hotair--2020-03-31--Kinsa data: Shutdown orders, not hortatory measures, are what's reducing the spread of the virus

You know all about the Kinsa “ health weather ” map by now , but the map doesn ’ t reflect every bit of data the company has .
The Times revealed a bit of non-public info in a new story last night about the encouraging downward trend in fevers that Kinsa ’ s been observing as Americans keep their distance from each other .
The question is this : What real-world events , if any , have had the most profound impact on driving those fever rates down ?
Most major cities have taken a variety of official measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know the drill — informally asking people to stay home , declaring a state of emergency , closing schools , closing non-essential businesses , ordering residents to shelter in place , etc .
Are any of those more effective than the others ?
Yep , said Kinsa to the Times .
The general public can ’ t see it on the map but they can match the start of local downward trends in fevers to discrete interventions by local government to contain the disease and see which measures work better or worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing don ’ t do much .
The forcible shutdowns do .
For some hard-hit cities , Kinsa also sent The New York Times fever data plotted on a timeline of restrictions enacted by mayors or governors .
Those graphs , Dr. Schaffner noted , showed that simply declaring a state of emergency or limiting the size of public gatherings did not affect the number of people reporting fevers .
But closing restaurants and bars and asking people to stay in their homes produced dramatic results in all three cities .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fevers steadily rose during early March , despite a declaration of emergency on March 7 and an order on March 12 that public gatherings be restricted to less than 500 people .
The turning point began on March 16 , the day schools were closed .
Bars and restaurants were closed the next day , and a stay-at-home order took effect on March 20 .
By March 23 , new fevers in Manhattan were below their March 1 levels .
Bill de Blasio dawdled for weeks about whether to close NYC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including from his own staff .
If he had shut schools two weeks earlier instead of urging New Yorkers to “ get out on the town , ” the city might be approaching a smaller peak of COVID-19 cases at this very moment .
Instead they ’ re still a week or two away with a much bigger mountain to climb .
The shutdown effect in Miami was dramatic too , according to Kinsa ’ s founder .
He told the Times that fever rates there continued to soar past the declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the closure of schools on March 16 .
Not until bars and restaurants were finally shuttered on March 18 did they begin to diminish .
There ’ s circumstantial evidence elsewhere that moving more quickly to shut schools and businesses , even by a few days , will meaningfully slow the spread of the disease .
Enlarge the image below to see what a week ’ s delay has meant to Tennessee vis-a-vis its neighbor Kentucky : If you prefer a comparison involving New York , here ’ s a dramatic result involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York State didn ’ t order residents to shelter in place until four days later .
It ’ s not quite as simple as that , of course : NYC has higher density , which encourages the disease ’ s spread , and New York State is testing more than California is , which may be masking hidden contagion in the Bay Area .
But the general point stands .
Earlier shutdowns do meaningfully retard infection , which is what you ’ d expect .
It ’ s not just a matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like schools and bars , it ’ s a signal sent to the population that the crisis has reached a magnitude of such urgency that shutting down the economy is the only way to prevent ( or mitigate , in NYC ’ s case ) catastrophe .
If you want to send casual skeptics the message that it ’ s dangerous to be mingling and time to start practicing social distancing , that ’ s about as dramatic a way to do it as one can manage .
Seems like the message has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you with one more piece of Kinsa data .
Check virtually any county on their map of the U.S. and you ’ ll find fevers trending lower , sometimes so low that they ’ re below historical norms for this time of year .
( Social distancing reduces not only COVID-19 infections but flu infections , of course . )
But not quite every county .
Gulp : That ’ s Brooklyn .
All four of NYC ’ s other boroughs show the same trend : Although fevers in each remain in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve begun to trend slightly higher in the past few days despite the lockdowns and the fear of infection that ’ s keeping city residents at home .
Why would fever rates be increasing in the one spot in the U.S. more than any other where people have the strongest incentive to keep their distance ?

You know all about the Kinsa “health weather” map by now, but the map doesn’t reflect every bit of data the company has. The Times revealed a bit of non-public info in a new story last night about the encouraging downward trend in fevers that Kinsa’s been observing as Americans keep their distance from each other. The question is this: What real-world events, if any, have had the most profound impact on driving those fever rates down? Most major cities have taken a variety of official measures, some symbolic, others mandatory. You know the drill — informally asking people to stay home, declaring a state of emergency, closing schools, closing non-essential businesses, ordering residents to shelter in place, etc. Are any of those more effective than the others?
Yep, said Kinsa to the Times. The general public can’t see it on the map but they can match the start of local downward trends in fevers to discrete interventions by local government to contain the disease and see which measures work better or worse.
Result: The exhortations to practice social distancing don’t do much. The forcible shutdowns do.
For some hard-hit cities, Kinsa also sent The New York Times fever data plotted on a timeline of restrictions enacted by mayors or governors. Those graphs, Dr. Schaffner noted, showed that simply declaring a state of emergency or limiting the size of public gatherings did not affect the number of people reporting fevers. But closing restaurants and bars and asking people to stay in their homes produced dramatic results in all three cities. For example, in Manhattan, reports of fevers steadily rose during early March, despite a declaration of emergency on March 7 and an order on March 12 that public gatherings be restricted to less than 500 people. The turning point began on March 16, the day schools were closed. Bars and restaurants were closed the next day, and a stay-at-home order took effect on March 20. By March 23, new fevers in Manhattan were below their March 1 levels.
Bill de Blasio dawdled for weeks about whether to close NYC’s schools until finally relenting under heavy pressure, including from his own staff. If he had shut schools two weeks earlier instead of urging New Yorkers to “get out on the town,” the city might be approaching a smaller peak of COVID-19 cases at this very moment. Instead they’re still a week or two away with a much bigger mountain to climb. The shutdown effect in Miami was dramatic too, according to Kinsa’s founder. He told the Times that fever rates there continued to soar past the declaration of emergency on March 12 and even the closure of schools on March 16. Not until bars and restaurants were finally shuttered on March 18 did they begin to diminish.
There’s circumstantial evidence elsewhere that moving more quickly to shut schools and businesses, even by a few days, will meaningfully slow the spread of the disease. Enlarge the image below to see what a week’s delay has meant to Tennessee vis-a-vis its neighbor Kentucky:
As of March 27th. Governor @AndyBeshearKY announces KY residents should avoid traveling across the border unless essential. University testing continues in both states: KY reporting + only; TN reporting + and – High-res PDFs: https://t.co/dtxqKC2tXp #TogetherKy #TNStayApart pic.twitter.com/7y7xNdyOFP — Stephanie Jolly (@StephanieJolly) March 28, 2020
If you prefer a comparison involving New York, here’s a dramatic result involving the San Francisco Bay Area:
It's very hard to look at this and tell any other story besides the obvious one about the one key local governance decision.https://t.co/l7iCC8Icih pic.twitter.com/ID79BjmgPP — Alan Cole (@AlanMCole) March 31, 2020
New York State didn’t order residents to shelter in place until four days later. It’s not quite as simple as that, of course: NYC has higher density, which encourages the disease’s spread, and New York State is testing more than California is, which may be masking hidden contagion in the Bay Area. But the general point stands. Earlier shutdowns do meaningfully retard infection, which is what you’d expect. It’s not just a matter of depriving people of places to gather, like schools and bars, it’s a signal sent to the population that the crisis has reached a magnitude of such urgency that shutting down the economy is the only way to prevent (or mitigate, in NYC’s case) catastrophe. If you want to send casual skeptics the message that it’s dangerous to be mingling and time to start practicing social distancing, that’s about as dramatic a way to do it as one can manage.
Seems like the message has been received:
Americans have rapidly adopted social distancing practices, @GallupNews poll finds. pic.twitter.com/x1vIYK2ksa — Scott Clement (@sfcpoll) March 31, 2020
I’ll leave you with one more piece of Kinsa data. Check virtually any county on their map of the U.S. and you’ll find fevers trending lower, sometimes so low that they’re below historical norms for this time of year. (Social distancing reduces not only COVID-19 infections but flu infections, of course.) But not quite every county. Gulp:
That’s Brooklyn. All four of NYC’s other boroughs show the same trend: Although fevers in each remain in “typical” range for the moment, they’ve begun to trend slightly higher in the past few days despite the lockdowns and the fear of infection that’s keeping city residents at home. Why would fever rates be increasing in the one spot in the U.S. more than any other where people have the strongest incentive to keep their distance?


hotair--2020-03-31--McConnell: What's the rush on Phase 4 coronavirus relief, except for Pelosi's hobby-horse agenda?

