
“ And , unless his approval rating collapses , I don ’ t think that this would have much bearing on my forecast.
” Would this count as a collapse ?
New this morning from Gallup : No president who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting reelected .
That doesn ’ t mean Norpoth ’ s wrong — there are still four months for POTUS to rebound — but it means he ’ d be badly wrong if the election were held today .
Nor is there as much consolation as there may seem in the idea that there are still four months until America votes .
Polling on July 4 is actually a reasonably solid predictor of electoral outcomes historically , writes Harry Enten : [ S ] ince 1940 , the final result differs from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just 7 points .
The median difference is only about 4.5 points .
These should be quite worrisome for Trump given he ’ s already down double-digits , and there ’ s no guarantee any polling miss would benefit him .
Indeed , we can translate past polling to give us odds about the current election .
At least 8-in-10 to 9-in-10 times based solely on the horserace polling , Biden would be expected to take more votes in the fall .
More troublesome for Trump : no one in an incumbent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % at this point like Biden and gone on to lose .
History ’ s either going to end up misleading Enten or it ’ s going to end up misleading Norpoth .
As for Norpoth ’ s claim that the candidate who runs stronger in the primary almost always wins the general election , you can understand why that might generally hold true .
It ’ s a measure of partisan enthusiasm and we ’ d expect a candidate whose fans are more enthusiastic to turn out in greater numbers in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters are less so .
The wrinkle this year is that Democrats despise the president so thoroughly that he may be generating more “ enthusiasm ” in the other party than he is in his own .
Multiple polls that have had Biden leading him big nationally have found heavy majorities of Dems saying that they ’ re motivated more by their desire to defeat Trump than by their desire to see Biden win .
In fact , today ’ s Gallup poll finds an 89-point gap between Republican approval of Trump ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two percent ) , the highest the firm has ever measured .
I don ’ t know that conventional metrics for enthusiasm work in a situation where one party basically unanimously wants the current guy out .
As for 362 electoral votes , Trump ’ s own campaign staff seems to have written off the possibility of him building on his total of 306 from 2016 .
“ States that top campaign officials had said they had the luxury of pursuing are no longer considered add-ons to the president ’ s electoral vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Politico reported today , citing people close to or involved with his reelection operation .
The campaign is spending big on ads in states Trump already won four years ago , like Georgia and Florida , in hopes of keeping them red instead of in blue states in hopes of expanding the map , and donors are allegedly increasingly resigned to losing Michigan and Wisconsin .
“ We don ’ t need 306 .
We just need 270 .
We can lose Michigan and lose Pennsylvania and still win , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s light-years more realistic than 362 .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a new poll that ’ s encouraging for Trump , relatively speaking .
Trafalgar , the pollster that predicted his Rust Belt wins in 2016 , has him tied with Biden in Florida at a moment when other pollsters tend to show Sleepy Joe up by five points or better .
Fox News recently had Biden by nine ( ! )
there .

Not sure I’ve seen a bolder political prediction this year.
Or any year.
I’m going to disagree with the idea that the president is a 91 percent favorite to win right now, and disagree more forcefully that he’s going to lock down 362 electoral votes en route to victory. I think there’s still a vaguely plausible scenario in which he wins in November, especially if the solid jobs reports keep piling up, but he’ll certainly have fewer EVs this time than he had against Hillary.
Established in 1996 by Stony Brook University political science professor Helmut Norpoth, the Primary Model correctly picked the victors in multiple presidential elections — including the last one… “The Primary Model gives Trump a 91% chance of winning in November. This model has picked the winner in all but two elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced, including, of course, Trump’s victory in 2016,” Mr. Norpoth tells Inside the Beltway in a statement. “As for polls showing Trump trailing Joe Biden right now, remember 2016. Polls and poll-based forecasts all handed Clinton a certain victory. But this is not the only failure,” he continues.
“As a rule, the candidate with the stronger primary performance wins against the candidate with the weaker primary performance,” Norpoth writes in explaining his model’s success. On the other hand, that same webpage begins with the words, “Caution: The massive disruptions caused by the Coronavirus outbreak may prompt me to revise the forecast, especially if there is a crack in Trump support.” He said the same thing in a Fox appearance on May 29 but noted at the time that Trump’s job approval hadn’t yet been dented by COVID-19. “In fact, in the early goings [of the pandemic] he got a little uptick,” Norpoth noted of the president’s approval rating. “And, unless his approval rating collapses, I don’t think that this would have much bearing on my forecast.”
Would this count as a collapse? New this morning from Gallup:
No president who’s polling at 38 percent approval is getting reelected. That doesn’t mean Norpoth’s wrong — there are still four months for POTUS to rebound — but it means he’d be badly wrong if the election were held today. Nor is there as much consolation as there may seem in the idea that there are still four months until America votes. Polling on July 4 is actually a reasonably solid predictor of electoral outcomes historically, writes Harry Enten:
[S]ince 1940, the final result differs from the polls at this point by an average of just 7 points. The median difference is only about 4.5 points. These should be quite worrisome for Trump given he’s already down double-digits, and there’s no guarantee any polling miss would benefit him. Indeed, we can translate past polling to give us odds about the current election. At least 8-in-10 to 9-in-10 times based solely on the horserace polling, Biden would be expected to take more votes in the fall. More troublesome for Trump: no one in an incumbent presidential election has been polling above 50% at this point like Biden and gone on to lose.
History’s either going to end up misleading Enten or it’s going to end up misleading Norpoth. As for Norpoth’s claim that the candidate who runs stronger in the primary almost always wins the general election, you can understand why that might generally hold true. It’s a measure of partisan enthusiasm and we’d expect a candidate whose fans are more enthusiastic to turn out in greater numbers in the general election and defeat a candidate whose supporters are less so. The wrinkle this year is that Democrats despise the president so thoroughly that he may be generating more “enthusiasm” in the other party than he is in his own. Multiple polls that have had Biden leading him big nationally have found heavy majorities of Dems saying that they’re motivated more by their desire to defeat Trump than by their desire to see Biden win. In fact, today’s Gallup poll finds an 89-point gap between Republican approval of Trump (91 percent) and Democratic approval (two percent), the highest the firm has ever measured. I don’t know that conventional metrics for enthusiasm work in a situation where one party basically unanimously wants the current guy out.
As for 362 electoral votes, Trump’s own campaign staff seems to have written off the possibility of him building on his total of 306 from 2016. “States that top campaign officials had said they had the luxury of pursuing are no longer considered add-ons to the president’s electoral vote tally but backstops to keep him afloat,” Politico reported today, citing people close to or involved with his reelection operation. The campaign is spending big on ads in states Trump already won four years ago, like Georgia and Florida, in hopes of keeping them red instead of in blue states in hopes of expanding the map, and donors are allegedly increasingly resigned to losing Michigan and Wisconsin. “We don’t need 306. We just need 270. We can lose Michigan and lose Pennsylvania and still win,” said one Trump advisor. That’s light-years more realistic than 362.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a new poll that’s encouraging for Trump, relatively speaking. Trafalgar, the pollster that predicted his Rust Belt wins in 2016, has him tied with Biden in Florida at a moment when other pollsters tend to show Sleepy Joe up by five points or better. Fox News recently had Biden by nine(!) there.


hotair--2020-07-06--Activists lash out at J.K. Rowling again over conversion-therapy comparison

