hotair--2020-05-11--Is there an outbreak at the White House? <span class='red'>Update: Masks at (almost) all times?</spa

Is there an outbreak at the White House? Update: Masks at (almost) all times?

There ’ s no hard evidence that transmission is happening *at* the White House but there ’ s plenty of evidence of a recent spike of infections among people who work there .
First was Trump ’ s valet , the news of which the president reportedly didn ’ t take well .
After learning that one of his valets was infected , Trump became “ lava level mad ” at his staff and said he doesn ’ t feel it is doing all it can to protect him , according to a person close to the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was consistently close to the president throughout the day .
Trump publicly disputed that Thursday , telling reporters that he ’ d had “ very little contact , personal contact , with this gentleman.
” The valet served Trump his meals , among other duties .
Then came Katie Miller , Mike Pence ’ s press secretary ( and wife to Trump advisor Stephen Miller ) .
“ The news of Katie Miller ’ s positive test has left everyone in the West Wing of the White House genuinely nervous , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The source said Katie Miller ’ s nature is to communicate in person so she makes lots of in-person contacts during her day-to-day work.
” Stephen Miller is now reportedly working from home given the possibility that he ’ s infected too .
White House officials did contact tracing over the weekend to try to figure out how Katie Miller might have picked it up but hadn ’ t come to any conclusions as of this morning .
Oh , meanwhile : 11 Secret Service agents have tested positive and 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Where they were stationed and whether any of them had close contact with Trump or Pence is unclear .
But the president is now being tested for the virus every day .
That ’ s not all .
The Navy ’ s top admiral , who was supposed to attend a meeting with Trump at the White House on Saturday , is in self-quarantine after coming into contact with a family member who was infected .
The head of the National Guard was supposed to attend the same meeting but backed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , after he was given a precautionary test before meeting Trump , although a follow-up test the same afternoon showed him negative .
His status is pending .
Anthony Fauci and the directors of the CDC and FDA are all self-isolating right now just to be on the safe side .
The optics here … aren ’ t great : “ Now that [ the heads of the CDC and FDA ] are staying away , some officials said they don ’ t know if they should keep going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WaPo reported over the weekend .
The management office has sent out a memo encouraging telework if possible , although “ several administration officials said White House staffers were encouraged to come into the office by their supervisors.
” Bloomberg claimed last night that even Mike Pence has been staying away from the White House over the last few days because of his exposure to Miller , but Pence rushed out a statement afterward insisting that it wasn ’ t true and that he ’ d be there today .
On Friday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s infection was confirmed , he met with a bunch of CEOs in Iowa — and asked them to remove their masks after they showed up wearing them .
I can understand why the White House would be reluctant to keep personnel at home at a moment when it ’ s begging the country to get back to work but the antipathy to mask-wearing seems like nothing more or less than moronic strongman posturing .
Real men don ’ t take precautions .
Only wusses would put on a mask and risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of months .
Take this for what it ’ s worth : That might be nothing more than a reference to Pence ’ s brief self-isolation .
Miller is his press secretary ; of course he might have been “ impacted ” by being around her before her infection was confirmed .
But he ’ s being tested daily .
If he has the bug we should know immediately , assuming the White House doesn ’ t cover it up because “ it ’ d look bad.
” The evidence will be whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , especially Trump , this week .
I can believe they ’ d bring him back into the building even if he were infected as a matter of keeping up appearances during the big “ reopen now ” push .
I can ’ t believe they ’ d risk having him infect anyone else while he ’ s there .
Here ’ s Trump advisor Kevin Hassett admitting that it ’ s “ scary ” to go to work right now .
Imagine how scary it is for people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing or contact tracing personnel on the premises .
If you ’ re wondering how they ’ re testing people at the White House , by the way , apparently it ’ s through the use of one of those portable insta-result machines from Abbott .
The problem : “ [ S ] ome hospitals and doctors found that [ the Abbott equipment ] was turning up too many false negatives — cases in which people really had the virus , but the test said they did not.
” False negatives are much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means an infected person is walking around with a clean bill of health .
How many people like that are in the West Wing today ?
Update : I ’ m guessing that the boss will not be following this rule , but lesser employees might have to .

There’s no hard evidence that transmission is happening *at* the White House but there’s plenty of evidence of a recent spike of infections among people who work there. First was Trump’s valet, the news of which the president reportedly didn’t take well.
After learning that one of his valets was infected, Trump became “lava level mad” at his staff and said he doesn’t feel it is doing all it can to protect him, according to a person close to the White House. The source said the unknowingly infected valet was consistently close to the president throughout the day. Trump publicly disputed that Thursday, telling reporters that he’d had “very little contact, personal contact, with this gentleman.”
The valet served Trump his meals, among other duties. Then came Katie Miller, Mike Pence’s press secretary (and wife to Trump advisor Stephen Miller). “The news of Katie Miller’s positive test has left everyone in the West Wing of the White House genuinely nervous,” said CNN, quoting a White House source. “The source said Katie Miller’s nature is to communicate in person so she makes lots of in-person contacts during her day-to-day work.” Stephen Miller is now reportedly working from home given the possibility that he’s infected too. White House officials did contact tracing over the weekend to try to figure out how Katie Miller might have picked it up but hadn’t come to any conclusions as of this morning.
Oh, meanwhile: 11 Secret Service agents have tested positive and 60 more are in self-quarantine as a precaution. Where they were stationed and whether any of them had close contact with Trump or Pence is unclear. But the president is now being tested for the virus every day.
That’s not all. The Navy’s top admiral, who was supposed to attend a meeting with Trump at the White House on Saturday, is in self-quarantine after coming into contact with a family member who was infected. The head of the National Guard was supposed to attend the same meeting but backed out after he tested positive on Saturday at the White House, after he was given a precautionary test before meeting Trump, although a follow-up test the same afternoon showed him negative. His status is pending.
Anthony Fauci and the directors of the CDC and FDA are all self-isolating right now just to be on the safe side. The optics here … aren’t great:
In conversations this weekend, President Trump has expressed concern that aides contracting coronavirus would undercut his message that the outbreak is waning and states should begin reopening, according to a person who spoke to him.@kevinliptakcnn — Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) May 10, 2020
Per @JDiamond1, anonymous Trump admin official "says there is extreme sensitivity inside the White House right now at the current state of affairs — officials recognize the contradiction in telling states to reopen while the WH enhances protocols to prevent spread of the virus." — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 10, 2020
“Now that [the heads of the CDC and FDA] are staying away, some officials said they don’t know if they should keep going to work at the White House,” WaPo reported over the weekend. The management office has sent out a memo encouraging telework if possible, although “several administration officials said White House staffers were encouraged to come into the office by their supervisors.”
Bloomberg claimed last night that even Mike Pence has been staying away from the White House over the last few days because of his exposure to Miller, but Pence rushed out a statement afterward insisting that it wasn’t true and that he’d be there today. On Friday, the same day that his press secretary’s infection was confirmed, he met with a bunch of CEOs in Iowa — and asked them to remove their masks after they showed up wearing them. I can understand why the White House would be reluctant to keep personnel at home at a moment when it’s begging the country to get back to work but the antipathy to mask-wearing seems like nothing more or less than moronic strongman posturing. Real men don’t take precautions. Only wusses would put on a mask and risk … crushing the pandemic in a matter of months.
Take this for what it’s worth:
I’m hearing on good authority that #coronavirus is more rampant in the #WhiteHouse than the public is being told. A very high-ranking individual may have also been impacted! The administration is currently mum on the matter, seeking prayers instead. #COVID19 — AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) May 11, 2020
That might be nothing more than a reference to Pence’s brief self-isolation. Miller is his press secretary; of course he might have been “impacted” by being around her before her infection was confirmed. But he’s being tested daily. If he has the bug we should know immediately, assuming the White House doesn’t cover it up because “it’d look bad.”
The evidence will be whether he’s seen around others at the White House, especially Trump, this week. I can believe they’d bring him back into the building even if he were infected as a matter of keeping up appearances during the big “reopen now” push. I can’t believe they’d risk having him infect anyone else while he’s there.
Here’s Trump advisor Kevin Hassett admitting that it’s “scary” to go to work right now. Imagine how scary it is for people in far less glamorous jobs, with no testing or contact tracing personnel on the premises. If you’re wondering how they’re testing people at the White House, by the way, apparently it’s through the use of one of those portable insta-result machines from Abbott. The problem: “[S]ome hospitals and doctors found that [the Abbott equipment] was turning up too many false negatives — cases in which people really had the virus, but the test said they did not.” False negatives are much more dangerous than false positives since it means an infected person is walking around with a clean bill of health. How many people like that are in the West Wing today?
ICYMI: "It is scary to go to work," @WhiteHouse Economic adviser Kevin Hassett told @margbrennan on @FaceTheNation Sundayhttps://t.co/KWEHU88SY7 This week a White House staffer and an aide to @VP Pence tested positive for #coronavirus pic.twitter.com/PEH0p1Doi7 — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) May 11, 2020
Update: I’m guessing that the boss will not be following this rule, but lesser employees might have to.