Two key Senate Republicans declared Nancy Pelosi ’ s tax break for blue-state millionaires dead on arrival — if she has the nerve to actually propose it .
The chair of the Finance Committee , which would have to approve the elimination of the state and local tax ( SALT ) deduction cap , won ’ t bother to review it at all .
A spokesperson for Chuck Grassley wondered why this would be the time to bring up a tax break for millionaires in high-tax states like California and New York : The office of Senate Finance Committee Chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Nancy Pelosi after she proposed rolling back a cap on state and local tax ( SALT ) deductions as part of the next coronavirus response bill .
The SALT cap , which was put in place by President Trump ’ s 2017 tax reform law , limits deductions of state and local tax from federal taxes at $ 10,000 .
The cap has been particularly unpopular in high-tax blue states .
Grassley ’ s office argued that eliminating this now would not help the working class , as it would mostly benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonstarter .
Millionaires don ’ t need a new tax break as the federal government spends trillions of dollars to fight a pandemic , ” a spokesperson for Grassley said .
Not only will Mitch McConnell oppose a repeal of the SALT cap , he wondered aloud on today ’ s Hugh Hewitt show why we ’ re talking about Phase 4 in the first place .
Congress just passed a $ 2.2 trillion dollar relief bill , which has yet to even launch its most direct stimulus of $ 1200 for nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shouldn ’ t we wait to see how the CARES Act works first ?
McConnell has suspicions that Pelosi will turn Phase 4 into a practical application of Rahm Emanuel ’ s famous exhortation about crises : HH : There is obviously going to be a need for another bill .
I look at the restaurant industry where 3 % of restaurants have closed completely forever , maybe double digits .
I look at the broadcast industry , some segments of it without revenue .
Will there be a phase 4 ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell ?
MM : Well , I think we ’ ll have to wait and see .
Remember , this bill was only signed into law last Friday .
So it ’ s only been law for about four days .
And the Speaker is already talking about another bill that , you know , I think you have to genuinely be aware of the Speaker in a situation like this .
I ’ m reminded of what Rahm Emanuel said during the financial crisis – never let a crisis go to waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crisis to try to achieve unrelated policy items that you have not been able to get under other circumstances .
So I would think any kind of bill coming out of the House I would look at like Reagan suggested we look at the Russians – trust , but verify .
HH : Now the Speaker has announced that she ’ s working on phase [ 4 ] , and I thought to myself that ’ s not going to fly .
Phase 1 and 2 came out of the House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Any phase 4 would have be a joint effort .
Is there any plan to undertake a joint effort , Leader McConnell ?
MM : Well , I think first , we need to see what the effect of the current bill is .
The Treasury , of course , is wrestling with all this complicated effort to speed checks to individuals and small businesses to get us through this period until the health care pandemic begins to subside .
So I think we need to wait a few days here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things are working out .
She hasn ’ t suggested the House would even come back into session until the 20th of April , and I ’ ve said the same thing .
So let ’ s see how things are going , and respond accordingly .
But let ’ s not , I ’ m not going to allow this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items that they would not otherwise be able to pass .
Veronique de Rugy has the same suspicions , and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t dry yet on “ phase three ” of the coronavirus relief package that speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Trump are already talking another stimulus package .
They aren ’ t wasting any time .
Phase three was remarkable in that it was the largest economic relief package in U.S. history .
The process that led to it was also remarkable as an example of the bad incentives that exist because our politicians are using other people ’ s money .
Many politicians ’ aspirations to grow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too during this process .
Just check the House Democrats ’ proposal .
Thankfully , much of it didn ’ t make it into the final bill .
But phase three is done ; now comes phase four .
So far , all we know is that the White House has a list of $ 600 billion in requests from federal agencies , and the Democrats are coming up with their own list .
De Rugy notes two contradictory quotes from Pelosi from an MSNBC interview this morning as a warning sign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she claims that her Phase 4 proposal would be entirely “ specific to the coronavirus ” rather than a “ wish list.
” However , Pelosi also promised to take up the very wish-list items that were stripped out of Phase 3 , adding the SALT deduction cap to the process on top of those .
So which is it ?
McConnell is taking the smart approach .
We just conducted the largest economic intervention in American peacetime history .
Perhaps we should wait a few weeks to see what works and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more clearly on the specific and acute gaps rather than using the crisis to ride our ideological hobby horses .

Two key Senate Republicans declared Nancy Pelosi’s tax break for blue-state millionaires dead on arrival — if she has the nerve to actually propose it. The chair of the Finance Committee, which would have to approve the elimination of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, won’t bother to review it at all. A spokesperson for Chuck Grassley wondered why this would be the time to bring up a tax break for millionaires in high-tax states like California and New York:
The office of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after she proposed rolling back a cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions as part of the next coronavirus response bill. The SALT cap, which was put in place by President Trump’s 2017 tax reform law, limits deductions of state and local tax from federal taxes at $10,000. The cap has been particularly unpopular in high-tax blue states. Grassley’s office argued that eliminating this now would not help the working class, as it would mostly benefit wealthier Americans. “This is a nonstarter. Millionaires don’t need a new tax break as the federal government spends trillions of dollars to fight a pandemic,” a spokesperson for Grassley said.
Not only will Mitch McConnell oppose a repeal of the SALT cap, he wondered aloud on today’s Hugh Hewitt show why we’re talking about Phase 4 in the first place. Congress just passed a $2.2 trillion dollar relief bill, which has yet to even launch its most direct stimulus of $1200 for nearly every taxpayer and $500 per child. Shouldn’t we wait to see how the CARES Act works first?
McConnell has suspicions that Pelosi will turn Phase 4 into a practical application of Rahm Emanuel’s famous exhortation about crises:
HH: There is obviously going to be a need for another bill. I look at the restaurant industry where 3% of restaurants have closed completely forever, maybe double digits. I look at the broadcast industry, some segments of it without revenue. Will there be a phase 4? And how will that develop, Leader McConnell? MM: Well, I think we’ll have to wait and see. Remember, this bill was only signed into law last Friday. So it’s only been law for about four days. And the Speaker is already talking about another bill that, you know, I think you have to genuinely be aware of the Speaker in a situation like this. I’m reminded of what Rahm Emanuel said during the financial crisis – never let a crisis go to waste. What that meant was seize in the crisis to try to achieve unrelated policy items that you have not been able to get under other circumstances. So I would think any kind of bill coming out of the House I would look at like Reagan suggested we look at the Russians – trust, but verify. HH: Now the Speaker has announced that she’s working on phase [4], and I thought to myself that’s not going to fly. Phase 1 and 2 came out of the House, phase 3 came out of the Senate. Any phase 4 would have be a joint effort. Is there any plan to undertake a joint effort, Leader McConnell? MM: Well, I think first, we need to see what the effect of the current bill is. The Treasury, of course, is wrestling with all this complicated effort to speed checks to individuals and small businesses to get us through this period until the health care pandemic begins to subside. So I think we need to wait a few days here, a few weeks, and see how things are working out. She hasn’t suggested the House would even come back into session until the 20th of April, and I’ve said the same thing. So let’s see how things are going, and respond accordingly. But let’s not, I’m not going to allow this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items that they would not otherwise be able to pass.
Veronique de Rugy has the same suspicions, and not just about Pelosi either:
The ink isn’t dry yet on “phase three” of the coronavirus relief package that speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Trump are already talking another stimulus package. They aren’t wasting any time. Phase three was remarkable in that it was the largest economic relief package in U.S. history. The process that led to it was also remarkable as an example of the bad incentives that exist because our politicians are using other people’s money. Many politicians’ aspirations to grow the size of government dramatically were on display too during this process. Just check the House Democrats’ proposal. Thankfully, much of it didn’t make it into the final bill. But phase three is done; now comes phase four. So far, all we know is that the White House has a list of $600 billion in requests from federal agencies, and the Democrats are coming up with their own list.
De Rugy notes two contradictory quotes from Pelosi from an MSNBC interview this morning as a warning sign of what’s to come. First she claims that her Phase 4 proposal would be entirely “specific to the coronavirus” rather than a “wish list.” However, Pelosi also promised to take up the very wish-list items that were stripped out of Phase 3, adding the SALT deduction cap to the process on top of those. So which is it?
McConnell is taking the smart approach. We just conducted the largest economic intervention in American peacetime history. Perhaps we should wait a few weeks to see what works and what doesn’t, and then focus more clearly on the specific and acute gaps rather than using the crisis to ride our ideological hobby horses.