Author J.K. Rowling has refused to apologize for her views about hormone therapy as it relates to young trans people and that continues to outrage some trans activists .
Over the weekend , Rowling responded to one of her critics with a Twitter thread about the “ medicalization ” of young , gay people , which she compared to conversion therapy , i.e .
a therapy intended to convert gay people into straight people .
It started when Rowling liked this tweet by Sophie who is a trans woman : That got a reaction from this person who went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really want a response from Rowling .
Rowling took offense to that , saying she ’ s taken medication in the past for her own mental health issues and that it helped her .
Going back to her first tweet above , the “ porn tweeted at children ” is a reference to something Rowling has been doing during the lockdown .
As she explains here , she had written a children ’ s book for her own kids and planned to publish it at one point , but she wound up publishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She planned to leave the children ’ s book , The Ickabog , as something for her own family but changed her mind when the lockdown began .
Instead of selling the book , she releases new chapters for free on the web .
In response , lots of children ( with help from parents ) have been sending her their artwork connected to the story on Twitter and she praises many of them : Anyway , you get the idea .
I can ’ t imagine how thrilled some of these kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the author of the Harry Potter books .
But apparently , some of the angry trans activists have been responding to these threads with porn , which is wildly inappropriate , not to mention counterproductive .
In addition , Rowling has been getting lots of death wishes .
They aren ’ t really threats since I don ’ t think most of these people can be taken literally but they are certainly angry and ugly .
Anyway , the backstory to all of this is that some feminists like Rowling have taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists created the acronym TERF ( trans-exclusionary radical feminists ) to identify these women and are pretty vicious online seeking to punish the TERFs for their unorthodox views .
Rowling , because of her fame , is now the world ’ s best known TERF so she gets a tremendous amount of heat .
This really seems to have started last year with a tweet in support of a woman named Maya Forstarter who was fired over a tweet .
Then last month Rowling wrote a piece on her personal website explaining her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off another round of TERF wars .
My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya ’ s case by almost two years , during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely .
I ’ ve met trans people , and read sundry books , blogs and articles by trans people , gender specialists , intersex people , psychologists , safeguarding experts , social workers and doctors , and followed the discourse online and in traditional media .
On one level , my interest in this issue has been professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime series , set in the present day , and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in , and affected by , these issues herself , but on another , it ’ s intensely personal , as I ’ m about to explain .
All the time I ’ ve been researching and learning , accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline .
This was initially triggered by a ‘ like ’ .
When I started taking an interest in gender identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments that interested me , as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later .
On one occasion , I absent-mindedly ‘ liked ’ instead of screenshotting .
That single ‘ like ’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink , and a persistent low level of harassment began .
Months later , I compounded my accidental ‘ like ’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter .
Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour .
I followed her because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I succeeded in doing .
However , as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex , and didn ’ t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises , dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists , and the level of social media abuse increased .
I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya .
I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate , to be called cunt and bitch and , of course , for my books to be burned , although one particularly abusive man told me he ’ d composted them .
After offering five reasons why she is concerned about the current trans movement , Rowling says she ’ s decided to stand up to the backlash that many people are afraid to face : It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow .
There ’ s joy , relief and safety in conformity .
As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote , “ … without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one ’ s liberation ; the dead , too , are better suited to the earth than the living.
” Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists ; I know this because so many have got in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re afraid of doxxing , of losing their jobs or their livelihoods , and of violence .
But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been , I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘ woman ’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it .
I stand alongside the brave women and men , gay , straight and trans , who ’ re standing up for freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society : young gay kids , fragile teenagers , and women who ’ re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces .
Polls show those women are in the vast majority , and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault , and who ’ ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is .
So , you can probably see why they hate her so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she won ’ t apologize when threatened .
They may not have enough numbers or power to cancel J.K. Rowling but it won ’ t stop them from trying to punish her for espousing what they see as the wrong ideas .

Author J.K. Rowling has refused to apologize for her views about hormone therapy as it relates to young trans people and that continues to outrage some trans activists. Over the weekend, Rowling responded to one of her critics with a Twitter thread about the “medicalization” of young, gay people, which she compared to conversion therapy, i.e. a therapy intended to convert gay people into straight people. It started when Rowling liked this tweet by Sophie who is a trans woman:
Hormone prescriptions are the new antidepressants. Yes they are sometimes necessary and lifesaving, but they should be a last resort – not the first option. Pure laziness for those who would rather medicate than put in the time and effort to heal people’s minds. — Sophie XY 🟥 (@SophieXY44) July 4, 2020
That got a reaction from this person who went on to complain that he didn’t really want a response from Rowling.
Who had money on JK Rowling pivoting to supporting those who call people who take mental health medication "lazy"? I take daily medication to function, this sentiment is beyond offensive, it is actively harmful to millions. pic.twitter.com/7UOgBx0ZLX — Tristan ❄ (@TGrayWrites) July 4, 2020
Rowling took offense to that, saying she’s taken medication in the past for her own mental health issues and that it helped her.
I've ignored fake tweets attributed to me and RTed widely. I've ignored porn tweeted at children on a thread about their art. I've ignored death and rape threats. I'm not going to ignore this. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/hfSaGR2UVa — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
I’ve written and spoken about my own mental health challenges, which include OCD, depression and anxiety. I did so recently in my essay ‘TERF Wars’. I’ve taken anti-depressants in the past and they helped me. 3/11 — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function. 5/11 — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
As I’ve said many times, transition may be the answer for some. For others, it won’t – witness the accounts of detransitioners.
“The system sees surgery as the easy fix to girls who do not conform.”
https://t.co/cr1Zi4JnWR 7/11 — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
The long-term health risks of cross-sex hormones have been now been tracked over a lengthy period. These side-effects are often minimised or denied by trans activists.https://t.co/fpIxW34AWr
9/11 — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
None of that may trouble you or disturb your belief in your own righteousness. But if so, I can’t pretend I care much about your bad opinion of me. 11/11 — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
PPS I've just realised the link to the excellent Charlie Evans piece on detransitioners isn't working. Here it is: https://t.co/4v3PEHP3HB — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
Going back to her first tweet above, the “porn tweeted at children” is a reference to something Rowling has been doing during the lockdown. As she explains here, she had written a children’s book for her own kids and planned to publish it at one point, but she wound up publishing a different book for adults instead. She planned to leave the children’s book, The Ickabog, as something for her own family but changed her mind when the lockdown began. Instead of selling the book, she releases new chapters for free on the web. In response, lots of children (with help from parents) have been sending her their artwork connected to the story on Twitter and she praises many of them:
Sophie, this is a beautiful map! I loved looking at all the detail: the produce, the different cities and that fabulous walled city! #TheIckabog https://t.co/N6bs7WS2SL — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 5, 2020
Sophie, your Ickabog is fantastic (I like the heart-shaped marking, which contrasts well with those evil eyes and sharp teeth!) and that picture of the bored Spittleworth and Flapoon lounging in their chairs is one of my favourites of all I've seen of them! #TheIckabog https://t.co/TEMJobNoHa — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) July 6, 2020
Anyway, you get the idea. I can’t imagine how thrilled some of these kids must be to get some personal praise from the author of the Harry Potter books. But apparently, some of the angry trans activists have been responding to these threads with porn, which is wildly inappropriate, not to mention counterproductive.
In addition, Rowling has been getting lots of death wishes. They aren’t really threats since I don’t think most of these people can be taken literally but they are certainly angry and ugly.
Here are the death threats and harassment JK Rowling has been recieving. Including abuse from verified accounts. Dozens of hit pieces written about "the backlash to her transphobia." Not one mentioned the threats she's receiving from these radical activists. pic.twitter.com/OuiWUBR2Ge — Dataracer (@Dataracer117) June 16, 2020
Anyway, the backstory to all of this is that some feminists like Rowling have taken issue with some trans dogma. Trans activists created the acronym TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) to identify these women and are pretty vicious online seeking to punish the TERFs for their unorthodox views. Rowling, because of her fame, is now the world’s best known TERF so she gets a tremendous amount of heat.
This really seems to have started last year with a tweet in support of a woman named Maya Forstarter who was fired over a tweet. Then last month Rowling wrote a piece on her personal website explaining her reasoning for supporting Maya and that set off another round of TERF wars.
My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain. All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began. Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased. I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.
After offering five reasons why she is concerned about the current trans movement, Rowling says she’s decided to stand up to the backlash that many people are afraid to face:
It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.” Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence. But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.
So, you can probably see why they hate her so much. She’s articulate and reasonable and she won’t apologize when threatened. They may not have enough numbers or power to cancel J.K. Rowling but it won’t stop them from trying to punish her for espousing what they see as the wrong ideas.