hotair--2020-05-11--Turley: The Logan Act is the last refuge of scoundrels

In the wake of the decision to drop the case against Michael Flynn , there has been a rush by various people to call it an outrageously partisan act by AG Barr .
However , over the weekend Jonathan Turley pointed out that the case against Flynn was premised on the Logan Act , a 1799 law which has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone .
Despite the fact that it is considered a “ harmless relic , ” President Obama , James Comey , Andrew McCabe , Sally Yates and others decided it was an appropriate way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turley on the history of the law : The law was a product of its time , as John Adams was never one to suffer opponents gladly .
At the time , Adams favored and signed a treaty with Great Britain that led to the Quasi War with France .
The Jeffersonians favored France , and one of them , George Logan of Philadelphia , went to Paris to try to end the hostilities .
Adams was irate over what he called the “ temerity and impertinence of individuals ” such as Logan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagrantly unconstitutional act , making it a crime to have “ correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent ” about disputes .
The same Congress passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts used to arrest opponents of Adams , including journalists .
The only reason the Logan Act remains on the books is that it is treated as a harmless relic .
In late 2016 as the incoming Trump administration was being formed , the FBI had decided to close an investigation ( Crossfire Razor ) into possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no evidence he had done anything wrong .
But after a memo suggesting the closure of the case was sent around , Peter Strzok asked that it be left open .
So the FBI had an open case , what it lacked was any evidence of a crime .
Enter the Logan Act and Flynn ’ s call with Ambassador Kislyak .
When Strzok overruled the career prosecutors and investigators to keep open the investigation , he immediately raised the Logan Act as a possible way to charge Flynn .
We previously learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also raised the Logan Act as a possible charge , and we know that McCabe pushed the Logan Act in the absence of any other crime… The new material shows that former FBI Director James Comey also raised the Logan Act , with President Obama , in discussing FBI surveillance of Flynn .
In one meeting , Justice Department officials were surprised that Obama already knew of the surveillance even though Yates was not aware of the facts .
One document states , “ Yates had no idea what the president was talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the conversation .
Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act.
” Turley concludes that Flynn could never have been prosecuted under the Logan Act .
That would have been a stretch against anyone but that ’ s especially true for an incoming National Security Adviser days before a new president is sworn in .
There was no chance this bogus case would ever go anywhere .
But by sending FBI agents in to talk casually with Flynn , Strzok and others were able to set up the claim that Flynn had perjured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought him to the point of bankruptcy and threatened to prosecute his son , Flynn pleaded guilty to that charge .
Turley concludes : Perhaps it is fitting that these Obama administration officials turned to the Logan Act .
Obama , who had dismissed Flynn from another post , opposed his appointment as national security adviser .
It did not matter if there was no evidence against Flynn .
As President Adams declared in calling for enactment of the Logan Act , there must be punishment for those with the “ temerity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So after no evidence of collusion or a crime by Flynn was found by the end of 2016 , Strzok , McCabe , Comey , Yates and perhaps even Obama retreated to that last refuge of the prosecutorial scoundrel , the Logan Act , under the apparent theory that an unconstitutional crime is still better than no crime at all .
The fact that an unsustainable case based on the Logan Act was the underlying crime here may explain why Andrew McCabe appeared on CNN last week offering what Turley described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Ed pointed out here , McCabe made at least two false statements about Flynn .
First , he claimed that the decision to drop the case against Flynn , which was halted by Strzok at the last moment , was a “ close question.
” In fact , the FBI had determined it had “ no derogatory information ” about Flynn .
This was not a close call .
Secondly , McCabe claimed Flynn was setting up “ surreptitious meetings ” with Russians but that wasn ’ t true .
Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of getting up to speed on his new job as National Security Adviser and had been reported to the transition team .
As Turley put it , “ It is not ‘ surreptitious ’ just because McCabe did not know about… ” I ’ m sure the gnashing to teeth from Comey , McCabe , Strzok , and others will continue , but the basis of this case was junk from the beginning .
Here ’ s hoping we learn even more from the Durham investigation .

In the wake of the decision to drop the case against Michael Flynn, there has been a rush by various people to call it an outrageously partisan act by AG Barr. However, over the weekend Jonathan Turley pointed out that the case against Flynn was premised on the Logan Act, a 1799 law which has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone. Despite the fact that it is considered a “harmless relic,” President Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and others decided it was an appropriate way to go after Flynn. Here’s Turley on the history of the law:
The law was a product of its time, as John Adams was never one to suffer opponents gladly. At the time, Adams favored and signed a treaty with Great Britain that led to the Quasi War with France. The Jeffersonians favored France, and one of them, George Logan of Philadelphia, went to Paris to try to end the hostilities. Adams was irate over what he called the “temerity and impertinence of individuals” such as Logan. He persuaded Congress to pass the flagrantly unconstitutional act, making it a crime to have “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent” about disputes. The same Congress passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts used to arrest opponents of Adams, including journalists. The only reason the Logan Act remains on the books is that it is treated as a harmless relic.
In late 2016 as the incoming Trump administration was being formed, the FBI had decided to close an investigation (Crossfire Razor) into possible misconduct by Flynn because they had found no evidence he had done anything wrong. But after a memo suggesting the closure of the case was sent around, Peter Strzok asked that it be left open. So the FBI had an open case, what it lacked was any evidence of a crime. Enter the Logan Act and Flynn’s call with Ambassador Kislyak.
When Strzok overruled the career prosecutors and investigators to keep open the investigation, he immediately raised the Logan Act as a possible way to charge Flynn. We previously learned that former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised the Logan Act as a possible charge, and we know that McCabe pushed the Logan Act in the absence of any other crime… The new material shows that former FBI Director James Comey also raised the Logan Act, with President Obama, in discussing FBI surveillance of Flynn. In one meeting, Justice Department officials were surprised that Obama already knew of the surveillance even though Yates was not aware of the facts. One document states, “Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act.”
Turley concludes that Flynn could never have been prosecuted under the Logan Act. That would have been a stretch against anyone but that’s especially true for an incoming National Security Adviser days before a new president is sworn in. There was no chance this bogus case would ever go anywhere. But by sending FBI agents in to talk casually with Flynn, Strzok and others were able to set up the claim that Flynn had perjured himself. And after the special prosecutor brought him to the point of bankruptcy and threatened to prosecute his son, Flynn pleaded guilty to that charge. Turley concludes:
Perhaps it is fitting that these Obama administration officials turned to the Logan Act. Obama, who had dismissed Flynn from another post, opposed his appointment as national security adviser. It did not matter if there was no evidence against Flynn. As President Adams declared in calling for enactment of the Logan Act, there must be punishment for those with the “temerity and impertinence” to challenge those in power. So after no evidence of collusion or a crime by Flynn was found by the end of 2016, Strzok, McCabe, Comey, Yates and perhaps even Obama retreated to that last refuge of the prosecutorial scoundrel, the Logan Act, under the apparent theory that an unconstitutional crime is still better than no crime at all.
The fact that an unsustainable case based on the Logan Act was the underlying crime here may explain why Andrew McCabe appeared on CNN last week offering what Turley described as “revisionist history” of the case. As Ed pointed out here, McCabe made at least two false statements about Flynn. First, he claimed that the decision to drop the case against Flynn, which was halted by Strzok at the last moment, was a “close question.” In fact, the FBI had determined it had “no derogatory information” about Flynn. This was not a close call.
Secondly, McCabe claimed Flynn was setting up “surreptitious meetings” with Russians but that wasn’t true. Flynn’s call to Kislyak was part of getting up to speed on his new job as National Security Adviser and had been reported to the transition team. As Turley put it, “It is not ‘surreptitious’ just because McCabe did not know about…”
I’m sure the gnashing to teeth from Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and others will continue, but the basis of this case was junk from the beginning. Here’s hoping we learn even more from the Durham investigation.