hotair--2020-03-31--Evergreen State College could be facing bankruptcy soon

Is Evergreen State College about to fold ?
Benjamin Boyce , who has become the indispensable reporter on the topic , thinks so .
In a new video Boyce says current events lead him to believe “ this college will be filing for bankruptcy , if not within the next week then by the end of the summer.
” That ’ s a pretty big prediction so what is Boyce basing this on ?
Every year the president of Evergreen State College delivers a State of the College speech in which he spells out how things are going and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President George Bridges put on an absurd presentation in which he claimed to be excited about declining enrollment of just over 3,000 students .
Perhaps because President Bridges has announced his resignation in February ( as of the end of his current contract ) , the speech this year was handled a bit different .
The key points were delivered by several other administrators .
The other big change is that the speech wasn ’ t recorded this year .
It was live streamed .
Fortunately , someone did record it and Boyce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What the speech shows is that since last year things have gotten worse for the school in several ways .
Every school loses students during a normal year .
Some drop out for various reasons ( health , finances , etc ) but at most schools the so-called retention rate is pretty high .
Universities have a vested interest in keeping it as high as possible .
But it seems retention has been pretty bad at Evergreen this year .
It has been especially bad among out of state students who pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growing hole in the school ’ s budget is going to be critical in a little over two years .
As Boyce explains , Evergreen has traditionally had an emergency fund which is refilled each year through summer school .
But since the events of 2017 they have been drawing heavily on that fund .
It has dropped from nearly $ 10 million dollars to around $ 5 million and is projected to continue to drop closer to $ 3 million by next year .
At some point fairly soon , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrator giving the financial part of the briefing concluded , “ I can see that we can keep going like this for a year .
We can keep going like this for two years .
Sometime in the third year we are in a serious problem .
We have come to call that the cliff.
” The same administrator showed a graph of projected enrollment which , for reasons I can only guess , predicted enrollment would eventually level off around 2,400 students .
The problem as he explained is that “ stability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He continued , “ This level of enrollment is not adequate to support a campus this size.
” On top of all of this , the coronavirus has shut down the campus and all classes are moving online .
This could potentially have an impact on enrollment everywhere next school year but for a school that is already near the edge of disaster it could be the last straw .
What the school is pinning its hopes on is the late summer budget request to the state .
But here again , Boyce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) that the coronavirus is going to present an obstacle .
In the midst of a global pandemic with potentially tens of millions of Americans thrown out of work , does anyone really believe the purse strings in Washington state are going to be loosening up for an experimental college which seems to be failing ?
It ’ s far more likely the state will decided to tighten up and hold those funds for more pressing concerns .
Again , it ’ s a guess at this point but it seems likely the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes it will .
If so , they will be headed for the cliff without a parachute .
We ’ ll have to wait a few more months to find out .
I recommend you watch all of this clip if you have time .
The first half is about Evergreen ’ s commitment to “ Equity.
” If you ’ re short on time you can skip in about 12 minutes to the section about the school ’ s financial outlook .

Is Evergreen State College about to fold? Benjamin Boyce, who has become the indispensable reporter on the topic, thinks so. In a new video Boyce says current events lead him to believe “this college will be filing for bankruptcy, if not within the next week then by the end of the summer.” That’s a pretty big prediction so what is Boyce basing this on?
Every year the president of Evergreen State College delivers a State of the College speech in which he spells out how things are going and where they are headed. Last year, President George Bridges put on an absurd presentation in which he claimed to be excited about declining enrollment of just over 3,000 students.
Perhaps because President Bridges has announced his resignation in February (as of the end of his current contract), the speech this year was handled a bit different. The key points were delivered by several other administrators. The other big change is that the speech wasn’t recorded this year. It was live streamed. Fortunately, someone did record it and Boyce eventually got a copy of that recording.
What the speech shows is that since last year things have gotten worse for the school in several ways. Every school loses students during a normal year. Some drop out for various reasons (health, finances, etc) but at most schools the so-called retention rate is pretty high. Universities have a vested interest in keeping it as high as possible. But it seems retention has been pretty bad at Evergreen this year. It has been especially bad among out of state students who pay the most to attend. That means the growing hole in the school’s budget is going to be critical in a little over two years.
As Boyce explains, Evergreen has traditionally had an emergency fund which is refilled each year through summer school. But since the events of 2017 they have been drawing heavily on that fund. It has dropped from nearly $10 million dollars to around $5 million and is projected to continue to drop closer to $3 million by next year. At some point fairly soon, the emergency fund will be empty.
The administrator giving the financial part of the briefing concluded, “I can see that we can keep going like this for a year. We can keep going like this for two years. Sometime in the third year we are in a serious problem. We have come to call that the cliff.”
The same administrator showed a graph of projected enrollment which, for reasons I can only guess, predicted enrollment would eventually level off around 2,400 students. The problem as he explained is that “stability is not the same as sustainability.” He continued, “This level of enrollment is not adequate to support a campus this size.”
On top of all of this, the coronavirus has shut down the campus and all classes are moving online. This could potentially have an impact on enrollment everywhere next school year but for a school that is already near the edge of disaster it could be the last straw. What the school is pinning its hopes on is the late summer budget request to the state.
But here again, Boyce thinks (and I agree with him) that the coronavirus is going to present an obstacle. In the midst of a global pandemic with potentially tens of millions of Americans thrown out of work, does anyone really believe the purse strings in Washington state are going to be loosening up for an experimental college which seems to be failing? It’s far more likely the state will decided to tighten up and hold those funds for more pressing concerns. Again, it’s a guess at this point but it seems likely the budget request will not go as Evergreen hopes it will. If so, they will be headed for the cliff without a parachute. We’ll have to wait a few more months to find out.
I recommend you watch all of this clip if you have time. The first half is about Evergreen’s commitment to “Equity.” If you’re short on time you can skip in about 12 minutes to the section about the school’s financial outlook.


hotair--2020-03-31--Who will a "rent strike" help? Or hurt?

Who will a "rent strike" help? Or hurt?

One of the things I didn ’ t see coming as part of the fallout from the pandemic lockdowns was a series of labor strikes , but here we are .
They haven ’ t attracted all that much labor support from workers , but attempts at strikes took place at Amazon and among some gig economy workers .
But now another “ strike ” is in the works .
Except it ’ s not really a strike .
Tenants in apartment buildings in a number of American cities have been coordinating on social media and planning a “ rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refuse to pay their rent and demand that the money they owe be waived .
( Associated Press ) With millions of people suddenly out of work and rent due at the first of the month , some tenants are vowing to go on a rent strike until the coronavirus pandemic subsides .
New York , Boston , Los Angeles , San Francisco and St. Louis are among many cities that have temporarily banned evictions , but advocates for the strike are demanding that rent payments be waived , not delayed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The rent strike idea has taken root in parts of North America and as far away as London .
White sheets are being hung in apartment windows to show solidarity with the movement that is gaining steam on Twitter , Instagram and other social media sites .
Right up front , I ’ ll just say that I ’ m not unsympathetic to the plight that many of these people are facing .
When the government shut down the businesses where many of them worked , they lost their jobs , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no prospects for money coming in quickly , you could easily miss a payment on your rent .
Fortunately for them , most of the cities involved in this proposal already have bans on evictions in place , so the landlords won ’ t be able to kick them out .
With that out of the way , there are several flaws in this planned strike , both in the rationale behind it and the downstream effects it could produce .
Firstly , each and every one of these renters should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars arriving in the mail in the next couple of weeks .
That ’ s got to help a bit in managing your bills and it was the sole intention of that portion of the relief package .
Also , if they are all recently furloughed workers who had jobs , they will immediately be eligible for not only the normal rate of unemployment but an additional $ 600 per week on top of that , courtesy of the federal government .
That ’ s going to work out to about $ 4,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown period .
If you can ’ t get by on unemployment payments that exceed the median family income in this country , there ’ s something else going wrong .
And since your landlord is barred from evicting you for several months , you should be able to catch up on your bills .
But let ’ s just imagine for a moment that the strike works .
The landlords will lose all of their revenue for an unknown period of time .
The organizers are calling for a government mandate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill collection for 2 months .
What happens to the individuals and businesses that operate these rental units ?
Are the strikers implying that they simply suck it up ?
Or that the federal government reimburses them for all of these losses ?
I don ’ t have a napkin big enough to calculate what two months rent on every rental property in all of those cities would add up to , but it would be massive .
And we just finished shelling out $ 2.2 trillion .
Any people who don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the unemployment program should certainly be afforded some special consideration so they don ’ t get left behind and lose their homes .
But for the vast majority of them , assuming they had some sort of a job before the shutdown , it seems to me that what they need is some breathing room without being evicted until their alternate government income stream comes in and allows them to catch up .
And nearly all of them already have that with the freeze on evictions in place .

One of the things I didn’t see coming as part of the fallout from the pandemic lockdowns was a series of labor strikes, but here we are. They haven’t attracted all that much labor support from workers, but attempts at strikes took place at Amazon and among some gig economy workers. But now another “strike” is in the works. Except it’s not really a strike. Tenants in apartment buildings in a number of American cities have been coordinating on social media and planning a “rent strike,” where they will attempt to refuse to pay their rent and demand that the money they owe be waived. (Associated Press)
With millions of people suddenly out of work and rent due at the first of the month, some tenants are vowing to go on a rent strike until the coronavirus pandemic subsides. New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and St. Louis are among many cities that have temporarily banned evictions, but advocates for the strike are demanding that rent payments be waived, not delayed, for those in need during the crisis. The rent strike idea has taken root in parts of North America and as far away as London. White sheets are being hung in apartment windows to show solidarity with the movement that is gaining steam on Twitter, Instagram and other social media sites.
Right up front, I’ll just say that I’m not unsympathetic to the plight that many of these people are facing. When the government shut down the businesses where many of them worked, they lost their jobs, at least temporarily. And without a job and no prospects for money coming in quickly, you could easily miss a payment on your rent. Fortunately for them, most of the cities involved in this proposal already have bans on evictions in place, so the landlords won’t be able to kick them out.
With that out of the way, there are several flaws in this planned strike, both in the rationale behind it and the downstream effects it could produce. Firstly, each and every one of these renters should have a check for well over a thousand dollars arriving in the mail in the next couple of weeks. That’s got to help a bit in managing your bills and it was the sole intention of that portion of the relief package. Also, if they are all recently furloughed workers who had jobs, they will immediately be eligible for not only the normal rate of unemployment but an additional $600 per week on top of that, courtesy of the federal government.
That’s going to work out to about $4,000 per month for the duration of the lockdown period. If you can’t get by on unemployment payments that exceed the median family income in this country, there’s something else going wrong. And since your landlord is barred from evicting you for several months, you should be able to catch up on your bills.
But let’s just imagine for a moment that the strike works. The landlords will lose all of their revenue for an unknown period of time. The organizers are calling for a government mandate to freeze rent, mortgage, and utility bill collection for 2 months. What happens to the individuals and businesses that operate these rental units? Are the strikers implying that they simply suck it up? Or that the federal government reimburses them for all of these losses? I don’t have a napkin big enough to calculate what two months rent on every rental property in all of those cities would add up to, but it would be massive. And we just finished shelling out $2.2 trillion.
Any people who don’t somehow qualify for the relief checks and the unemployment program should certainly be afforded some special consideration so they don’t get left behind and lose their homes. But for the vast majority of them, assuming they had some sort of a job before the shutdown, it seems to me that what they need is some breathing room without being evicted until their alternate government income stream comes in and allows them to catch up. And nearly all of them already have that with the freeze on evictions in place.