hotair--2020-07-06--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio: Trial over faith, faithless electors, free speech, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host for Sheila Liaugminas ’ A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from 6-7 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Will the US Navy court-martial an officer for going to church ?
First Liberty ’ s Mike Berry reports on the case of Major Daniel Schultz , whose naval command ordered officers not to attend religious services .
The same order allowed personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Major Schultz saw this as an illegal order .
• I ’ ll review today ’ s Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo and take calls on the “ faithless electors ” phenomenon .
• Will a lawsuit prevent Title IX reforms to speech restrictions on campus from taking effect ?
Nicole Neily from Speech First discusses the lawsuit and what ’ s at stake on college campuses — and from there to the rest of the country .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host for Sheila Liaugminas’ A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from 6-7 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Will the US Navy court-martial an officer for going to church? First Liberty’s Mike Berry reports on the case of Major Daniel Schultz, whose naval command ordered officers not to attend religious services. The same order allowed personnel to attend protests and use mass transit, and Major Schultz saw this as an illegal order.
I’ll review today’s Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo and take calls on the “faithless electors” phenomenon.
Will a lawsuit prevent Title IX reforms to speech restrictions on campus from taking effect? Nicole Neily from Speech First discusses the lawsuit and what’s at stake on college campuses — and from there to the rest of the country.
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-07-06--Trump: When will Bubba Wallace apologize for that race hoax?

Lot going on here , starting with the fact that this story is almost two weeks old .
Why ’ s he tweeting about it now ?
One is always tempted with presidential tweets to go looking for “ eight-dimensional chess ” explanations , but it ’ s a mistake .
He probably saw a NASCAR commercial on Fox today and realized that he hadn ’ t ventilated this particular grievance yet so he fired away .
Trump usually operates on impulse .
…and it ’ s still an open question whether this was a “ hoax.
” I took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory for that scenario in this post and couldn ’ t come up with anything .
Even if it was a hoax — and how could it have been when the “ noose ” rope was there since late 2019 ?
— it doesn ’ t seem to have been Wallace ’ s fault .
According to the man himself , the person who discovered it was an African-American crew member who was at the garage in Talladega .
Wallace himself wasn ’ t there due to concerns about COVID-19 .
The driver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the track to see if their pull ropes were also tied like nooses .
When he saw that they weren ’ t , he informed NASCAR .
It was the president of NASCAR , Steve Phelps , who told Wallace about the noose and claimed that a “ hate crime ” had occurred , not vice versa .
If all of that ’ s true , it sounds more like a misunderstanding than a hoax .
And if anyone should apologize for hyping it , it ’ s Phelps , not Wallace .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump before deleting it… …although he ’ s since retweeted this to make his point instead : More interesting is Lindsey Graham also wanting no part of this conflagration : Graham is more keyed in on the very end of Trump ’ s tweet , where he suggested that banning the Confederate flag at NASCAR events was a bad idea .
His usual defense of Confederate monuments is that they ’ re part of our history ; to tear them down is to obliterate history itself .
That ’ s a harder argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Confederate flag at sports events .
If there ’ s any strategic explanation for his tweeting about Wallace it ’ s that it ’ s part of a general culture-war reelection campaign that ’ s turning increasingly scattershot in its targets .
One minute it ’ s Confederate monuments , the next it ’ s Wallace and the rebel flag , the next it ’ s sports teams changing their nicknames : Apparently the Trump campaign was so eager to fundraise on the left ’ s threat to American and religious icons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statue of Christ the Redeemer in an email this weekend with the tagline , “ WE WILL PROTECT THIS.
” As one Trump advisor eloquently put it to the Daily Beast , “ the statue sh*t ” is now a core part of the campaign : Both sources independently said they intended to gently implore Trump to take a different approach .
One of the sources said they had already told Trump in recent days that making statue fetishization a cornerstone of the re-election pitch amounted to a “ distraction ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary votes into the president ’ s column by the election in November .
“ The question now is , Is the statue sh*t going to work ?
” said a senior Trump campaign adviser , adding that current polling was “ inconclusive ” at best… “ One issue is that the president and some of his people see something on Fox News and then take that to mean that that issue will resonate with most voters : Republican , independents , even some Democrats or former Democrats , ” said one Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That is what is happening with the hyper-focus on this [ statues ] issue and it doesn ’ t always work out .
Look at the caravan during the [ 2018 ] midterms.
” The through-line on everything from Confederate statues to the flag ban at NASCAR to Wallace and his “ hoax ” to the Redskins changing their name is the sense that older white Americans are having to yield on aspects of the culture with which they might be comfortable with but which younger , browner Americans aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a long cultural retreat and defeat , the sort of thing Trump was elected to stop but ended up presiding over .
( Tucker Carlson ’ s willingness to point that out is why his ratings are up lately . )
He ’ d be on firmer ground if he stuck to defending icons of the Founding Fathers , about whom opinion isn ’ t as polarized .
But that would miss the point : Precisely because that subject is less divisive , there ’ s less hay to be made of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have called for leaving statues of Washington and Jefferson in place .
This is also why , although Trump didn ’ t praise any Confederates in his Mt .
Rushmore speech , the media got away with implying that he did .
It ’ s not just that they ’ re biased against him ( although they are ) , it ’ s that Trump himself typically draws no line around the Founding Fathers relative to his more dubious cultural sacred cows .
Washington , Jefferson , Robert E. Lee , CSA generals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , the U.S. flag , the Confederate flag — it ’ s all pretty much the same to him .
( He has that much in common with wokesters .
It ’ s all pretty much the same to them too . )
His speechwriters for Mt .
Rushmore were more careful than he usually is , but you never get the real Trump from his speeches .
Twitter Trump is the real deal .
The strangest thing about “ the statue sh*t ” is that he has far richer political material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to claw back suburbanites and older voters .
His positive argument for reelecting him is the economy : “ I ’ ve built the best economy ever once , I can do it again , just look at the jobs reports lately.
” That ’ s straightforward .
But he has an increasingly strong negative argument too : Trends in crime .
There are three posts on this site today alone tracking how menacing the situation has become in Chicago , Atlanta , and New York City , where crime had been shrinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a trickier pitch for Trump than the economy pitch since , after all , crime is rising on his watch as president , but he ’ s a “ law and order ” candidate of longstanding and doubtless would poll better than Biden if you asked Americans whom they trust more to deal with crime .
( Especially during a “ defund the police ” push on the left . )
He should dial back the statue chatter and drill down on that a bit more .
I bet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave you with this oldie but goodie from 2013 :