hotair--2020-05-11--60 Minutes: Pompeo pushing debunked theory that COVID-19 was manmade

Chuck Todd might not be the only Sunday news anchor on Donald Trump ’ s to-be-fired list .
In last night ’ s 60 Minutes , Scott Pelley accused Mike Pompeo of “ attempt [ ing ] to resurrect a debunked theory ” a week earlier on COVID-19 by suggesting it was “ man-made.
” However , that ’ s not what Pompeo meant , as the transcript of the interview makes perfectly clear ( via the Daily Wire ) : Last Sunday , Secretary of State Mike Pomepo attempted to resurrect a debunked theory that the virus was man-made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ This Week ” : Look , the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made .
I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point .
This clip is taken out of context , however , not unlike what Todd did with William Barr earlier in the day .
Pompeo did say this , but he made it clear he misspoke in almost the very next breath .
The State Department has the transcript up from his interview on This Week with Martha Raddatz , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that he believes the COVID-19 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab , not that it was man-made : QUESTION : Do you believe it was man-made or genetically modified ?
SECRETARY POMPEO : Look , the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made .
I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point .
QUESTION : Your Office of the DNI says the consensus , the scientific consensus , was not man-made or genetically modified .
SECRETARY POMPEO : That ’ s right .
I agree with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their analysis .
I ’ ve seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly .
I have no reason to doubt that that is accurate at this point .
QUESTION : Okay .
So just to be clear , you do not think it was man-made or genetically modified ?
SECRETARY POMPEO : I ’ ve seen what the Intelligence Community has said .
I have no reason to believe that they ’ ve got it wrong .
But you have to put this in context .
Here ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what ’ s important .
The Chinese Communist Party had the opportunity to prevent all of the calamity that has befallen the world , and here we find ourselves today – you and I were talking about we haven ’ t seen each other physically for a long time .
That ’ s true of people all across the world .
Again , pulling remarks out of context from interviews published by other organizations is a remarkably bad idea .
It ’ s literally true that those words came out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also clear that he corrected himself when Raddatz asked him about it .
What Pompeo actually did was controversial enough for commentary , anyway .
He and US intelligence claim that COVID-19 escaped from the lab rather than crossed over in the wet markets or through some other more natural process , a conclusion that our other allies dispute .
Why not just report on what Pompeo ’ s actually arguing and dissect that ?
The answer : 60 Minutes has a long tradition of making intellectually dishonest political attacks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his crew then lined up experts to debunk an argument that Pompeo wasn ’ t making in order to paint him and the administration as liars who are desperate to shift blame to poor , unfortunate China : Elodie Ghedin : People have been saying that ’ s an engineered virus .
And it ’ s not .
And we know that by looking at the genetic information , looking at the code .
And the code tells you a lot .
Human-engineered viruses have common and obvious genetic components , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called its backbone .
Elodie Ghedin : If a virus had been engineered , it would ’ ve used the backbones that we know .
And there ’ s none of that in that virus .
And let ’ s say it was a brand-new backbone .
Well , it wouldn ’ t look like what it ’ s looking like , because we can find every piece of that virus .
We can find these pieces in other very similar viruses that circulate in the wild .
From the genetic information , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
Yes , well , that ’ s why US intelligence doesn ’ t believe it ’ s man-made , and neither does the Trump administration .
If they thought this was a biological weapon unleashed on the world , the US response would look much different than it is now .
This is nothing more than strawman-building on Pelley ’ s part .
Nor is it the only intellectually dishonest part of this report .
Pelley also reported that the State Department previously praised the work at the Wuhan Institute of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lack of competence in high-risk viral containment .
In doing so , Pelley seriously misrepresented the nature of those memos , the Daily Wire ’ s Ryan Saavedra notes : Pelley goes on to praise the Wuhan Institute of Virology , saying that it was “ internationally respected ” and that State Department cables sent to Washington , D.C. , in 2018 said that the lab was “ critical to future… outbreak prediction and prevention.
” Pelley downplayed the warning contained in the cables as the State Department was “ concerned ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers .
Here is how Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin , who broke the story , described the State Department cables : What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington .
The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help .
The first cable , which I obtained , also warns that the lab ’ s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… The research was designed to prevent the next SARS-like pandemic by anticipating how it might emerge .
But even in 2015 , other scientists questioned whether Shi ’ s team was taking unnecessary risks .
In October 2014 , the U.S. government had imposed a moratorium on funding of any research that makes a virus more deadly or contagious , known as “ gain-of-function ” experiments .
… Sources familiar with the cables said they were meant to sound an alarm about the grave safety concerns at the WIV lab , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The embassy officials were calling for more U.S. attention to this lab and more support for it , to help it fix its problems .
“ The cable was a warning shot , ” one U.S. official said .
“ They were begging people to pay attention to what was going on.
” The only thing that Pelley even mentioned about China was that the Chinese communist government silenced one doctor who tried to warn about the outbreak which is a distortion of how China responded to the pandemic , as China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It would be easier to take media criticism of “ Pandemic Politics ” more seriously if the media wasn ’ t so determined to play it themselves .
Should CBS fire Scott Pelley too ?
Actually , most of us would be satisfied if they just fired their news division ’ s executive editor … Zhao Lijian .