hotair--2020-03-31--Experts polled two weeks ago badly underestimated how many U.S. coronavirus infections there would b

Experts polled two weeks ago badly underestimated how many U.S. coronavirus infections there would be now

I don ’ t know that we ’ ve ever lived through an event that will produce so many different models and forecasts for its eventual outcome .
The only thing close is presidential elections , but elections don ’ t quite compare .
For one thing , the range of possible outcomes is much smaller .
With coronavirus , we could see anything from tens of thousands of deaths to a few million ( although the measures we ’ re taking right now make the latter less likely by the moment ) .
For another , much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple polling , not forecasts .
The RCP average , for instance , aggregates polling data to produce a snapshot of the race on a particular day , but that number doesn ’ t tell us how the electorate might feel in early November .
Some outfits like FiveThirtyEight do produce forecasting models of the result this fall , but that ’ s not equivalent to what we ’ re living through with COVID-19 .
An election is a discrete event that happens on a designated day , leaving us blind until Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model is accurate .
The coronavirus epidemic is a continuously unfolding event with daily benchmarks for the virus ’ s spread .
We don ’ t need to wait for some arbitrary date to see if the projections are correct .
We can check now .
One professor at Wharton did check , using data collected from a survey of epidemiological experts conducted two weeks ago and published at ( where else ? )
FiveThirtyEight .
The question was asked on March 16-17 : How many U.S. cases of COVID-19 will the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were … not great .
We all want to believe that the experts are grossly overestimating the deadliness of coronavirus , which is why there ’ s so much interest in Oxford University ’ s model of the disease , but in this case they missed badly the other way .
By a factor of six .
Maybe the error there has less to do with underestimating how many cases there are and more to do with underestimating how quickly U.S. testing capacity would get up to speed .
On March 17 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. was just beginning to ramp up from 10-15,000 tests per day to much bigger numbers .
The experts may have assumed that testing would still be progressing slowly by March 29 , which would necessarily mean a small number of known cases by then .
In reality , by March 29 , the U.S. was conducting 100,000 tests a day .
When the experts were asked a week later , on March 23-24 , to once again forecast the number of cases as of March 29 , they came much closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 117,000 .
In reality there were 139,000 known cases .
They were still lowballing the spread — or our ability to detect the extent of the spread — but by not nearly as much .
All of which provides two useful lessons .
One : At the very beginning of this outbreak , there are destined to be some bad misses on forecasts just because there ’ s so little data available yet .
Even the pros can miss a projection just two weeks out by 80 percent due to the uncertainty about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. and labs ’ ability to scale up in testing as quickly as they did .
Two : With each day that passes and more data that accrues , the forecasts will get better and will begin to coalesce .
Death estimates right now range from low-ish five figures to seven figures because the world still has no concrete idea how many asymptomatic cases there are and how quickly the virus is spreading .
Once antibody testing gives us that answer , the range will shrink drastically .
And with each new therapeutic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , narrower range will dip lower .
Which is to say , although the past month has felt like a decade , I think the key takeaway from the forecasting miss above is just how early it is in this process .
Even the pros are still fumbling in the dark .
Speaking of the many great unknowns about COVID-19 , here ’ s the latest estimate of fatality rates from a new study published in The Lancet , based on Chinese data : Overall , the fatality rate is expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the average flu .
On the other hand , as you can see , the likelihood of death varies meaningfully by age group .
For those under 40 , it ’ s no more deadly than flu is to the general population .
For those over 40 , the risk rises .
On the other hand , 0.66 percent is higher than the fatality rates in various European countries estimated by the Imperial College , which I wrote about yesterday .
And if you ’ re of the opinion that China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re cooking the books to hide the fact that there are many more infections and deaths than Beijing wants the world to know , then the data in the table above goes right out the window .
For a clue about the fatality rate , we ’ ll just have to wait for American or European scientists to provide reliable data .
In lieu of an exit question , read FiveThirtyEight ’ s timely explainer on why it ’ s so damned hard to produce a reliable model for COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ data for even *one* of the many variables that would be needed to make forecasts .
We don ’ t know the fatality rate , we don ’ t know the infection rate , we don ’ t even know how many people are dead of the virus so far .
It ’ s tantamount to trying to solve the equation “ x + y = z ” where you don ’ t know what x , y , or z are .

I don’t know that we’ve ever lived through an event that will produce so many different models and forecasts for its eventual outcome. The only thing close is presidential elections, but elections don’t quite compare. For one thing, the range of possible outcomes is much smaller. With coronavirus, we could see anything from tens of thousands of deaths to a few million (although the measures we’re taking right now make the latter less likely by the moment). For another, much of the data we process during election campaigns involves simple polling, not forecasts. The RCP average, for instance, aggregates polling data to produce a snapshot of the race on a particular day, but that number doesn’t tell us how the electorate might feel in early November. Some outfits like FiveThirtyEight do produce forecasting models of the result this fall, but that’s not equivalent to what we’re living through with COVID-19. An election is a discrete event that happens on a designated day, leaving us blind until Election Day as to whether FiveThirtyEight’s model is accurate. The coronavirus epidemic is a continuously unfolding event with daily benchmarks for the virus’s spread. We don’t need to wait for some arbitrary date to see if the projections are correct. We can check now.
One professor at Wharton did check, using data collected from a survey of epidemiological experts conducted two weeks ago and published at (where else?) FiveThirtyEight. The question was asked on March 16-17: How many U.S. cases of COVID-19 will the CDC report on March 29?
Their estimates were … not great. We all want to believe that the experts are grossly overestimating the deadliness of coronavirus, which is why there’s so much interest in Oxford University’s model of the disease, but in this case they missed badly the other way. By a factor of six.
Overconfidence is a pernicious bias, even in experts. It's astounding how few experts' confidence intervals included the correct estimate of #COVID19 infections in the US by 3/29 when forecasting for just two weeks in the future. (of course, non-expert estimates are even worse) pic.twitter.com/pa6oMDp2wV — Katy Milkman (@katy_milkman) March 30, 2020
Maybe the error there has less to do with underestimating how many cases there are and more to do with underestimating how quickly U.S. testing capacity would get up to speed. On March 17, when this survey was taken, the U.S. was just beginning to ramp up from 10-15,000 tests per day to much bigger numbers. The experts may have assumed that testing would still be progressing slowly by March 29, which would necessarily mean a small number of known cases by then. In reality, by March 29, the U.S. was conducting 100,000 tests a day.
When the experts were asked a week later, on March 23-24, to once again forecast the number of cases as of March 29, they came much closer to the mark.
The consensus estimate was 117,000. In reality there were 139,000 known cases. They were still lowballing the spread — or our ability to detect the extent of the spread — but by not nearly as much. All of which provides two useful lessons. One: At the very beginning of this outbreak, there are destined to be some bad misses on forecasts just because there’s so little data available yet. Even the pros can miss a projection just two weeks out by 80 percent due to the uncertainty about the extent of community spread within the U.S. and labs’ ability to scale up in testing as quickly as they did. Two: With each day that passes and more data that accrues, the forecasts will get better and will begin to coalesce. Death estimates right now range from low-ish five figures to seven figures because the world still has no concrete idea how many asymptomatic cases there are and how quickly the virus is spreading. Once antibody testing gives us that answer, the range will shrink drastically. And with each new therapeutic development, the higher estimate in the new, narrower range will dip lower.
Which is to say, although the past month has felt like a decade, I think the key takeaway from the forecasting miss above is just how early it is in this process. Even the pros are still fumbling in the dark.
Speaking of the many great unknowns about COVID-19, here’s the latest estimate of fatality rates from a new study published in The Lancet, based on Chinese data:
Overall, the fatality rate is expected to be 0.66 percent, around six times worse than the average flu. On the other hand, as you can see, the likelihood of death varies meaningfully by age group. For those under 40, it’s no more deadly than flu is to the general population. For those over 40, the risk rises. On the other hand, 0.66 percent is higher than the fatality rates in various European countries estimated by the Imperial College, which I wrote about yesterday. And if you’re of the opinion that China’s data is garbage, that they’re cooking the books to hide the fact that there are many more infections and deaths than Beijing wants the world to know, then the data in the table above goes right out the window. For a clue about the fatality rate, we’ll just have to wait for American or European scientists to provide reliable data.
In lieu of an exit question, read FiveThirtyEight’s timely explainer on why it’s so damned hard to produce a reliable model for COVID-19. The short version: We lack good data for even *one* of the many variables that would be needed to make forecasts. We don’t know the fatality rate, we don’t know the infection rate, we don’t even know how many people are dead of the virus so far. It’s tantamount to trying to solve the equation “x + y = z” where you don’t know what x, y, or z are.