Lot going on here, starting with the fact that this story is almost two weeks old. Why’s he tweeting about it now?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280117571874951170
One is always tempted with presidential tweets to go looking for “eight-dimensional chess” explanations, but it’s a mistake. He probably saw a NASCAR commercial on Fox today and realized that he hadn’t ventilated this particular grievance yet so he fired away. Trump usually operates on impulse.
Anyway, NASCAR’s ratings aren’t down…
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1280120758983888897
…and it’s still an open question whether this was a “hoax.” I took my best shot to formulate a conspiracy theory for that scenario in this post and couldn’t come up with anything. Even if it was a hoax — and how could it have been when the “noose” rope was there since late 2019? — it doesn’t seem to have been Wallace’s fault. According to the man himself, the person who discovered it was an African-American crew member who was at the garage in Talladega. Wallace himself wasn’t there due to concerns about COVID-19. The driver apparently walked around to other garages at the track to see if their pull ropes were also tied like nooses. When he saw that they weren’t, he informed NASCAR. It was the president of NASCAR, Steve Phelps, who told Wallace about the noose and claimed that a “hate crime” had occurred, not vice versa.
If all of that’s true, it sounds more like a misunderstanding than a hoax. And if anyone should apologize for hyping it, it’s Phelps, not Wallace.
Wallace responded to Trump’s tweet this afternoon, denouncing “hate”:
Another NASCAR driver initially tweeted this at Trump before deleting it…
…although he’s since retweeted this to make his point instead:
There is nothing to apologize for when:
–Taking a perceived threat seriously
–People show support for one another
–Making policy to be more inclusive & more welcoming
–Doing what you feel is right, regardless of any perceived business consequences — Bob Pockrass (@bobpockrass) July 6, 2020
More interesting is Lindsey Graham also wanting no part of this conflagration:
“…they all rallied to Bubba's side, so I would be looking to celebrate that kind of attitude more than being worried about it being a hoax." — Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 6, 2020
“So what I would tell people from outside of South Carolina that NASCAR is trying to grow the sport and one way you grow the sport is you take images that divide us and ask that they not be brought into the venue. That makes sense to me,” Graham said — Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 6, 2020
Graham is more keyed in on the very end of Trump’s tweet, where he suggested that banning the Confederate flag at NASCAR events was a bad idea. His usual defense of Confederate monuments is that they’re part of our history; to tear them down is to obliterate history itself. That’s a harder argument to make in defense of gratuitously displaying the Confederate flag at sports events. If there’s any strategic explanation for his tweeting about Wallace it’s that it’s part of a general culture-war reelection campaign that’s turning increasingly scattershot in its targets. One minute it’s Confederate monuments, the next it’s Wallace and the rebel flag, the next it’s sports teams changing their nicknames:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280203174008303616
Apparently the Trump campaign was so eager to fundraise on the left’s threat to American and religious icons that they included a photo of Brazil’s statue of Christ the Redeemer in an email this weekend with the tagline, “WE WILL PROTECT THIS.” As one Trump advisor eloquently put it to the Daily Beast, “the statue sh*t” is now a core part of the campaign:
Both sources independently said they intended to gently implore Trump to take a different approach. One of the sources said they had already told Trump in recent days that making statue fetishization a cornerstone of the re-election pitch amounted to a “distraction” that wouldn’t help move the necessary votes into the president’s column by the election in November. “The question now is, Is the statue sh*t going to work?” said a senior Trump campaign adviser, adding that current polling was “inconclusive” at best… “One issue is that the president and some of his people see something on Fox News and then take that to mean that that issue will resonate with most voters: Republican, independents, even some Democrats or former Democrats,” said one Republican operative close to the White House. “That is what is happening with the hyper-focus on this [statues] issue and it doesn’t always work out. Look at the caravan during the [2018] midterms.”
The through-line on everything from Confederate statues to the flag ban at NASCAR to Wallace and his “hoax” to the Redskins changing their name is the sense that older white Americans are having to yield on aspects of the culture with which they might be comfortable with but which younger, browner Americans aren’t. It’s the idol-smashing stage of a long cultural retreat and defeat, the sort of thing Trump was elected to stop but ended up presiding over. (Tucker Carlson’s willingness to point that out is why his ratings are up lately.) He’d be on firmer ground if he stuck to defending icons of the Founding Fathers, about whom opinion isn’t as polarized. But that would miss the point: Precisely because that subject is less divisive, there’s less hay to be made of it electorally. Even Biden and Pelosi have called for leaving statues of Washington and Jefferson in place.
This is also why, although Trump didn’t praise any Confederates in his Mt. Rushmore speech, the media got away with implying that he did. It’s not just that they’re biased against him (although they are), it’s that Trump himself typically draws no line around the Founding Fathers relative to his more dubious cultural sacred cows. Washington, Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, CSA generals who have U.S. military bases named after them, the U.S. flag, the Confederate flag — it’s all pretty much the same to him. (He has that much in common with wokesters. It’s all pretty much the same to them too.) His speechwriters for Mt. Rushmore were more careful than he usually is, but you never get the real Trump from his speeches. Twitter Trump is the real deal.
The strangest thing about “the statue sh*t” is that he has far richer political material to mine if he’s trying to claw back suburbanites and older voters. His positive argument for reelecting him is the economy: “I’ve built the best economy ever once, I can do it again, just look at the jobs reports lately.” That’s straightforward. But he has an increasingly strong negative argument too: Trends in crime. There are three posts on this site today alone tracking how menacing the situation has become in Chicago, Atlanta, and New York City, where crime had been shrinking essentially nonstop for 25 years until recently. That’s a trickier pitch for Trump than the economy pitch since, after all, crime is rising on his watch as president, but he’s a “law and order” candidate of longstanding and doubtless would poll better than Biden if you asked Americans whom they trust more to deal with crime. (Especially during a “defund the police” push on the left.) He should dial back the statue chatter and drill down on that a bit more. I bet it would help.
I’ll leave you with this oldie but goodie from 2013:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/387565483303923712


hotair--2020-07-06--Judge orders the Dakota Access Pipeline temporarily shut down