Chuck Todd might not be the only Sunday news anchor on Donald Trump’s to-be-fired list. In last night’s 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley accused Mike Pompeo of “attempt[ing] to resurrect a debunked theory” a week earlier on COVID-19 by suggesting it was “man-made.” However, that’s not what Pompeo meant, as the transcript of the interview makes perfectly clear (via the Daily Wire):
As the U.S. took the lead for illness and death from coronavirus, the White House moved the focus to the Chinese government. Last Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attempted to resurrect a debunked theory that the virus was man-made in China. https://t.co/MZbfe4LeXi pic.twitter.com/bIjTRfboTg — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) May 10, 2020
Last Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pomepo attempted to resurrect a debunked theory that the virus was man-made in China. Mike Pompeo on ABC’s “This Week”: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point.
This clip is taken out of context, however, not unlike what Todd did with William Barr earlier in the day. Pompeo did say this, but he made it clear he misspoke in almost the very next breath. The State Department has the transcript up from his interview on This Week with Martha Raddatz, and it is very clear that what he argued is that he believes the COVID-19 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, not that it was man-made:
QUESTION: Do you believe it was man-made or genetically modified? SECRETARY POMPEO: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point. QUESTION: Your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus, was not man-made or genetically modified. SECRETARY POMPEO: That’s right. I agree with that. Yeah, I’ve seen their analysis. I’ve seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt that that is accurate at this point. QUESTION: Okay. So just to be clear, you do not think it was man-made or genetically modified? SECRETARY POMPEO: I’ve seen what the Intelligence Community has said. I have no reason to believe that they’ve got it wrong. But you have to put this in context. Here’s what’s important, Martha. Here’s what’s important. The Chinese Communist Party had the opportunity to prevent all of the calamity that has befallen the world, and here we find ourselves today – you and I were talking about we haven’t seen each other physically for a long time. That’s true of people all across the world.
Again, pulling remarks out of context from interviews published by other organizations is a remarkably bad idea. It’s literally true that those words came out of Pompeo’s mouth, but it’s also clear that he corrected himself when Raddatz asked him about it. What Pompeo actually did was controversial enough for commentary, anyway. He and US intelligence claim that COVID-19 escaped from the lab rather than crossed over in the wet markets or through some other more natural process, a conclusion that our other allies dispute. Why not just report on what Pompeo’s actually arguing and dissect that?
The answer: 60 Minutes has a long tradition of making intellectually dishonest political attacks, as many discovered with Rathergate. Pelley and his crew then lined up experts to debunk an argument that Pompeo wasn’t making in order to paint him and the administration as liars who are desperate to shift blame to poor, unfortunate China:
Elodie Ghedin: People have been saying that’s an engineered virus. And it’s not. And we know that by looking at the genetic information, looking at the code. And the code tells you a lot. Human-engineered viruses have common and obvious genetic components, including the virus’s overall molecular structure called its backbone. Elodie Ghedin: If a virus had been engineered, it would’ve used the backbones that we know. And there’s none of that in that virus. And let’s say it was a brand-new backbone. Well, it wouldn’t look like what it’s looking like, because we can find every piece of that virus. We can find these pieces in other very similar viruses that circulate in the wild. From the genetic information, it’s clearly not an engineered virus.
Yes, well, that’s why US intelligence doesn’t believe it’s man-made, and neither does the Trump administration. If they thought this was a biological weapon unleashed on the world, the US response would look much different than it is now. This is nothing more than strawman-building on Pelley’s part.
Nor is it the only intellectually dishonest part of this report. Pelley also reported that the State Department previously praised the work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology without also revealing the warnings about their lack of competence in high-risk viral containment. In doing so, Pelley seriously misrepresented the nature of those memos, the Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra notes:
Pelley goes on to praise the Wuhan Institute of Virology, saying that it was “internationally respected” and that State Department cables sent to Washington, D.C., in 2018 said that the lab was “critical to future… outbreak prediction and prevention.” Pelley downplayed the warning contained in the cables as the State Department was “concerned” about a lab not having enough trained researchers. Here is how Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin, who broke the story, described the State Department cables: What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic. … The research was designed to prevent the next SARS-like pandemic by anticipating how it might emerge. But even in 2015, other scientists questioned whether Shi’s team was taking unnecessary risks. In October 2014, the U.S. government had imposed a moratorium on funding of any research that makes a virus more deadly or contagious, known as “gain-of-function” experiments. … Sources familiar with the cables said they were meant to sound an alarm about the grave safety concerns at the WIV lab, especially regarding its work with bat coronaviruses. The embassy officials were calling for more U.S. attention to this lab and more support for it, to help it fix its problems. “The cable was a warning shot,” one U.S. official said. “They were begging people to pay attention to what was going on.” The only thing that Pelley even mentioned about China was that the Chinese communist government silenced one doctor who tried to warn about the outbreak which is a distortion of how China responded to the pandemic, as China’s cover-up continues to this day.
It would be easier to take media criticism of “Pandemic Politics” more seriously if the media wasn’t so determined to play it themselves. Should CBS fire Scott Pelley too? Actually, most of us would be satisfied if they just fired their news division’s executive editor … Zhao Lijian.


hotair--2020-05-11--Antibody tests of thousands of MLB personnel show prevalence of ... around one percent

Yesterday was a day for good news .
Today is different .
I wrote about this study nearly a month ago , when it was still in progress and we didn ’ t have antibody data from anywhere yet .
Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya had a theory that the true number of Americans infected with COVID-19 might be many , many times higher than the number being captured in the daily count of confirmed cases .
That theory was certainly correct , especially at the beginning of the epidemic when U.S. testing was scarcely happening .
But how correct ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections as confirmed ones or more like a thousand times as many ?
Bhattacharya had the same intuition as the modelers at Oxford University , that in reality the disease might be much more infectious — and therefore much less deadly on average — than scientists suspected .
And it was important to know that ASAP before we took any further economy-destroying measures to contain it .
He and a co-author published an op-ed on March 24 laying out their case .
What if the number of actual infections were orders of magnitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
In Iceland , deCode Genetics is working with the government to perform widespread testing .
In a sample of nearly 2,000 entirely asymptomatic people , researchers estimated disease prevalence of just over 1 % .
Iceland ’ s first case was reported on Feb. 28 , weeks behind the U.S.
It ’ s plausible that the proportion of the U.S. population that has been infected is double , triple or even 10 times as high as the estimates from Iceland .
That also implies a dramatically lower fatality rate… The epidemic started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first confirmed U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15 , and it is likely that the virus entered before that : Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December .
Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days .
An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected .
As of March 23 , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S .
If our surmise of six million cases is accurate , that ’ s a mortality rate of 0.01 % , assuming a two week lag between infection and death .
This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1 % .
Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism .
He got together with Major League Baseball and the head of a sports medicine lab who had lots of antibody tests stockpiled and arranged an experiment .
Test kits would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not just players but workers up and down the hierarchy , “ including owners , front-office executives , scouts , stadium ushers , hot-dog vendors , ” you name it .
Granted , that wouldn ’ t be a perfectly representative sample of the U.S. For one thing , everyone tested would have a job by definition .
More importantly , nearly the entire sample ( 95 percent ) consisted of people under the age of 65 , and few with underlying health problems .
Still , this would be one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of coronavirus .
Until now we had localized antibody studies ( New York City , Santa Clara County ) and pinpoint studies ( pregnant women at a particular hospital in NYC , people at a homeless shelter in Boston ) but not national studies .
This would be our first glimpse at whether the Oxford model was right and the U.S. was much closer to herd immunity — and the end of the epidemic — than everyone thought .
Might we see prevalence of 25 percent here ?
Or 35 percent ?
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The results are finally in .
Prevalence : Approximately one percent .
Bhattacharya ’ s suspicion that the true number of cases exceeds the number of confirmed cases by “ orders of magnitude ” is snuffed .
Sixty of the 5,754 people in a study of the Major League Baseball employee population tested positive for coronavirus antibodies , a rate lower than what similar studies run in California found , the studies ’ authors said Sunday .
“ I was expecting a larger number , ” said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which ran the study .
“ It shows the value of doing the science as opposed to guessing.
” The results of the study , which was held in mid-April , revealed a prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in the MLB employee population of 0.7 % — a number adjusted to reflect testing accuracy .
The survey showed that about 70 % of those who tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies had been asymptomatic… “ It ’ s very clear , ” Bhattacharya said , “ that the epidemic is still in the early stages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a representative national sample .
ESPN notes that 60 percent of participants were white and 80 percent were men , and some of the people involved who have white-collar jobs would be more shielded from exposure than the average working-class American who can ’ t work from home .
There ’ s also this weird quirk : “ Study participants took pictures of their results and sent them in along with the survey .
Poor image quality and file problems made 136 of the results unverifiable .
Those 136 were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study.
” Given that the total number of confirmed positives was just 60 people , it seems kind of important to verify what those uncertain 136 were .
But as things stand , the “ adjusted prevalence ” detected by the study has a range of 0.28 percent to 1.15 percent Americans nationwide who ’ ve been infected by COVID-19 .
We can safely say that the true number is larger than that lower bound .
If NYC ’ s antibody testing is correct then 20 percent of city residents have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
That would amount to around 0.5 percent of the total U.S. population all by itself .
Assuming the upper bound of Bhattacharya ’ s range is correct , though , it would mean only the tiniest fraction of Americans outside New York has been infected thus far — around 2.1 million out of 320 million or so .
It would also mean that the true number of infections across the U.S. isn ’ t “ orders of magnitude ” larger than the number of confirmed cases .
It ’ s about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been 1.3 million cases confirmed by testing ; assuming a prevalence of 1.15 percent nationally , 3.8 million Americans have been infected .
That ’ s a ratio of about two unconfirmed infections to one confirmed infection , which is in line with the result from Bhattacharya ’ s study that 70 percent or so of people who tested positive had had no symptoms .
That ’ s the one silver lining in this study , that asymptomatic infections appear to greatly outnumber symptomatic ones .
But then , we already had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the data from some U.S. prisons have suggested that asymptomatics could outnumber symptomatics by something like 25 to one .
The ratio in Bhattacharya ’ s study is far more modest than that .
What ’ s most concerning about these new numbers is the death rate .
There have been 74,000 deaths so far ; if those deaths came from a population of just 3.8 million infections , that would mean an infection fatality rate of roughly two percent .
That ’ s a big number , 20 times deadlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Bhattacharya ’ s most optimistic estimate in the March 24 op-ed .
If that rate were to hold as the U.S. slowly made it ’ s way to herd immunity ( e.g.
, 60 percent infected ) , we ’ d be looking at somewhere on the order of four million dead .
It ’ s safe to say at this point that the Oxford model hasn ’ t panned out .
Long way to go with this epidemic , as the man himself said in the excerpt above .