hotair--2020-03-31--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Biden fades, media charades, #MeToo shades, home-schooling grades, and

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Biden fades, media charades, #MeToo shades, home-schooling grades, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
We ’ ll discuss how Joe Biden is becoming increasingly irrelevant of late , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI ’ s FISA-warrant reliability , the media ’ s poor polling performance , and the latest on the coronavirus crisis .
• Speaking of Biden , why is the mainstream media ignoring an allegation of sexual assault against him ?
Reason Magazine ’ s Robby Soave would really like to know .
• Do you suddenly have a houseful of kids who need an education ?
Actor , producer , and home-schooling advocate Sam Sorbo joins us to discuss her latest effort , CoronaVirusHomeSchooling.com .
“ You don ’ t need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just be a parent and you ’ ll be fine.
” There ’ s no need to let the pandemic get in the way of a good education — and maybe it can facilitate an improved outcome .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. We’ll discuss how Joe Biden is becoming increasingly irrelevant of late, a new DoJ IG report on the FBI’s FISA-warrant reliability, the media’s poor polling performance, and the latest on the coronavirus crisis.
Speaking of Biden, why is the mainstream media ignoring an allegation of sexual assault against him? Reason Magazine’s Robby Soave would really like to know.
Do you suddenly have a houseful of kids who need an education? Actor, producer, and home-schooling advocate Sam Sorbo joins us to discuss her latest effort, CoronaVirusHomeSchooling.com. “You don’t need a PhD,” it advises, “just be a parent and you’ll be fine.” There’s no need to let the pandemic get in the way of a good education — and maybe it can facilitate an improved outcome.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-03-31--Sanders says there's still a path to the nomination as Biden struggles to raise money

It ’ s hard to overstate the degree to which the coronavirus pandemic has made a complete mess of the Democratic nomination process .
Joe Biden won the South Carolina on February 29th and went on to dominate Super Tuesday on March 3rd .
And that ’ s right about the time that everyone in America began paying more attention to the coronavirus than the race .
A week later things began shutting down all over the country .
Instead of a coronation for Biden , the race went into a holding pattern .
It was on the back burner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been completely defeated , Bernie Sanders decided to ignore the obvious trend and began asking for another debate .
And weeks later , Sanders is still playing this game .
He appeared on Seth Myers ’ show Monday and said he still has a path to the nomination : “ There is a path .
It is admittedly a narrow path , ” Sanders said .
He added , “ We have a strong grassroots movement who believe that we have got to stay in , in order to continue the fight to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicare for All , that we need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage , that we need paid family and medical leave , ” Sanders said .
No one who isn ’ t on the Sanders payroll thinks he has a real shot at this point .
He ’ s staying in for vanity or maybe stubbornness .
His only real shot at the nomination at this point is that Biden gets the coronavirus .
But by refusing to acknowledge Biden has this won , he ’ s denying Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinary circumstances , would result in lots of TV time and big fundraising .
Instead , Biden is stuck in his rec room making awkward videos and trying to appear relevant .
The lack of media attention and the limitation on personal contact has put a real crimp in Biden ’ s fundraising : Top Biden fund-raisers and donors , as well as campaign , super PAC and Democratic Party officials , described urgent efforts to reimagine the ways they raise money during a pandemic and global economic slowdown .
And in nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern that the downturn could choke off the flow of small online donations as millions of people lose their jobs… Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden face the same headwinds .
But the president began March with an enormous financial advantage over the Democrats : a combined roughly $ 225 million in cash on hand between his re-election campaign , the Republican National Committee and their shared committees .
Mr. Biden and the Democratic National Committee had only $ 20 million , after accounting for debts… The coronavirus…has sapped overall online donations to Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main portal for online giving .
The site processed an average of $ 7.2 million per day of donations in the first half of March ; that number has plunged to $ 3.7 million on average since March 16 .
The Biden campaign refused to comment for the NY Times ’ piece so it ’ s not clear how much money Biden has raised in March .
But what ’ s obvious is that it ’ s far less than he would have raised if he ’ d been proclaimed the nominee by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and raised money from that point until the convention .
Speaking of which , the Democratic National Convention is still scheduled to take place in Milwaukee starting on July 13th .
That ’ s around the same time the Olympics in Tokyo were scheduled to begin .
The Olympics have now been put off until next year .
Last week Politico reported many Democrats were skeptical the convention would take place as planned : I ’ m not sure I would have used the Titanic metaphor there , but maybe it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention on Zoom with Biden accepting the nomination from his rec room at home .
Here ’ s Sanders on his narrow path to the nomination :

It’s hard to overstate the degree to which the coronavirus pandemic has made a complete mess of the Democratic nomination process. Joe Biden won the South Carolina on February 29th and went on to dominate Super Tuesday on March 3rd. And that’s right about the time that everyone in America began paying more attention to the coronavirus than the race. A week later things began shutting down all over the country.
Instead of a coronation for Biden, the race went into a holding pattern. It was on the back burner. And because he hadn’t been completely defeated, Bernie Sanders decided to ignore the obvious trend and began asking for another debate. And weeks later, Sanders is still playing this game. He appeared on Seth Myers’ show Monday and said he still has a path to the nomination:
“There is a path. It is admittedly a narrow path,” Sanders said. He added, “We have a strong grassroots movement who believe that we have got to stay in, in order to continue the fight to make the world know that we need Medicare for All, that we need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, that we need paid family and medical leave,” Sanders said.
No one who isn’t on the Sanders payroll thinks he has a real shot at this point. He’s staying in for vanity or maybe stubbornness. His only real shot at the nomination at this point is that Biden gets the coronavirus. But by refusing to acknowledge Biden has this won, he’s denying Biden the moment of triumph that, under ordinary circumstances, would result in lots of TV time and big fundraising. Instead, Biden is stuck in his rec room making awkward videos and trying to appear relevant. The lack of media attention and the limitation on personal contact has put a real crimp in Biden’s fundraising:
Top Biden fund-raisers and donors, as well as campaign, super PAC and Democratic Party officials, described urgent efforts to reimagine the ways they raise money during a pandemic and global economic slowdown. And in nearly two dozen interviews, they expressed deepening concern that the downturn could choke off the flow of small online donations as millions of people lose their jobs… Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden face the same headwinds. But the president began March with an enormous financial advantage over the Democrats: a combined roughly $225 million in cash on hand between his re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee and their shared committees. Mr. Biden and the Democratic National Committee had only $20 million, after accounting for debts… The coronavirus…has sapped overall online donations to Democrats on ActBlue, the party’s main portal for online giving. The site processed an average of $7.2 million per day of donations in the first half of March; that number has plunged to $3.7 million on average since March 16.
The Biden campaign refused to comment for the NY Times’ piece so it’s not clear how much money Biden has raised in March. But what’s obvious is that it’s far less than he would have raised if he’d been proclaimed the nominee by the media, seen Sanders drop out, and raised money from that point until the convention.
Speaking of which, the Democratic National Convention is still scheduled to take place in Milwaukee starting on July 13th. That’s around the same time the Olympics in Tokyo were scheduled to begin. The Olympics have now been put off until next year. Last week Politico reported many Democrats were skeptical the convention would take place as planned:
“Given what the experts are saying, delegates may end up on a phone call” selecting their nominee, Bob Mulholland, a DNC member from California, said in a text message. “Push 1 for Sanders, push 2 for Biden, push 3 for Bloomberg and push 8 for Yang, etc.” Still, Mulholland said of the convention’s prospects, “It is full speed ahead until a staffer yells ‘Iceberg.’”
I’m not sure I would have used the Titanic metaphor there, but maybe it’s appropriate. We may see a convention on Zoom with Biden accepting the nomination from his rec room at home.
Here’s Sanders on his narrow path to the nomination:


hotair--2020-03-31--NJ Governor will still ban self-serve gas pumps despite virus threat