A federal judge has ordered that the Dakota Access Pipeline , which has been operating for the past three years , be shut down while an expanded environmental review takes place .
The same judge ordered the new review in March and said at that time that he would consider whether or not to shut down the pipeline in the interim .
In March , Judge Boasberg , who was appointed by President Barack Obama , ordered the federal government to conduct a sweeping new environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline .
The ruling found that the pipeline ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the human environment are likely to be highly controversial , ” and that the federal government had not done enough to study the risks of a major spill , or whether the pipeline ’ s leak detection system was adequate .
He also ordered both the tribe and the federal government to submit briefs on whether the pipeline should continue operating during the new environmental review .
The Earthjustice lawyer , Mr. Hasselman , said at the time that the tribe would ask for the pipeline to be shut down until the review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granted that request .
Earthjustice , the environmental group that is representing the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in court , said today ’ s decision means the pipeline will remain closed for several years : “ The shutdown will remain in place pending completion of a full environmental review , which normally takes several years , and the issuance of new permits .
It may be up to a new administration to make final permitting decisions.
” Meanwhile , the company that operates the pipeline said it plans to appeal the decision : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning from Judge Boasberg is not supported by the law or the facts of the case .
Furthermore , we believe that Judge Boasberg has exceeded his authority in ordering the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline , which has been safely operating for more than three years .
We will be immediately pursuing all available legal and administrative processes and are confident that once the law and full record are fully considered Dakota Access Pipeline will not be shut down and that oil will continue to flow .
We intend to immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if not granted , to pursue a stay and expedited appeal with the Court of Appeals .
We also believe that the Army Corps of Engineers has the ultimate jurisdiction over this matter , pursuant to its regulations governing Corps property… This pipeline is the safest , most environmentally responsible method for moving North Dakota ’ s crude oil to refining markets around the country .
Shutting down this critical piece of infrastructure would throw our country ’ s crude supply system out of balance , negatively impact several significant industries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , and jeopardize our national security .
We ’ ll have to wait and see whether a stay or an appeal will reverse this decision , but for now it appears the Standing Rock Sioux have won a big victory in court that could result in this pipeline being shut down permanently .
In closing , here ’ s President of the North Dakota Petroleum Council Ron Ness , expressing his shock at today ’ s rulling :

A federal judge has ordered that the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been operating for the past three years, be shut down while an expanded environmental review takes place. The same judge ordered the new review in March and said at that time that he would consider whether or not to shut down the pipeline in the interim.
In March, Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, ordered the federal government to conduct a sweeping new environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling found that the pipeline’s “effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial,” and that the federal government had not done enough to study the risks of a major spill, or whether the pipeline’s leak detection system was adequate. He also ordered both the tribe and the federal government to submit briefs on whether the pipeline should continue operating during the new environmental review. The Earthjustice lawyer, Mr. Hasselman, said at the time that the tribe would ask for the pipeline to be shut down until the review was completed. Monday’s ruling granted that request.
Earthjustice, the environmental group that is representing the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in court, said today’s decision means the pipeline will remain closed for several years: “The shutdown will remain in place pending completion of a full environmental review, which normally takes several years, and the issuance of new permits. It may be up to a new administration to make final permitting decisions.”
Meanwhile, the company that operates the pipeline said it plans to appeal the decision:
We believe that the ruling issued this morning from Judge Boasberg is not supported by the law or the facts of the case. Furthermore, we believe that Judge Boasberg has exceeded his authority in ordering the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been safely operating for more than three years. We will be immediately pursuing all available legal and administrative processes and are confident that once the law and full record are fully considered Dakota Access Pipeline will not be shut down and that oil will continue to flow. We intend to immediately file a motion to stay this decision and if not granted, to pursue a stay and expedited appeal with the Court of Appeals. We also believe that the Army Corps of Engineers has the ultimate jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to its regulations governing Corps property… This pipeline is the safest, most environmentally responsible method for moving North Dakota’s crude oil to refining markets around the country. Shutting down this critical piece of infrastructure would throw our country’s crude supply system out of balance, negatively impact several significant industries, inflict more damage on an already struggling economy, and jeopardize our national security.
We’ll have to wait and see whether a stay or an appeal will reverse this decision, but for now it appears the Standing Rock Sioux have won a big victory in court that could result in this pipeline being shut down permanently.
In closing, here’s President of the North Dakota Petroleum Council Ron Ness, expressing his shock at today’s rulling:


hotair--2020-07-06--What can we expect from Ghislaine Maxwell's court date this week?

Jeffrey Epstein fixer and child procurer ( “ allegedly “ ) Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a New York City lockup in advance of her next court appearance .
She wound up landing at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn .
We should immediately wonder whether the prosecutors were trying to send a rather unsubtle message to Maxwell by putting her in the same jail where her former boss had his , er… unfortunate accident when there were other locations available to store her .
Nevertheless , she ’ ll be going before a judge later this week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any ) should we expect when she stands before the wheel ?
Depending on how much credence you give to some of the courthouse gossip going around , it might be quite the show .
For one example , we can look to this report from one of her more famous accusers who claimed that Maxwell was sobbing and going into hysterics prior to her previous remote/video appearance .
Virginia Roberts Giuffre , who claims to have been served up repeatedly to Prince Andrew , told reporters that she had smiled broadly upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering .
And if her allegations are true , could you really blame her ?
( NY Post ) Ghislaine Maxwell broke down in tears and wailed “ Why is this happening ?
” when she faced a judge last week , according to a key accuser who called it “ one of the best days of my life.
” Virginia Roberts Giuffre — who has repeatedly claimed Maxwell forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew — claims she heard the anguished cries during the British socialite ’ s remote appearance before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after her arrest Thursday .
She heard “ a very loud British woman screaming , ‘ Why is this happening ?
How is this happening ?
How could this happen ?
’ — and just crying her eyes out , ” Giuffre told “ 60 Minutes Australia , ” smiling at the memory .
While Giuffre described the event as being “ one of the best days of her life , ” it ’ s not entirely clear if her account is true .
Reporters covering the hearing claimed that they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether she had confused someone else on the call for Maxwell .
Either way , if it makes her feel better , I ’ m sure it ’ s okay .
Of course , we already know who probably isn ’ t feeling better .
That would be the aforementioned Prince Andrew .
As Ed Morrissey noted earlier , he ’ s mysteriously decided to remain in his native country instead of vacationing abroad this year .
And possibly for many years to come .
If Maxwell was expecting any sympathy from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City , she ’ s probably going to come away disappointed .
NY Post columnist Maureen Callahan welcomed her to Gotham with an op-ed informing Maxwell that she needs to “ spare us the poor little rich girl ” act .
But by all means , let ’ s keep hearing about what a victim Ghislaine Maxwell is .
How she had the misfortune to fall in love with Jeffrey Epstein and how powerless she was under the intoxicating spell of this pedophile and serial child rapist .
“ I know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a Maxwell pal told Vanity Fair .
“ She would have done anything for him .
He trumped everybody and everything.
” Ladies — who among us can ’ t relate ?
And since Maxwell only ever wanted Epstein to love her — impossible when your boyfriend is into children — she would put up with all sorts of abuse .
She was Epstein ’ s beard at high-society galas , his age-appropriate arm candy , while behind closed doors she was allegedly nothing more than a pimp .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a child was involved .
Welcome to the NY media market , Ms. Maxwell .
You can likely expect more of the same in the future .
Of course , it ’ s still possible that she may get off with little to no jail time , even if she ’ s convicted .
If you go back to the article I linked at the top regarding her transfer to a New York City jail , there ’ s an interesting quote in there .
One source familiar with the pending case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal is possible if Maxwell “ has proof which will lead to the conviction of bigger fish.
” And given the previous rumors that Maxwell has videotapes that could prove very uncomfortable for many powerful individuals and is currently facing the possibility of what would work out to be a life sentence , they likely have very good reason to be worried indeed .