Yesterday was a day for good news. Today is different.
I wrote about this study nearly a month ago, when it was still in progress and we didn’t have antibody data from anywhere yet. Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya had a theory that the true number of Americans infected with COVID-19 might be many, many times higher than the number being captured in the daily count of confirmed cases. That theory was certainly correct, especially at the beginning of the epidemic when U.S. testing was scarcely happening. But how correct? Were there 10 times as many undetected infections as confirmed ones or more like a thousand times as many? Bhattacharya had the same intuition as the modelers at Oxford University, that in reality the disease might be much more infectious — and therefore much less deadly on average — than scientists suspected. And it was important to know that ASAP before we took any further economy-destroying measures to contain it.
He and a co-author published an op-ed on March 24 laying out their case. What if the number of actual infections were orders of magnitude larger than the number of confirmed infections?
In Iceland, deCode Genetics is working with the government to perform widespread testing. In a sample of nearly 2,000 entirely asymptomatic people, researchers estimated disease prevalence of just over 1%. Iceland’s first case was reported on Feb. 28, weeks behind the U.S. It’s plausible that the proportion of the U.S. population that has been infected is double, triple or even 10 times as high as the estimates from Iceland. That also implies a dramatically lower fatality rate… The epidemic started in China sometime in November or December. The first confirmed U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15, and it is likely that the virus entered before that: Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December. Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.
He got together with Major League Baseball and the head of a sports medicine lab who had lots of antibody tests stockpiled and arranged an experiment. Test kits would be sent to thousands of MLB employees — not just players but workers up and down the hierarchy, “including owners, front-office executives, scouts, stadium ushers, hot-dog vendors,” you name it. Granted, that wouldn’t be a perfectly representative sample of the U.S. For one thing, everyone tested would have a job by definition. More importantly, nearly the entire sample (95 percent) consisted of people under the age of 65, and few with underlying health problems. Still, this would be one of the first true national tests of prevalence of coronavirus. Until now we had localized antibody studies (New York City, Santa Clara County) and pinpoint studies (pregnant women at a particular hospital in NYC, people at a homeless shelter in Boston) but not national studies. This would be our first glimpse at whether the Oxford model was right and the U.S. was much closer to herd immunity — and the end of the epidemic — than everyone thought. Might we see prevalence of 25 percent here? Or 35 percent? Maybe higher, if we were really lucky.
The results are finally in. Prevalence: Approximately one percent. Bhattacharya’s suspicion that the true number of cases exceeds the number of confirmed cases by “orders of magnitude” is snuffed.
Sixty of the 5,754 people in a study of the Major League Baseball employee population tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, a rate lower than what similar studies run in California found, the studies’ authors said Sunday. “I was expecting a larger number,” said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, which ran the study. “It shows the value of doing the science as opposed to guessing.” The results of the study, which was held in mid-April, revealed a prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in the MLB employee population of 0.7% — a number adjusted to reflect testing accuracy. The survey showed that about 70% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies had been asymptomatic… “It’s very clear,” Bhattacharya said, “that the epidemic is still in the early stages throughout the country.”
Again, this isn’t a representative national sample. ESPN notes that 60 percent of participants were white and 80 percent were men, and some of the people involved who have white-collar jobs would be more shielded from exposure than the average working-class American who can’t work from home. There’s also this weird quirk: “Study participants took pictures of their results and sent them in along with the survey. Poor image quality and file problems made 136 of the results unverifiable. Those 136 were classified as negative results, according to the study.” Given that the total number of confirmed positives was just 60 people, it seems kind of important to verify what those uncertain 136 were.
But as things stand, the “adjusted prevalence” detected by the study has a range of 0.28 percent to 1.15 percent Americans nationwide who’ve been infected by COVID-19. We can safely say that the true number is larger than that lower bound. If NYC’s antibody testing is correct then 20 percent of city residents have been infected, a total of 1.68 million people. That would amount to around 0.5 percent of the total U.S. population all by itself. Assuming the upper bound of Bhattacharya’s range is correct, though, it would mean only the tiniest fraction of Americans outside New York has been infected thus far — around 2.1 million out of 320 million or so.
It would also mean that the true number of infections across the U.S. isn’t “orders of magnitude” larger than the number of confirmed cases. It’s about three times as large. There have been 1.3 million cases confirmed by testing; assuming a prevalence of 1.15 percent nationally, 3.8 million Americans have been infected. That’s a ratio of about two unconfirmed infections to one confirmed infection, which is in line with the result from Bhattacharya’s study that 70 percent or so of people who tested positive had had no symptoms. That’s the one silver lining in this study, that asymptomatic infections appear to greatly outnumber symptomatic ones. But then, we already had a pretty good idea of that. In fact, the data from some U.S. prisons have suggested that asymptomatics could outnumber symptomatics by something like 25 to one. The ratio in Bhattacharya’s study is far more modest than that.
What’s most concerning about these new numbers is the death rate. There have been 74,000 deaths so far; if those deaths came from a population of just 3.8 million infections, that would mean an infection fatality rate of roughly two percent. That’s a big number, 20 times deadlier than the flu and 200 times higher than Bhattacharya’s most optimistic estimate in the March 24 op-ed. If that rate were to hold as the U.S. slowly made it’s way to herd immunity (e.g., 60 percent infected), we’d be looking at somewhere on the order of four million dead. It’s safe to say at this point that the Oxford model hasn’t panned out. Long way to go with this epidemic, as the man himself said in the excerpt above.