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy may have caved on closing all the gun stores during the pandemic , but there ’ s one place where he ’ s drawing a bright red line in the sand .
You people simply can not be trusted to pump your own gas .
This has been a bone of contention in New Jersey for ages , and some proponents of doing things the way that virtually the entire rest of the country does it hoped that the current , dire conditions might move the Governor to reconsider .
One such group is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association ( NJGCA ) .
Sal Risalvato , NJGCA Executive Director , surveyed his members on the issues they are currently facing with the Coronavirus and found the following : Employees that work as gas attendants do not feel safe having contact with customers who may be infected with Coronavirus since it is impossible to maintain the 6-foot distance required while interacting all day with motorists to conduct the fueling of their vehicle .
Many motorists have the exact same concern as many of the attendants .
They do not want to break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact or interaction with gas attendants .
There have been many instances in which motorists have insisted on pumping their own gas and have refused to allow attendants to even touch their credit cards .
It apparently didn ’ t take long for the Governor to consider the request and flatly deny it .
Everyone arguing in favor of lifting the ban is citing the state of Oregon .
Half of the state has a similar ban in place but on Friday they temporarily suspended the rule , allowing gas stations to offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
I can understand the arguments being made by those who want the ban lifted , at least to a certain degree .
If you ’ re practicing social distancing , you don ’ t want the pump jockey coming up and sticking his head in your window .
And as for the attendants , they no doubt are worried about coming that close to so many random motorists .
Some of them don ’ t even want to come into work under these conditions .
But neither situation seems ideal in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you let the attendant pump the gas you ’ ve still got to pay for it .
Handing your credit card back and forth without gloves and sanitizer ( or even cash , for that matter ) poses a risk .
Unless you ’ ve got some sort of app on your phone to order and pay for your gas you ’ re going to be breaking the six-foot rule .
If the pump has the ability to accept a credit card , I suppose you could work up some sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back , you get out of your car , put the card in the slot and authorize the payment , then get back in your car before they come to fill it up .
But that ’ s going to slow down the line of customers considerably .
And even if you do that , the attendant will need to sanitize the pump ’ s payment screen , buttons , etc .
between each customer .
And if you let the customer pump the gas , they ’ ll have to sanitize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screen .
There just doesn ’ t seem to be an ideal solution to the issue available .
With that in mind , I ’ m not really dunking on the governor so much about refusing to temporarily lift the ban as I am about having the ban in the first place during more “ normal ” times .
Do the people of New Jersey simply accept the fact that they ’ re too stupid or incompetent to be able to fill up a gas tank the same way literally hundreds of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country do every day ?
Nobody is saying you have to fill up the tank yourself .
You can always find a station where an attendant will come out and do it for you .
It ’ s just an option .
All this ban does is drive up the price of gasoline because of the labor costs associated with having pump jockeys doing the work .
And perhaps that ’ s the goal of it .
But the bottom line is that people are already freaked out enough about the pandemic as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pumping their own gas , just let them do it .
You can always go back and revisit the question after the pandemic is finished .

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy may have caved on closing all the gun stores during the pandemic, but there’s one place where he’s drawing a bright red line in the sand. You people simply can not be trusted to pump your own gas. This has been a bone of contention in New Jersey for ages, and some proponents of doing things the way that virtually the entire rest of the country does it hoped that the current, dire conditions might move the Governor to reconsider. One such group is the New Jersey Gasoline, Convenience, Automotive Association (NJGCA).
Sal Risalvato, NJGCA Executive Director, surveyed his members on the issues they are currently facing with the Coronavirus and found the following: Employees that work as gas attendants do not feel safe having contact with customers who may be infected with Coronavirus since it is impossible to maintain the 6-foot distance required while interacting all day with motorists to conduct the fueling of their vehicle. Many motorists have the exact same concern as many of the attendants. They do not want to break the 6-foot social distancing guidelines by having contact or interaction with gas attendants. There have been many instances in which motorists have insisted on pumping their own gas and have refused to allow attendants to even touch their credit cards.
It apparently didn’t take long for the Governor to consider the request and flatly deny it.
PLEASE NOTE: We have no plans to turn our gas stations into self-serve at this time. Please DO NOT pump your own gas. — Governor Phil Murphy (@GovMurphy) March 30, 2020
Everyone arguing in favor of lifting the ban is citing the state of Oregon. Half of the state has a similar ban in place but on Friday they temporarily suspended the rule, allowing gas stations to offer self serve if they wished to do so.
I can understand the arguments being made by those who want the ban lifted, at least to a certain degree. If you’re practicing social distancing, you don’t want the pump jockey coming up and sticking his head in your window. And as for the attendants, they no doubt are worried about coming that close to so many random motorists. Some of them don’t even want to come into work under these conditions.
But neither situation seems ideal in terms of avoiding the virus. Even if you let the attendant pump the gas you’ve still got to pay for it. Handing your credit card back and forth without gloves and sanitizer (or even cash, for that matter) poses a risk. Unless you’ve got some sort of app on your phone to order and pay for your gas you’re going to be breaking the six-foot rule. If the pump has the ability to accept a credit card, I suppose you could work up some sort of social distancing dance where the attendant stands back, you get out of your car, put the card in the slot and authorize the payment, then get back in your car before they come to fill it up. But that’s going to slow down the line of customers considerably.
And even if you do that, the attendant will need to sanitize the pump’s payment screen, buttons, etc. between each customer. And if you let the customer pump the gas, they’ll have to sanitize the pump handle as well as the credit screen. There just doesn’t seem to be an ideal solution to the issue available.
With that in mind, I’m not really dunking on the governor so much about refusing to temporarily lift the ban as I am about having the ban in the first place during more “normal” times. Do the people of New Jersey simply accept the fact that they’re too stupid or incompetent to be able to fill up a gas tank the same way literally hundreds of millions of drivers around the rest of the country do every day? Nobody is saying you have to fill up the tank yourself. You can always find a station where an attendant will come out and do it for you. It’s just an option.
All this ban does is drive up the price of gasoline because of the labor costs associated with having pump jockeys doing the work. And perhaps that’s the goal of it. But the bottom line is that people are already freaked out enough about the pandemic as it is. If they feel better/safer pumping their own gas, just let them do it. You can always go back and revisit the question after the pandemic is finished.


hotair--2020-03-31--DoJ IG: FBI problems on FISA warrants "far beyond" Crossfire Hurricane -- and FBI leadership was wel

DoJ IG: FBI problems on FISA warrants "far beyond" Crossfire Hurricane -- and FBI leadership was well aware of it

Did anyone really think that the Carter Page FISA warrant was a one-off ?
The Department of Justice ’ s audit of twenty-nine other FISA warrants pursued by the FBI found errors in every single application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court .
Seventeen of them were serious errors , the Inspector General reported today : The Justice Department inspector general revealed Tuesday that he found errors in every FBI application to a secret surveillance court his office examined as part of an ongoing review — suggesting the problems exposed in the bureau ’ s probe of President Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case alone .
The memorandum issued by Inspector General Michael Horowitz stems from an audit launched last year after his office found 17 serious problems with the FBI ’ s surveillance applications targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page .
The interim results of that audit suggest that the problems that plagued the Page investigation may exist in other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases .
The memorandum may buttress some of the criticism that Trump and his supporters have leveled at the FBI , but the findings also suggest that , rather than political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be broader institutional weaknesses .
This does cut both ways .
Had the errors and misrepresentations in the Page warrant been a singular occurrence , it would have strengthened the case that the FBI agents involved in Operation Crossfire Hurricane had specific political motives .
If they make these kinds of misrepresentations and errors on a constant basis , it ’ s tougher to argue that it was specifically targeted at Trump .
Of course , this doesn ’ t necessarily preclude that , either .
It makes it much easier to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority and misleads the FISC in order to pursue its own purposes , whatever they are .
Four of the cases were missing their “ Woods files ” entirely , making this pattern look even more suspicious .
IG Michael Horowitz issued a statement of no-confidence in the FBI ’ s operation to FBI director Chris Wray : Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz informed FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday that his office did “ not have confidence ” that the FBI was properly following the Woods Procedures , an FBI policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back up factual assertions made in FISA applications .
“ As a result of our audit work to date and as described below , we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy , ” Horowitz wrote in a management advisory memorandum to Wray .
“ Specifically , the Woods Procedures mandate compiling supporting documentation for each fact in the FISA application .
Adherence to the Woods Procedures should result in such documentation as a means toward achievement of the FBI ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate . '
” Just how bad are these applications ?
Horowitz doesn ’ t yet have a conclusion on materiality , but the sheer number of errors is astounding : Horowitz ’ s office said in a report released Tuesday that of the 29 applications — all of which involved U.S. citizens – that were pulled from “ 8 FBI field offices of varying sizes , ” the FBI could not find Woods Files for four of the applications , while the other 25 all had “ apparent errors or inadequately supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these issues and follow-up with case agents is still ongoing—and we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified—at this time we have identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed , with a high of approximately 65 issues in one application and less than 5 issues in another application , ” the report reveals .
How did it get that bad ?
For one thing , Horowitz reports , the FBI wasn ’ t doing anything to enforce accuracy and completeness on FISA warrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these problems existed , too : FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive , strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy , to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process , or increased accountability measures .
… Our preliminary review of the 34 FBI CDC and NSD OI accuracy review reports covering the period from October 2014 to September 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address a total of 42 U.S .
Person FISA applications , 1 of which was also included among the 29 FISA applications that we reviewed—revealed that these oversight mechanisms routinely identified deficiencies in documentation supporting FISA applications similar to those that , as described in more detail below , we have observed during our audit to date .
Although reports related to 3 of the 42 FISA applications did not identify any deficiencies , the reports covering the remaining 39 applications identified a total of about 390 issues , including unverified , inaccurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as typographical errors .
It turns out that FBI management had little interest in oversight of the FISA warrant application process : Therefore , the results of FBI CDC and NSD OI oversight mechanisms have been available to relevant FBI officials responsible for ensuring the integrity of the FBI ’ s FISA program .
FBI OGC personnel told us , however , that the FBI CDC and NSD OI accuracy review reports had not been used in a comprehensive , strategic fashion by FBI Headquarters to assess the performance of individuals involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to identify trends in results of the reviews , or to contribute to an evaluation of the efficacy of quality assurance mechanisms intended to ensure that FISA applications were “ scrupulously accurate.
” That is , the accuracy reviews were not being used by the FBI as a tool to help assess the FBI ’ s compliance with its Woods Procedures .
In other words , FBI leadership knew that their agents were submitting erroneous and false information to the FISC to get surveillance warrants .
They just didn ’ t care enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop it .
That should inform the FISC judges ’ decisions in the future to grant approvals for surveillance based on FBI representations .
In fact , this should inform Congress that this process is broken and the FBI can ’ t be trusted with it in its current form .
This process needs to be made more adversarial , for one thing , and material misrepresentations need to be prosecuted on the same basis that the DoJ prosecutes those who lie to FBI agents .
After a couple of convictions puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autres , future audits would likely find a much lower failure rate .
The problem here is that everyone in the FBI apparently knew they could manipulate this process with impunity .
With that in mind , should we be surprised that the process might have been manipulated by agents with political axes to grind ?