Jeffrey Epstein fixer and child procurer (“allegedly“) Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a New York City lockup in advance of her next court appearance. She wound up landing at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. We should immediately wonder whether the prosecutors were trying to send a rather unsubtle message to Maxwell by putting her in the same jail where her former boss had his, er… unfortunate accident when there were other locations available to store her. Nevertheless, she’ll be going before a judge later this week.
But what sort of fireworks (if any) should we expect when she stands before the wheel? Depending on how much credence you give to some of the courthouse gossip going around, it might be quite the show. For one example, we can look to this report from one of her more famous accusers who claimed that Maxwell was sobbing and going into hysterics prior to her previous remote/video appearance. Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims to have been served up repeatedly to Prince Andrew, told reporters that she had smiled broadly upon hearing Maxwell’s apparent distress and suffering. And if her allegations are true, could you really blame her? (NY Post)
Ghislaine Maxwell broke down in tears and wailed “Why is this happening?” when she faced a judge last week, according to a key accuser who called it “one of the best days of my life.” Virginia Roberts Giuffre — who has repeatedly claimed Maxwell forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew — claims she heard the anguished cries during the British socialite’s remote appearance before a federal magistrate in New Hampshire hours after her arrest Thursday. She heard “a very loud British woman screaming, ‘Why is this happening? How is this happening? How could this happen?’ — and just crying her eyes out,” Giuffre told “60 Minutes Australia,” smiling at the memory.
While Giuffre described the event as being “one of the best days of her life,” it’s not entirely clear if her account is true. Reporters covering the hearing claimed that they didn’t hear such anguished cries and wondered whether she had confused someone else on the call for Maxwell. Either way, if it makes her feel better, I’m sure it’s okay.
Of course, we already know who probably isn’t feeling better. That would be the aforementioned Prince Andrew. As Ed Morrissey noted earlier, he’s mysteriously decided to remain in his native country instead of vacationing abroad this year. And possibly for many years to come.
If Maxwell was expecting any sympathy from the local press upon her arrival in New York City, she’s probably going to come away disappointed. NY Post columnist Maureen Callahan welcomed her to Gotham with an op-ed informing Maxwell that she needs to “spare us the poor little rich girl” act.
But by all means, let’s keep hearing about what a victim Ghislaine Maxwell is. How she had the misfortune to fall in love with Jeffrey Epstein and how powerless she was under the intoxicating spell of this pedophile and serial child rapist. “I know that she would have died to marry him,” a Maxwell pal told Vanity Fair. “She would have done anything for him. He trumped everybody and everything.” Ladies — who among us can’t relate? And since Maxwell only ever wanted Epstein to love her — impossible when your boyfriend is into children — she would put up with all sorts of abuse. She was Epstein’s beard at high-society galas, his age-appropriate arm candy, while behind closed doors she was allegedly nothing more than a pimp. He was only ever interested in sex with her if a child was involved. Poor Ghislaine!
Welcome to the NY media market, Ms. Maxwell. You can likely expect more of the same in the future. Of course, it’s still possible that she may get off with little to no jail time, even if she’s convicted. If you go back to the article I linked at the top regarding her transfer to a New York City jail, there’s an interesting quote in there. One source familiar with the pending case told the Post that “a plea deal is possible if Maxwell “has proof which will lead to the conviction of bigger fish.” And given the previous rumors that Maxwell has videotapes that could prove very uncomfortable for many powerful individuals and is currently facing the possibility of what would work out to be a life sentence, they likely have very good reason to be worried indeed.


hotair--2020-07-06--NYT wonders: Say, maybe cheering the BLM protests has undermined epidemiologists' COVID-19 credibili

NYT wonders: Say, maybe cheering the BLM protests has undermined epidemiologists' COVID-19 credibility

The deuce you say !
This flash from the Paper of Record only surprises to the extent that the New York Times covered this issue at all .
“ Are protests unsafe ?
” their headline asks , and then adds , “ What experts say may depend on who ’ s protesting what.
” So when conservative anti-lockdown protesters gathered on state capitol steps in places like Columbus , Ohio and Lansing , Mich. , in April and May , epidemiologists scolded them and forecast surging infections .
When Gov .
Brian Kemp of Georgia relaxed restrictions on businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections rose , the talk in public health circles was of that state ’ s embrace of human sacrifice .
And then the brutal killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis on May 25 changed everything .
Soon the streets nationwide were full of tens of thousands of people in a mass protest movement that continues to this day , with demonstrations and the toppling of statues .
And rather than decrying mass gatherings , more than 1,300 public health officials signed a May 30 letter of support , and many joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contrast with the epidemiologists ’ earlier fervent support for the lockdown , gave rise to an uncomfortable question : Was public health advice in a pandemic dependent on whether people approved of the mass gathering in question ?
To many , the answer seemed to be “ yes.
” Bear in mind that there have been little differences between the two protests from a scientific/transmission perspective — and those differences run against this trend .
The shutdown protests usually involved dozens of people , sometimes hundreds , with inconsistent-at-best distancing and masking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events , with Michigan being the most obvious exception .
The protests that followed the Floyd homicide , on the other hand , have been continuous , involve thousands if not tens of thousands of people , and have zero distancing and a middling use of masks .
If the lockdown protests were a crisis for future spikes , then so are the Floyd protests .
The latter would be higher risk because of their size , density , and the length of time .
So why aren ’ t epidemiologists warning about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas Chatterton Williams warned a month ago in The Guardian — linked in today ’ s NYT report — that the Left was warping science in the same way they accuse conservatives , to serve their own political purposes .
The end result , Williams concludes , is that public health experts “ have hemorrhaged credibility and authority ” : Less than two weeks ago , the enlightened position in both Europe and America was to exercise nothing less than extreme caution .
Many of us went much further , taking to social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing or neglecting to wear masks or daring to believe they could maintain some semblance of a normal life during coronavirus .
At the end of April , when the state of Georgia moved to end its lockdown , the Atlantic ran an article with the headline “ Georgia ’ s Experiment in Human Sacrifice ” .
Two weeks ago we shamed people for being in the street ; today we shame them for not being in the street .
As a result of lockdowns and quarantines , many millions of people around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depleted their savings , missed funerals of loved ones , postponed cancer screenings and generally put their lives on hold for the indefinite future .
They accepted these sacrifices as awful but necessary when confronted by an otherwise unstoppable virus .
Was this or wasn ’ t this all an exercise in futility ?
“ The risks of congregating during a global pandemic shouldn ’ t keep people from protesting racism , ” NPR suddenly tells us , citing a letter signed by dozens of American public health and disease experts .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue that predates and contributes to Covid-19 , ” the letter said .
One epidemiologist has gone even further , arguing that the public health risks of not protesting for an end to systemic racism “ greatly exceed the harms of the virus ” .
The climate-change-denying right is often ridiculed , correctly , for politicizing science .
Yet the way the public health narrative around coronavirus has reversed itself overnight seems an awful lot like … politicizing science .
Williams warned at the time that the whiplash from this manipulated messaging would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these experts .
What happens when these same experts urge people to get vaccinated with a new compound ?
How about if we need a new round of shutdowns ?
As it happens , the rollback of reopenings has become an acute issue already , along with the question of mask-wearing .
This obvious politicization of science has damaged officials ’ credibility , and the fact that the NYT is finally reporting on it shows just how risky that damage is .
The problem is that the experts themselves still haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Troisi , an infectious disease epidemiologist at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston , studies Covid-19 .
When , wearing a mask and standing at the edge of a great swell of people , she attended a recent protest in Houston supporting Mr. Floyd , a sense of contradiction tugged at her .
“ I certainly condemned the anti-lockdown protests at the time , and I ’ m not condemning the protests now , and I struggle with that , ” she said .
“ I have a hard time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lurie , a professor of epidemiology at Brown University , described a similar struggle .
“ Instinctively , many of us in public health feel a strong desire to act against accumulated generations of racial injustice , ” Professor Lurie said .
“ But we have to be honest : A few weeks before , we were criticizing protesters for arguing to open up the economy and saying that was dangerous behavior .
“ I am still grappling with that.
” While they ’ re grappling with their political manipulation , the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their advice .
Instead of listening to instructions from scientists speaking within their narrow expertise , people are hearing political manifestos from advocates , and acting accordingly .
They have no one to blame but themselves for that outcome , just as the idiots at the CDC who spent weeks insisting that masks were useless now have no one to blame but themselves for the people who won ’ t listen to their advice now to start wearing them .
If experts want to retain credibility , they should take better care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the mainstream media outlets that spent the last month pretending that this issue didn ’ t exist at all , including the New York Times .
The Atlantic ’ s Zeynep Tufecki points out that the Gray Lady has been just as hyperbolic and slanted as any other media outlet when it comes to beachgoing , for instance , which is much less risky than congregating shoulder-to-shoulder for protests : In other words , one can hardly imagine a comparatively safer environment than a sunny , windy ocean beach .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with absolutely zero risk , but the beach may well be as good as it gets—if people stay socially distant , which is much easier to do on a big beach .
And yet many news organizations have seized upon beaches , and scenes of beachgoers , as a sign of why things are so bad in the United States .
For example , a New York Times article about the “ disturbing ” number of younger cases featured a beach photo with two women—in bikinis—who are very far away from everyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also clearly far away from everyone else , alone or in small groups .
They ’ re demonstrating the ideal precautions public-health experts have been begging us to undertake for months .
Similarly , a Washington Post article talking about how Myrtle Beach , South Carolina , became “ a coronavirus petri dish ” includes a picture with the caption “ Crowds pack the beach in Myrtle Beach , ” but the very few people in the photo are separated by tens or even hundreds of feet , at least , and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … A pandemic is a communications emergency , as the saying goes , and the only effective way to communicate risk effectively is to tell people the truth in plain language , and to give them evidence-based advice on reducing risk .
Furious scolding about the least risky part of a potentially risky chain of activities is certain to backfire .
When we scold , people stop listening , especially when they figure out that the scolding isn ’ t evidence-based—and they eventually will .
When authorities close parks and beaches without strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of sight to more dangerous settings indoors .
They have already discovered that the scolding is both evidence- and science-free , even when coming from scientists , and especially when coming from the media .