hotair--2020-05-11--Georgia AG requests federal probe into Ahmaud Arbery case

For more than seventy days after the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery on February 23rd , it seemed as if there was very little legal action taking place .
But in the past week , there ’ s been a flurry of national attention to not only the killing but the response of Georgia ’ s legal system .
That response is now becoming the focus of the story , far more than the details of the shooting itself .
As a result of widespread criticism and questions over how the case was originally handled , the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation into the matter , seeking to determine if the police and the local District Attorney conducted an unbiased investigation into the events of that day .
( NBC News ) Georgia ’ s attorney general asked the U.S. Justice Department on Sunday to investigate how local authorities handled the killing of Ahmaud Arbery .
Attorney General Chris Carr said in a statement that local prosecutors had not informed his office that they had advised police on whether Gregory McMichael , 64 , and Travis McMichael , 34 , should be arrested after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Arbery , 25 , who was black , was shot to death after being chased by white men in a pickup truck .
Arbery was unarmed and on a jog at the time of his death , his family says .
This does sound like the next logical step in the investigation .
The actual facts of the case no longer seem to be in dispute .
The police know all of the pertinent physical details of the shooting including where and when it happened , the weapons used and the identities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McMichaels aren ’ t trying to say they didn ’ t shoot Arbery .
The only remaining questions relate to how the situation escalated so quickly and if there is some justifiable reason for them to open fire that would shield them from criminal liability .
As more details emerge , it ’ s becoming clear that it ’ s not true that nothing happened on the legal front in the aftermath of the shooting .
Because of where it took place , the case would normally have been handled by the Brunswick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s the same office where the elder McMichael had previously worked as an investigator .
To avoid any possible conflicts of interest , the DA asked the Attorney General to reassign the case to nearby Waycross Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill on February 27th , four days after the shooting .
That sounds like a routine and appropriate step to take .
That ’ s when things begin to get a bit fuzzy .
When the switch in DA offices was made , attorneys from both offices failed to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barnhill sat on the case for more than a month , taking no action until April 3rd .
At that point , he reaffirmed an “ initial opinion ” made by local prosecutors the day after Abery ’ s death , recommending that no arrests be made .
Barnhill ’ s initial position was made clear in a letter he sent to the Glynn County Police Department that was recently released to the press .
In it , he opined that the McMichaels had “ solid first-hand probable cause to chase Arbery , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He went one step further , stating that “ Travis McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself under Georgia law.
” But the Brunswick Judicial District DA , Jackie Johnson , is saying that nobody in her office told the police not to arrest the McMichaels .
Of course , by the same token , she ’ s not saying that they did tell the police to arrest them either .
Granted , the case had already been transferred over to the Waycross Circuit by that point , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some fashion if she was issuing opinions .
Doesn ’ t that sound a bit strange to say the least ?
You ’ ve got a dead man who was unarmed and two shooters who have been identified , and for more than a month you can ’ t even make a decision as to whether or not you ’ re going to prosecute or if they should be charged and placed under arrest ?
It would be easy to leap to conclusions at this point because the optics of all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to imagine the local police and prosecutors quickly deciding that the McMichaels shouldn ’ t take the fall for this and moving to write the whole thing off as justifiable homicide and put it behind them .
And that ’ s what almost happened until that video went viral .
But now we ’ re learning that there was at least some sort of initial investigation .
The prosecutors had that initial video the whole time and determined Travis McMichael acted in self-defense .
That sounds unlikely to me , based only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the AG is on the case I suppose it ’ s his problem .
Sooner or later we ’ re likely to wind up at trial unless Carr determines the same thing the local DA did .
And if it does go to trial , you can bet that the McMichaels ’ attorney will opt for a jury trial rather than a bench trial .
Letting one judge handle it would risk the possibility of a conviction on some sort of charge .
But with a full jury , their lawyer would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ like-minded individuals ” to sit in the jury box and the prosecution ’ s case would likely fail .

For more than seventy days after the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery on February 23rd, it seemed as if there was very little legal action taking place. But in the past week, there’s been a flurry of national attention to not only the killing but the response of Georgia’s legal system. That response is now becoming the focus of the story, far more than the details of the shooting itself. As a result of widespread criticism and questions over how the case was originally handled, the state’s Attorney General has now requested a federal investigation into the matter, seeking to determine if the police and the local District Attorney conducted an unbiased investigation into the events of that day. (NBC News)
Georgia’s attorney general asked the U.S. Justice Department on Sunday to investigate how local authorities handled the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Attorney General Chris Carr said in a statement that local prosecutors had not informed his office that they had advised police on whether Gregory McMichael, 64, and Travis McMichael, 34, should be arrested after Arbery was killed Feb. 23 in Brunswick. Arbery, 25, who was black, was shot to death after being chased by white men in a pickup truck. Arbery was unarmed and on a jog at the time of his death, his family says.
This does sound like the next logical step in the investigation. The actual facts of the case no longer seem to be in dispute. The police know all of the pertinent physical details of the shooting including where and when it happened, the weapons used and the identities of all the people involved. The McMichaels aren’t trying to say they didn’t shoot Arbery. The only remaining questions relate to how the situation escalated so quickly and if there is some justifiable reason for them to open fire that would shield them from criminal liability.
As more details emerge, it’s becoming clear that it’s not true that nothing happened on the legal front in the aftermath of the shooting. Because of where it took place, the case would normally have been handled by the Brunswick Circuit District Attorney’s Office. But that’s the same office where the elder McMichael had previously worked as an investigator. To avoid any possible conflicts of interest, the DA asked the Attorney General to reassign the case to nearby Waycross Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill on February 27th, four days after the shooting. That sounds like a routine and appropriate step to take.
That’s when things begin to get a bit fuzzy. When the switch in DA offices was made, attorneys from both offices failed to provide any feedback to the AG. Then Barnhill sat on the case for more than a month, taking no action until April 3rd. At that point, he reaffirmed an “initial opinion” made by local prosecutors the day after Abery’s death, recommending that no arrests be made.
Barnhill’s initial position was made clear in a letter he sent to the Glynn County Police Department that was recently released to the press. In it, he opined that the McMichaels had “solid first-hand probable cause to chase Arbery, a burglary suspect, and stop him.” He went one step further, stating that “Travis McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself under Georgia law.”
But the Brunswick Judicial District DA, Jackie Johnson, is saying that nobody in her office told the police not to arrest the McMichaels. Of course, by the same token, she’s not saying that they did tell the police to arrest them either. Granted, the case had already been transferred over to the Waycross Circuit by that point, but Johnson still clearly seemed to be involved in some fashion if she was issuing opinions. Doesn’t that sound a bit strange to say the least? You’ve got a dead man who was unarmed and two shooters who have been identified, and for more than a month you can’t even make a decision as to whether or not you’re going to prosecute or if they should be charged and placed under arrest?
It would be easy to leap to conclusions at this point because the optics of all this just stink. It’s not hard to imagine the local police and prosecutors quickly deciding that the McMichaels shouldn’t take the fall for this and moving to write the whole thing off as justifiable homicide and put it behind them. And that’s what almost happened until that video went viral. But now we’re learning that there was at least some sort of initial investigation. The prosecutors had that initial video the whole time and determined Travis McMichael acted in self-defense.
That sounds unlikely to me, based only on the initial video, but now that the AG is on the case I suppose it’s his problem. Sooner or later we’re likely to wind up at trial unless Carr determines the same thing the local DA did. And if it does go to trial, you can bet that the McMichaels’ attorney will opt for a jury trial rather than a bench trial. Letting one judge handle it would risk the possibility of a conviction on some sort of charge. But with a full jury, their lawyer would only need to find a couple of “like-minded individuals” to sit in the jury box and the prosecution’s case would likely fail.


hotair--2020-05-11--Trump to "Concast": Fire Chuck Todd over Barr interview "fraud"; NBC admits "error"