Did anyone really think that the Carter Page FISA warrant was a one-off? The Department of Justice’s audit of twenty-nine other FISA warrants pursued by the FBI found errors in every single application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Seventeen of them were serious errors, the Inspector General reported today:
The Justice Department inspector general revealed Tuesday that he found errors in every FBI application to a secret surveillance court his office examined as part of an ongoing review — suggesting the problems exposed in the bureau’s probe of President Trump’s 2016 campaign extend far beyond that case alone. The memorandum issued by Inspector General Michael Horowitz stems from an audit launched last year after his office found 17 serious problems with the FBI’s surveillance applications targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The interim results of that audit suggest that the problems that plagued the Page investigation may exist in other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases. The memorandum may buttress some of the criticism that Trump and his supporters have leveled at the FBI, but the findings also suggest that, rather than political motives, the issues at the agency may be broader institutional weaknesses.
This does cut both ways. Had the errors and misrepresentations in the Page warrant been a singular occurrence, it would have strengthened the case that the FBI agents involved in Operation Crossfire Hurricane had specific political motives. If they make these kinds of misrepresentations and errors on a constant basis, it’s tougher to argue that it was specifically targeted at Trump.
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily preclude that, either. It makes it much easier to argue that the FBI routinely abuses its authority and misleads the FISC in order to pursue its own purposes, whatever they are. Four of the cases were missing their “Woods files” entirely, making this pattern look even more suspicious. IG Michael Horowitz issued a statement of no-confidence in the FBI’s operation to FBI director Chris Wray:
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz informed FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday that his office did “not have confidence” that the FBI was properly following the Woods Procedures, an FBI policy that requires officials to provide supporting documentation to back up factual assertions made in FISA applications. “As a result of our audit work to date and as described below, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy,” Horowitz wrote in a management advisory memorandum to Wray. “Specifically, the Woods Procedures mandate compiling supporting documentation for each fact in the FISA application. Adherence to the Woods Procedures should result in such documentation as a means toward achievement of the FBI’s policy that FISA applications be ‘scrupulously accurate.'”
Just how bad are these applications? Horowitz doesn’t yet have a conclusion on materiality, but the sheer number of errors is astounding:
Horowitz’s office said in a report released Tuesday that of the 29 applications — all of which involved U.S. citizens – that were pulled from “8 FBI field offices of varying sizes,” the FBI could not find Woods Files for four of the applications, while the other 25 all had “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.” “While our review of these issues and follow-up with case agents is still ongoing—and we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified—at this time we have identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed, with a high of approximately 65 issues in one application and less than 5 issues in another application,” the report reveals.
How did it get that bad? For one thing, Horowitz reports, the FBI wasn’t doing anything to enforce accuracy and completeness on FISA warrants. And the FBI knew damned well that these problems existed, too:
FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy, to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process, or increased accountability measures. … Our preliminary review of the 34 FBI CDC and NSD OI accuracy review reports covering the period from October 2014 to September 2019 for the 8 field offices we visited—which address a total of 42 U.S. Person FISA applications, 1 of which was also included among the 29 FISA applications that we reviewed—revealed that these oversight mechanisms routinely identified deficiencies in documentation supporting FISA applications similar to those that, as described in more detail below, we have observed during our audit to date. Although reports related to 3 of the 42 FISA applications did not identify any deficiencies, the reports covering the remaining 39 applications identified a total of about 390 issues, including unverified, inaccurate, or inadequately supported facts, as well as typographical errors.
It turns out that FBI management had little interest in oversight of the FISA warrant application process:
Therefore, the results of FBI CDC and NSD OI oversight mechanisms have been available to relevant FBI officials responsible for ensuring the integrity of the FBI’s FISA program. FBI OGC personnel told us, however, that the FBI CDC and NSD OI accuracy review reports had not been used in a comprehensive, strategic fashion by FBI Headquarters to assess the performance of individuals involved in and accountable for FISA applications, to identify trends in results of the reviews, or to contribute to an evaluation of the efficacy of quality assurance mechanisms intended to ensure that FISA applications were “scrupulously accurate.” That is, the accuracy reviews were not being used by the FBI as a tool to help assess the FBI’s compliance with its Woods Procedures.
In other words, FBI leadership knew that their agents were submitting erroneous and false information to the FISC to get surveillance warrants. They just didn’t care enough about the problem to take any action to stop it. That should inform the FISC judges’ decisions in the future to grant approvals for surveillance based on FBI representations.
In fact, this should inform Congress that this process is broken and the FBI can’t be trusted with it in its current form. This process needs to be made more adversarial, for one thing, and material misrepresentations need to be prosecuted on the same basis that the DoJ prosecutes those who lie to FBI agents. After a couple of convictions puts agents in Club Fed pour encourager les autres, future audits would likely find a much lower failure rate. The problem here is that everyone in the FBI apparently knew they could manipulate this process with impunity. With that in mind, should we be surprised that the process might have been manipulated by agents with political axes to grind?


hotair--2020-03-31--Social distancing appears to be working but a lot of people are still struggling with it

Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed some optimism today about the impact social distancing efforts were having on the spread of the coronavirus .
“ We ’ re starting to see glimmers that that is actually having some dampening effect , ” he said .
The LA Times published a story today which also suggests social distancing is working based on the outcomes in California vs. New York : The Bay Area stunned the nation on March 16 when health officers in six counties jointly ordered residents to shelter in place to curb the spread of the coronavirus , officially known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined the order , and on March 19 it was expanded statewide by Newsom .
New York state , by contrast , issued a stay-at-home order on March 20 , and made it effective on March 22 .
California ’ s earlier , aggressive stay-at-home order is one reason why a model published by the University of Washington ’ s Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that New York state will see its worst day of the epidemic in early April , and that it will be dramatically worse than California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depends on how seriously people follow the guidelines .
The models that are estimating the outcome assume there will be compliance , but there ’ s plenty of evidence that people everywhere are struggling to do that .
Sunday a man in Oakland shot this video of at least a hundred people gathered in the street watching a truck do donuts in an intersection .
Also Sunday , California announced it was closing parking lots at state parks because for two weekends in a row , the parks had been packed with people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at parks in New York City , despite the city being the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak .
Monday the hospital ship Comfort arrived in New York City to help take the burden of non-coronavirus patients off the city ’ s hospitals .
Dozens of people gathered to take pictures : All of the examples above are avoidable .
No one has to go out for pictures of a ship or to watch a street race .
But what about the things we all have to do , like shopping for food ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent a crew out to see how things were going at a small market and a laundromat around the corner .
What they found was crowds of people packed closely together .
The laundromat had 55 people inside , most seated closely together along the wall .
I guess the question I have is why the people in the laundromat don ’ t go outside to avoid being packed in a room with a bunch of strangers ?
We ’ ve all heard the guidance by now that says if you stay six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re probably safe from the spread of the virus .
But that ’ s really just a rough guideline .
It ’ s not necessarily going to keep everyone safe : Lydia Bourouiba , an associate professor at MIT , has researched the dynamics of exhalations ( coughs and sneezes , for instance ) for years at The Fluid Dynamics of Disease Transmission Laboratory and found exhalations cause gaseous clouds that can travel up to 27 feet… The idea that droplets “ hit a virtual wall and stop there and after that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on evidence found in her research , Bourouiba said , and also not based on “ evidence that we have about COVID transmission.
” Six feet may turn out to be more of a minimum safe distance .
It doesn ’ t guarantee you won ’ t get sick but it probably reduces the chances significantly .
In any case , it ’ s clear that many people are still struggling with this concept or simply don ’ t care at all .
At this point I think it ’ s pretty clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from gathering on beaches and in parks is to close them .
I ’ m not sure what we ’ re supposed to do about crowded markets and laundromats though .
One idea is to promote the use of masks in public .

Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed some optimism today about the impact social distancing efforts were having on the spread of the coronavirus. “We’re starting to see glimmers that that is actually having some dampening effect,” he said. The LA Times published a story today which also suggests social distancing is working based on the outcomes in California vs. New York:
The Bay Area stunned the nation on March 16 when health officers in six counties jointly ordered residents to shelter in place to curb the spread of the coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2. Eleven other California counties soon joined the order, and on March 19 it was expanded statewide by Newsom. New York state, by contrast, issued a stay-at-home order on March 20, and made it effective on March 22. California’s earlier, aggressive stay-at-home order is one reason why a model published by the University of Washington’s Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that New York state will see its worst day of the epidemic in early April, and that it will be dramatically worse than California’s worst day.
But a lot depends on how seriously people follow the guidelines. The models that are estimating the outcome assume there will be compliance, but there’s plenty of evidence that people everywhere are struggling to do that. Sunday a man in Oakland shot this video of at least a hundred people gathered in the street watching a truck do donuts in an intersection.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B-VoidXAALS/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Also Sunday, California announced it was closing parking lots at state parks because for two weekends in a row, the parks had been packed with people.
The same thing has been happening at parks in New York City, despite the city being the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak. Monday the hospital ship Comfort arrived in New York City to help take the burden of non-coronavirus patients off the city’s hospitals. Dozens of people gathered to take pictures:
These photos of NYC crowds watching the arrival of the US Navy hospital ship Comfort were taken this morning. We're supposed to be social distancing. Your Instagram feed is not worth getting sick. Take #COVID19 seriously, NY. Please, and I can't stress this enough, stay home. pic.twitter.com/7c6osIlRLS — Jenna Amatulli (@ohheyjenna) March 30, 2020
All of the examples above are avoidable. No one has to go out for pictures of a ship or to watch a street race. But what about the things we all have to do, like shopping for food? A local station in Jacksonville, Florida sent a crew out to see how things were going at a small market and a laundromat around the corner. What they found was crowds of people packed closely together. The laundromat had 55 people inside, most seated closely together along the wall.
I guess the question I have is why the people in the laundromat don’t go outside to avoid being packed in a room with a bunch of strangers? We’ve all heard the guidance by now that says if you stay six feet away from other people you’re probably safe from the spread of the virus. But that’s really just a rough guideline. It’s not necessarily going to keep everyone safe:
Lydia Bourouiba, an associate professor at MIT, has researched the dynamics of exhalations (coughs and sneezes, for instance) for years at The Fluid Dynamics of Disease Transmission Laboratory and found exhalations cause gaseous clouds that can travel up to 27 feet… The idea that droplets “hit a virtual wall and stop there and after that we are safe,” is not based on evidence found in her research, Bourouiba said, and also not based on “evidence that we have about COVID transmission.”
Six feet may turn out to be more of a minimum safe distance. It doesn’t guarantee you won’t get sick but it probably reduces the chances significantly. In any case, it’s clear that many people are still struggling with this concept or simply don’t care at all. At this point I think it’s pretty clear that the only way to keep people from gathering on beaches and in parks is to close them. I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do about crowded markets and laundromats though. One idea is to promote the use of masks in public.


hotair--2020-03-31--I wear a mask in public. The CDC needs to catch up.

I don ’ t go out of the house at all except for essentials .
But when I do , you ’ re damned right I take all the precautions I can , considering the high risk that my wife has as a transplant patient .
That includes re-using a mask I kept from a clinic visit at the beginning of the month and disinfecting it between uses , for the same reasons Allahpundit noted in the previous post .
The CDC needs to catch up — and according to the Washington Post , they might , now that supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In recent days , more people have taken to covering their faces , although it remains a scattershot strategy driven by personal choice .
The government does not recommend it .
That may change .
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering altering the official guidance to encourage people to take measures to cover their faces amid the coronavirus pandemic , The Washington Post has learned .
CDC guidance on masks remains under development , according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nothing has been finalized .
The official said the new guidance would make clear that the general public should not use medical masks — including surgical and N95 masks — that are in desperately short supply and needed by health-care workers .
Instead , the recommendation under consideration calls for using do-it-yourself cloth coverings , according to a second official who shared that thinking on a personal Facebook account .
It would be a way to help “ flatten the curve , ” the official noted .
This is hardly a novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common practice in Asian countries since the SARS outbreak nearly twenty years ago .
Preventing a run on masks might have been good policy in the moment , but as America tries to reopen its public squares , face masks offer at least some protection against transmission even if it doesn ’ t prevent it entirely .
When COVID-19 first came to the US , the CDC warned against the idea , perhaps mainly because of the low supply of masks and the desperate need to reserve them for hospitals and clinics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb advised the Trump administration to reconsider its guidance in a proposal released yesterday .
At his daily coronavirus briefing , Trump told reporters that he ’ d consider it as a short-to-medium term measure to encourage economic revival .
“ We ’ re not going to be wearing masks forever , ” Trump cautioned .
“ We want our country back ” : ABC News reported that Asian health authorities warn Americans that they are waiting too long to adopt mask wearing .
The World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Fauci says the real issue on this is just supply , not effectiveness : The WHO ’ s opposition to this is odd , to say the least .
This respiratory infection transmits exactly in the manner noted by Asian epidemiologists , and masks are at least some protection against it .
If the supply issue is solved — and production is ramping up — then it makes sense to use them in public , at least until treatments and then vaccines are made universally available .
While it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a few people wearing them each of the rare times I go out at all .
My wife is high risk for COVID-19 because of her organ transplant immune suppression , so I take a series of precautions when going outside or bringing items into the house .
I had a mask from an urgent-care visit a month ago still in the house , so I spray it with an alcohol solution and let it dry before going out , and mask up wherever I go .
When that mask no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other masks from previous painting tasks that I can — and will — use when needed .
It ’ s not perfect , but it at least offers one more level of defense .
I am not going to choose not to defend myself simply because WHO thinks the perfect is the enemy of the perhaps-good-enough , or at least the can ’ t-hurt .
Get ready for face masks to become the fashion statement of 2020 , especially when America first readies its Grand Re-Opening .
The sooner , the better .

I don’t go out of the house at all except for essentials. But when I do, you’re damned right I take all the precautions I can, considering the high risk that my wife has as a transplant patient. That includes re-using a mask I kept from a clinic visit at the beginning of the month and disinfecting it between uses, for the same reasons Allahpundit noted in the previous post. The CDC needs to catch up — and according to the Washington Post, they might, now that supplies will start catching up to demand:
In recent days, more people have taken to covering their faces, although it remains a scattershot strategy driven by personal choice. The government does not recommend it. That may change. Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are considering altering the official guidance to encourage people to take measures to cover their faces amid the coronavirus pandemic, The Washington Post has learned. CDC guidance on masks remains under development, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing matter of internal discussion and nothing has been finalized. The official said the new guidance would make clear that the general public should not use medical masks — including surgical and N95 masks — that are in desperately short supply and needed by health-care workers. Instead, the recommendation under consideration calls for using do-it-yourself cloth coverings, according to a second official who shared that thinking on a personal Facebook account. It would be a way to help “flatten the curve,” the official noted.
This is hardly a novel idea. Mask-wearing in public has been a common practice in Asian countries since the SARS outbreak nearly twenty years ago. Preventing a run on masks might have been good policy in the moment, but as America tries to reopen its public squares, face masks offer at least some protection against transmission even if it doesn’t prevent it entirely.
When COVID-19 first came to the US, the CDC warned against the idea, perhaps mainly because of the low supply of masks and the desperate need to reserve them for hospitals and clinics. Now that the supply might ramp up, former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb advised the Trump administration to reconsider its guidance in a proposal released yesterday. At his daily coronavirus briefing, Trump told reporters that he’d consider it as a short-to-medium term measure to encourage economic revival. “We’re not going to be wearing masks forever,” Trump cautioned. “We want our country back”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aC4dIsFUOQ
ABC News reported that Asian health authorities warn Americans that they are waiting too long to adopt mask wearing. The World Health Organization disputes that advice, while Dr. Anthony Fauci says the real issue on this is just supply, not effectiveness:
The WHO’s opposition to this is odd, to say the least. This respiratory infection transmits exactly in the manner noted by Asian epidemiologists, and masks are at least some protection against it. If the supply issue is solved — and production is ramping up — then it makes sense to use them in public, at least until treatments and then vaccines are made universally available.
While it’s not widely common here in Minnesota, I see a few people wearing them each of the rare times I go out at all. My wife is high risk for COVID-19 because of her organ transplant immune suppression, so I take a series of precautions when going outside or bringing items into the house. I had a mask from an urgent-care visit a month ago still in the house, so I spray it with an alcohol solution and let it dry before going out, and mask up wherever I go. When that mask no longer works, I have a couple of other masks from previous painting tasks that I can — and will — use when needed. It’s not perfect, but it at least offers one more level of defense. I am not going to choose not to defend myself simply because WHO thinks the perfect is the enemy of the perhaps-good-enough, or at least the can’t-hurt.
Get ready for face masks to become the fashion statement of 2020, especially when America first readies its Grand Re-Opening. The sooner, the better.