The deuce you say! This flash from the Paper of Record only surprises to the extent that the New York Times covered this issue at all. “Are protests unsafe?” their headline asks, and then adds, “What experts say may depend on who’s protesting what.”
We’ve noticed, we’ve noticed:
So when conservative anti-lockdown protesters gathered on state capitol steps in places like Columbus, Ohio and Lansing, Mich., in April and May, epidemiologists scolded them and forecast surging infections. When Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia relaxed restrictions on businesses in late April as testing lagged and infections rose, the talk in public health circles was of that state’s embrace of human sacrifice. And then the brutal killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis on May 25 changed everything. Soon the streets nationwide were full of tens of thousands of people in a mass protest movement that continues to this day, with demonstrations and the toppling of statues. And rather than decrying mass gatherings, more than 1,300 public health officials signed a May 30 letter of support, and many joined the protests. That reaction, and the contrast with the epidemiologists’ earlier fervent support for the lockdown, gave rise to an uncomfortable question: Was public health advice in a pandemic dependent on whether people approved of the mass gathering in question? To many, the answer seemed to be “yes.”
Bear in mind that there have been little differences between the two protests from a scientific/transmission perspective — and those differences run against this trend. The shutdown protests usually involved dozens of people, sometimes hundreds, with inconsistent-at-best distancing and masking practices. They were also generally one-off events, with Michigan being the most obvious exception. The protests that followed the Floyd homicide, on the other hand, have been continuous, involve thousands if not tens of thousands of people, and have zero distancing and a middling use of masks.
If the lockdown protests were a crisis for future spikes, then so are the Floyd protests. The latter would be higher risk because of their size, density, and the length of time. So why aren’t epidemiologists warning about them? New York Times Magazine columnist Thomas Chatterton Williams warned a month ago in The Guardian — linked in today’s NYT report — that the Left was warping science in the same way they accuse conservatives, to serve their own political purposes.
The end result, Williams concludes, is that public health experts “have hemorrhaged credibility and authority”:
Less than two weeks ago, the enlightened position in both Europe and America was to exercise nothing less than extreme caution. Many of us went much further, taking to social media to castigate others for insufficient social distancing or neglecting to wear masks or daring to believe they could maintain some semblance of a normal life during coronavirus. At the end of April, when the state of Georgia moved to end its lockdown, the Atlantic ran an article with the headline “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice”. Two weeks ago we shamed people for being in the street; today we shame them for not being in the street. As a result of lockdowns and quarantines, many millions of people around the world have lost their jobs, depleted their savings, missed funerals of loved ones, postponed cancer screenings and generally put their lives on hold for the indefinite future. They accepted these sacrifices as awful but necessary when confronted by an otherwise unstoppable virus. Was this or wasn’t this all an exercise in futility? “The risks of congregating during a global pandemic shouldn’t keep people from protesting racism,” NPR suddenly tells us, citing a letter signed by dozens of American public health and disease experts. “White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to Covid-19,” the letter said. One epidemiologist has gone even further, arguing that the public health risks of not protesting for an end to systemic racism “greatly exceed the harms of the virus”. The climate-change-denying right is often ridiculed, correctly, for politicizing science. Yet the way the public health narrative around coronavirus has reversed itself overnight seems an awful lot like … politicizing science.
Williams warned at the time that the whiplash from this manipulated messaging would have devastating long-term impact on the credibility of these experts. What happens when these same experts urge people to get vaccinated with a new compound? How about if we need a new round of shutdowns?
As it happens, the rollback of reopenings has become an acute issue already, along with the question of mask-wearing. This obvious politicization of science has damaged officials’ credibility, and the fact that the NYT is finally reporting on it shows just how risky that damage is. The problem is that the experts themselves still haven’t quite learned their lesson:
Catherine Troisi, an infectious disease epidemiologist at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, studies Covid-19. When, wearing a mask and standing at the edge of a great swell of people, she attended a recent protest in Houston supporting Mr. Floyd, a sense of contradiction tugged at her. “I certainly condemned the anti-lockdown protests at the time, and I’m not condemning the protests now, and I struggle with that,” she said. “I have a hard time articulating why that is OK.” Mark Lurie, a professor of epidemiology at Brown University, described a similar struggle. “Instinctively, many of us in public health feel a strong desire to act against accumulated generations of racial injustice,” Professor Lurie said. “But we have to be honest: A few weeks before, we were criticizing protesters for arguing to open up the economy and saying that was dangerous behavior. “I am still grappling with that.”
While they’re grappling with their political manipulation, the people they hope to influence have stopped grappling with their advice. Instead of listening to instructions from scientists speaking within their narrow expertise, people are hearing political manifestos from advocates, and acting accordingly. They have no one to blame but themselves for that outcome, just as the idiots at the CDC who spent weeks insisting that masks were useless now have no one to blame but themselves for the people who won’t listen to their advice now to start wearing them.
If experts want to retain credibility, they should take better care of it. And that also applies to the mainstream media outlets that spent the last month pretending that this issue didn’t exist at all, including the New York Times. The Atlantic’s Zeynep Tufecki points out that the Gray Lady has been just as hyperbolic and slanted as any other media outlet when it comes to beachgoing, for instance, which is much less risky than congregating shoulder-to-shoulder for protests:
In other words, one can hardly imagine a comparatively safer environment than a sunny, windy ocean beach. It’s not that there is any activity with absolutely zero risk, but the beach may well be as good as it gets—if people stay socially distant, which is much easier to do on a big beach. And yet many news organizations have seized upon beaches, and scenes of beachgoers, as a sign of why things are so bad in the United States. For example, a New York Times article about the “disturbing” number of younger cases featured a beach photo with two women—in bikinis—who are very far away from everyone else in the image frame, who are also clearly far away from everyone else, alone or in small groups. They’re demonstrating the ideal precautions public-health experts have been begging us to undertake for months. Similarly, a Washington Post article talking about how Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, became “a coronavirus petri dish” includes a picture with the caption “Crowds pack the beach in Myrtle Beach,” but the very few people in the photo are separated by tens or even hundreds of feet, at least, and there are no crowds and no packing. … A pandemic is a communications emergency, as the saying goes, and the only effective way to communicate risk effectively is to tell people the truth in plain language, and to give them evidence-based advice on reducing risk. Furious scolding about the least risky part of a potentially risky chain of activities is certain to backfire. When we scold, people stop listening, especially when they figure out that the scolding isn’t evidence-based—and they eventually will. When authorities close parks and beaches without strong scientific evidence, socializing may well move out of sight to more dangerous settings indoors.
They have already discovered that the scolding is both evidence- and science-free, even when coming from scientists, and especially when coming from the media.