This isn ’ t exactly the first time that Donald Trump has called for a reporter to get fired , but he ’ s got a legit complaint here — and he ’ s not the only one , either .
On yesterday ’ s Meet the Press , Chuck Todd highlighted an exchange between William Barr and CBS ’ Catherine Herridge about the Michael Flynn case , and claimed that the Attorney General had delivered a cynical answer that revealed his political motives in having the case dismissed .
Unfortunately for Todd , the entire interview had been published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire context of the answer .
The Daily Caller ’ s Greg Price stitched the two together yesterday afternoon ( transcript via Jeff Dunetz ) : HERRIDGE : In closing , this was a big decision in the Flynn case , to say the least .
When history looks back on this decision , how do you think it will be written ?
What will it say about your decision making ?
BARR : Well , history is written by the winner .
So it largely depends on who ’ s writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck , Peggy , by the cynicism of the answer .
It ’ s a correct answer .
But he ’ s the attorney general .
He didn ’ t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law .
He was almost admitting that , yeah , this is a political job .
But this was the full answer given by Barr : Barr isn ’ t chortling with glee with the remark about the “ winners.
” Just the opposite : Barr ’ s concerned that the “ winners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a dirty prosecution .
That is why Barr emphasized what he thought a “ fair history ” would conclude .
Slicing that part of Barr ’ s answer out changed Barr ’ s entire meaning , and it ’ s very very hard to conclude that was an accident .
Barr ’ s lips were still moving in the cut , for Pete ’ s sake , even though NBC had silenced it — making it clear that Barr ’ s answer was not complete in the clip .
The problem Todd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t control the interview .
News organizations edit interviews for their own purposes , but that only works when no one has seen the full interview — and when it comes from their own organization .
In this case , CBS had not only published the interview but the full transcript as well , so plenty of people knew what Barr had said .
That includes CBS ’ Catherine Herridge , who set the record straight herself : Department of Justice spokesperson Kerry Kupec posted side-by-side versions of the transcript as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the only liberty Todd took in mischaracterizing what Barr said : A few hours later , NBC ’ s Meet the Press called uncle : The “ error , ” eh ?
That certainly doesn ’ t look like an error .
It ’ s not as if Barr went on to discuss something else , only to return to his “ fair history ” point later .
He made that point at the same time as his small joke about history being written by the winners .
It was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midstream wasn ’ t an error , it was a deliberate choice , one apparently made by Todd .
After all , Todd was the one who introduced this clip , claiming that it had specifically disturbed him : That ’ s not an error at all , except in judgment to think that this would pass unnoticed .
It certainly didn ’ t in the Oval Office , where Trump has been tweeting nonstop about it this morning : For those unfamiliar with Trump ’ s Twitter vernacular , “ Concast ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to the utter failure of anti-trust enforcement over the past 40 years or so .
Generally speaking , calling for firings is a tedious waste of time , but some sort of sanction is clearly warranted here , if for nothing else than the incompetent manner in which this bias played out .
It ’ s not supposed to be this easy to expose media cookery , and this apology from Meet the Press is woefully insufficient in relation to the malice involved .
“ Political job , ” indeed .

This isn’t exactly the first time that Donald Trump has called for a reporter to get fired, but he’s got a legit complaint here — and he’s not the only one, either. On yesterday’s Meet the Press, Chuck Todd highlighted an exchange between William Barr and CBS’ Catherine Herridge about the Michael Flynn case, and claimed that the Attorney General had delivered a cynical answer that revealed his political motives in having the case dismissed. Unfortunately for Todd, the entire interview had been published already — and plenty of people saw the entire context of the answer.
The Daily Caller’s Greg Price stitched the two together yesterday afternoon (transcript via Jeff Dunetz):
Today on Meet The Press, @chucktodd wildly took context out of an answer AG Bill Barr gave about his decision to drop the case into Gen. Michael Flynn. I cut Todd's segment along with Barr's full answer together. Look at how blatantly dishonest this is. pic.twitter.com/tODOEwL48V — Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 10, 2020
HERRIDGE: In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making? BARR: Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. TODD: I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of the answer. It’s a correct answer. But he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.
But this was the full answer given by Barr:
BARR: Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.
Barr isn’t chortling with glee with the remark about the “winners.” Just the opposite: Barr’s concerned that the “winners” will misconstrue his efforts to clean up a dirty prosecution. That is why Barr emphasized what he thought a “fair history” would conclude. Slicing that part of Barr’s answer out changed Barr’s entire meaning, and it’s very very hard to conclude that was an accident. Barr’s lips were still moving in the cut, for Pete’s sake, even though NBC had silenced it — making it clear that Barr’s answer was not complete in the clip.
The problem Todd had in this case is that he didn’t control the interview. News organizations edit interviews for their own purposes, but that only works when no one has seen the full interview — and when it comes from their own organization. In this case, CBS had not only published the interview but the full transcript as well, so plenty of people knew what Barr had said. That includes CBS’ Catherine Herridge, who set the record straight herself:
#FLYNN Two big moments from our exclusive AG Barr interview @CBSNews “I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.” pic.twitter.com/aRtFnnx7da — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 10, 2020
Department of Justice spokesperson Kerry Kupec posted side-by-side versions of the transcript as well, and noted that this wasn’t the only liberty Todd took in mischaracterizing what Barr said:
Very disappointed by the deceptive editing/commentary by @ChuckTodd on @MeetThePress on AG Barr’s CBS interview. Compare the two transcripts below. Not only did the AG make the case in the VERY answer Chuck says he didn’t, he also did so multiple times throughout the interview. pic.twitter.com/PR1ciceMmE — Kerri Kupec DOJ (@KerriKupecDOJ) May 10, 2020
A few hours later, NBC’s Meet the Press called uncle:
You’re correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error. — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) May 10, 2020
The “error,” eh? That certainly doesn’t look like an error. It’s not as if Barr went on to discuss something else, only to return to his “fair history” point later. He made that point at the same time as his small joke about history being written by the winners. It was one continuous argument. Cutting Barr off in midstream wasn’t an error, it was a deliberate choice, one apparently made by Todd. After all, Todd was the one who introduced this clip, claiming that it had specifically disturbed him:
TODD: You brought up Bill Barr. Peggy Noonan, I want you to listen to this Bill Barr answer to a question about what will history say about this. What ’til you hear this answer. Take a look.
That’s not an error at all, except in judgment to think that this would pass unnoticed. It certainly didn’t in the Oval Office, where Trump has been tweeting nonstop about it this morning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1259675040314003459
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1259837779237842954
For those unfamiliar with Trump’s Twitter vernacular, “Concast” is Comcast, which owns NBCUniversal, thanks to the utter failure of anti-trust enforcement over the past 40 years or so. Generally speaking, calling for firings is a tedious waste of time, but some sort of sanction is clearly warranted here, if for nothing else than the incompetent manner in which this bias played out. It’s not supposed to be this easy to expose media cookery, and this apology from Meet the Press is woefully insufficient in relation to the malice involved. “Political job,” indeed.


hotair--2020-05-11--How intrusive should contact tracing be?