hotair--2020-07-06--Spain: Largest study to date finds only 5% of population had the virus as of early May

The medical journal Lancet has published a new study looking at the seroprevalence of the coronavirus in Spain .
The study used a large , nationwide sample of more than 61,000 people and gave them two different types of blood tests to determine if they had antibodies to the virus .
Using the two tests in combination they came up with a “ seroprevalence range , ” i.e .
an estimate of the percentage of the entire population that has already had the virus .
As of early May , the average in Spain was about 5 percent , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study : The findings from this nationwide seroprevalence study for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that the prevalence of IgG antibodies against this coronavirus is around 5 % in Spain .
Because the study was designed to obtain representative data at both national and provincial level , we were able to observe marked regional differences between the centre of Spain and the outskirts that generally match the surveillance data .
The prevalence in hotspot areas such as Madrid is more than five times higher than that observed in low-risk regions such as most provinces along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ENE-COVID is the largest population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study in Europe .
With more than 61 000 participants , the size of this study surpasses the combined 35 784 individuals described in a recent review of serosurveys… One in three infections seems to be asymptomatic , while a substantial number of symptomatic cases remained untested .
Despite the high impact of COVID-19 in Spain , prevalence estimates remain low and are clearly insufficient to provide herd immunity .
This graph above shows how the virus tends to be clustered around major cities and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here ’ s a closer view : In addition to the study itself , Lancet published a note explaining its significance .
Their conclusion is that any attempt to reach herd immunity ( without a vaccine ) would be “ unethical.
” In light of these findings , any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical , but also unachievable .
With a large majority of the population being infection naive , virus circulation can quickly return to early pandemic dimensions in a second wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the geographical variability and the dynamic of weekly increasing seroprevalence rates during the early phase of the pandemic highlight that these studies are only snapshots in time and space , and reflect the circumstances of the period in which they were done .
As we are still in the midst of an unprecedented global health crisis , such seroprevalence data will continue to be necessary for public health authorities to estimate exposure rates , especially in areas with little testing capacity for acute cases .
If and when a vaccine is widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to provide information about the extent and duration of vaccine-induced herd immunity .
The minimum estimate for herd immunity is probably 60 percent .
So obviously , as of early May , even the hardest hit cities in one of the hardest hit countries in Europe weren ’ t anywhere close .
Bottom line : We could be dealing with this for a very long time still unless we find a vaccine .
Finally , a doctor named Ashish Jha used the data from the study to calculate an infection fatality rate @ @ @ @ @ @

The medical journal Lancet has published a new study looking at the seroprevalence of the coronavirus in Spain. The study used a large, nationwide sample of more than 61,000 people and gave them two different types of blood tests to determine if they had antibodies to the virus. Using the two tests in combination they came up with a “seroprevalence range,” i.e. an estimate of the percentage of the entire population that has already had the virus. As of early May, the average in Spain was about 5 percent, though it varied substantially by region. From the study:
The findings from this nationwide seroprevalence study for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that the prevalence of IgG antibodies against this coronavirus is around 5% in Spain. Because the study was designed to obtain representative data at both national and provincial level, we were able to observe marked regional differences between the centre of Spain and the outskirts that generally match the surveillance data. The prevalence in hotspot areas such as Madrid is more than five times higher than that observed in low-risk regions such as most provinces along the coasts. To our knowledge, ENE-COVID is the largest population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study in Europe. With more than 61 000 participants, the size of this study surpasses the combined 35 784 individuals described in a recent review of serosurveys… One in three infections seems to be asymptomatic, while a substantial number of symptomatic cases remained untested. Despite the high impact of COVID-19 in Spain, prevalence estimates remain low and are clearly insufficient to provide herd immunity.
This graph above shows how the virus tends to be clustered around major cities and is far less prevalent in more rural areas. Here’s a closer view:
In addition to the study itself, Lancet published a note explaining its significance. Their conclusion is that any attempt to reach herd immunity (without a vaccine) would be “unethical.”
In light of these findings, any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable. With a large majority of the population being infection naive, virus circulation can quickly return to early pandemic dimensions in a second wave once measures are lifted. In addition, the geographical variability and the dynamic of weekly increasing seroprevalence rates during the early phase of the pandemic highlight that these studies are only snapshots in time and space, and reflect the circumstances of the period in which they were done. As we are still in the midst of an unprecedented global health crisis, such seroprevalence data will continue to be necessary for public health authorities to estimate exposure rates, especially in areas with little testing capacity for acute cases. If and when a vaccine is widely available, ongoing seroprevalence studies will be able to provide information about the extent and duration of vaccine-induced herd immunity.
The minimum estimate for herd immunity is probably 60 percent. So obviously, as of early May, even the hardest hit cities in one of the hardest hit countries in Europe weren’t anywhere close. Bottom line: We could be dealing with this for a very long time still unless we find a vaccine.
Finally, a doctor named Ashish Jha used the data from the study to calculate an infection fatality rate of just over 1 percent.