Contact tracing , as it ’ s come to be recognized in the common parlance , is all the rage these days .
Previously , we were “ flattening the curve ” and “ stamping out wildfires , ” as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo liked to say .
But as the number of new cases continues to fall in many places , now we ’ re supposed to be proactively rooting out potential incidents of transmission of the novel Coronavirus and locking them down before they can turn into a problem .
The method being pushed is the aforementioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up presenting symptoms or testing positive , people are interrogating them to find out who they ’ ve been in contact with recently .
Then those people can be tracked down and interrogated in turn , isolating them as required .
This is being hailed as the great next step forward in the battle against the virus .
You get a sense of how excited some people are from the title of this recent piece from The Hill .
“ States build contact tracing armies to crush coronavirus.
” State governments are building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase of the battle against the coronavirus pandemic , returning to a fundamental practice in public health that can at once wrestle the virus under control and put hundreds of thousands of newly jobless people back to work .
California is already conducting contact tracing in 22 counties , and it eventually plans to field a force of 10,000 state employees , who will be given basic training by University of California health experts .
Massachusetts and Ohio have partnered with Partners in Health , a global health nonprofit originally established to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of contact tracers .
Maryland will partner with the University of Chicago and NORC , formerly the National Opinion Research Center , to quadruple its contact tracing capacity .
It ’ s almost enough to leave you breathless , isn ’ t it ?
Just look at all of the benefits .
We ’ re going to “ wrestle the virus under control ” and put tens… nay , hundreds of thousands of unemployed people back to work .
It ’ s like we ’ re vaulting ahead into the future in great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t wait until Robocop shows up .
I ’ ve always wanted to get an autograph .
But perhaps we should pause for a moment , catch our breath , and consider precisely what this all means .
Now we won ’ t just be counting the number of new cases and isolating them .
We ’ ll be hounding the sick for a list of friends , family members , coworkers and other individuals they have engaged with for as far back as two weeks .
Newly minted state employees will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and ask about their health and their recent movements .
They will suddenly be back in a lockdown situation even if everyone else has been allowed back out in public .
And who precisely will be doing all of this “ tracing ” once we ’ re fully in gear ?
In California , for example , they will be unemployed people who have received “ basic training ” from University of California “ health experts.
” That ’ s not going to make them doctors or experts in the transmission of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t even ensure they have the basic skills to go out and locate and interrogate people .
Not many folks have that skillset unless they happen to be unemployed cops or private detectives .
How will they know what questions they can and can ’ t ask ?
Will they be trained in privacy considerations and HIPPA regulations ?
If they have to interact with the contactees in person , will they even know the best practices required to not turn into carriers of the virus themselves ?
And finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where will all of this information they ’ re collecting be stored ?
I ’ m sure you can easily imagine how useful a massive database of hundreds of thousands or millions of people with a long list of people they associate with could be to any number of groups .
That could include anyone from politicians to law enforcement agencies to advertisers .
That sizable mountain of personal data on the daily activities of Americans would be almost priceless , particularly when it lands in the wrong hands .
Contact tracing sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professionals at the beginning of an outbreak .
For example , if six new cases of smallpox suddenly showed up in one place .
But we ’ re about to embark on a process of inflating it to a massive national scale using 21st-century data management tools .
This sounds like something that ’ s going to require some oversight , but we ’ re already rushing headlong into the void .

Contact tracing, as it’s come to be recognized in the common parlance, is all the rage these days. Previously, we were “flattening the curve” and “stamping out wildfires,” as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo liked to say. But as the number of new cases continues to fall in many places, now we’re supposed to be proactively rooting out potential incidents of transmission of the novel Coronavirus and locking them down before they can turn into a problem.
The method being pushed is the aforementioned contact tracing. When a person shows up presenting symptoms or testing positive, people are interrogating them to find out who they’ve been in contact with recently. Then those people can be tracked down and interrogated in turn, isolating them as required. This is being hailed as the great next step forward in the battle against the virus. You get a sense of how excited some people are from the title of this recent piece from The Hill. “States build contact tracing armies to crush coronavirus.”
State governments are building armies of contact tracers in a new phase of the battle against the coronavirus pandemic, returning to a fundamental practice in public health that can at once wrestle the virus under control and put hundreds of thousands of newly jobless people back to work. California is already conducting contact tracing in 22 counties, and it eventually plans to field a force of 10,000 state employees, who will be given basic training by University of California health experts. Massachusetts and Ohio have partnered with Partners in Health, a global health nonprofit originally established to support programs in Haiti, to field teams of contact tracers. Maryland will partner with the University of Chicago and NORC, formerly the National Opinion Research Center, to quadruple its contact tracing capacity.
It’s almost enough to leave you breathless, isn’t it? Just look at all of the benefits. We’re going to “wrestle the virus under control” and put tens… nay, hundreds of thousands of unemployed people back to work. It’s like we’re vaulting ahead into the future in great leaps and bounds. I can’t wait until Robocop shows up. I’ve always wanted to get an autograph.
But perhaps we should pause for a moment, catch our breath, and consider precisely what this all means. Now we won’t just be counting the number of new cases and isolating them. We’ll be hounding the sick for a list of friends, family members, coworkers and other individuals they have engaged with for as far back as two weeks. Newly minted state employees will be scouring the land to find all of them and ask about their health and their recent movements. They will suddenly be back in a lockdown situation even if everyone else has been allowed back out in public.
And who precisely will be doing all of this “tracing” once we’re fully in gear? In California, for example, they will be unemployed people who have received “basic training” from University of California “health experts.” That’s not going to make them doctors or experts in the transmission of infectious diseases. For that matter, that doesn’t even ensure they have the basic skills to go out and locate and interrogate people. Not many folks have that skillset unless they happen to be unemployed cops or private detectives.
How will they know what questions they can and can’t ask? Will they be trained in privacy considerations and HIPPA regulations? If they have to interact with the contactees in person, will they even know the best practices required to not turn into carriers of the virus themselves?
And finally (and perhaps most importantly), where will all of this information they’re collecting be stored? I’m sure you can easily imagine how useful a massive database of hundreds of thousands or millions of people with a long list of people they associate with could be to any number of groups. That could include anyone from politicians to law enforcement agencies to advertisers. That sizable mountain of personal data on the daily activities of Americans would be almost priceless, particularly when it lands in the wrong hands.
Contact tracing sounds like an extremely useful tool for medical professionals at the beginning of an outbreak. For example, if six new cases of smallpox suddenly showed up in one place. But we’re about to embark on a process of inflating it to a massive national scale using 21st-century data management tools. This sounds like something that’s going to require some oversight, but we’re already rushing headlong into the void.


hotair--2020-05-11--German intel: China told WHO to hide critical COVID-19 transmission data

Did Xi Jinping personally act to demand that the World Health Organization hide the virulent transmission qualities of COVID-19 ?
German intel service BND has concluded that Xi pressured WHO director Tedros Ghebreyesus to delay declaring a pandemic for four to six weeks even though the organization had clear evidence of the novel coronavirus ’ potential for global catastrophe .
According to Der Spiegel and translated by the Daily Caller , BND estimates that Xi ’ s intervention cost the world four to six weeks of preparation : Xi met with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on January 21 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition and delay the declaration of a global pandemic , according to German magazine Der Spiegel .
The news comes amid rising sentiment that China should be held financially responsible for the pandemic .
“ The BND ’ s verdict is harsh : At least four , if not six , weeks have been lost in Beijing ’ s information policy in the fight against the virus , ” Der Spiegel reported .
… BND is the native German acronym for its Federal Intelligence Service .
Four to six weeks of additional preparation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely , according to a study published in early March .
Researchers at the University of Southampton found that if China had acted and gone public with its information just three weeks sooner , it could have reduced spread of the disease by as much as 95 % .
Der Spiegel has its article behind a paywall and only available in German , but world reaction to it suggests that the Daily Caller ’ s translation is accurate .
The timeline fits , too .
Taiwan had warned WHO in late December of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have prompted serious concern at the UN subsidiary agency .
Doctors in China had already been trying to get the word out on the Wuhan virus earlier than that , only to be suppressed .
And yet , despite all of these red flags , WHO didn ’ t declare a pandemic until weeks later , at the end of January .
Even worse , they sent out an infamous message declaring that they had seen no evidence of community transmission well after Taiwan had warned of it and doctors in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Up to now it had been assumed that China leaned on Tedros , and a “ Five Eyes ” intel assessment has already concluded that China has engaged in a malicious propaganda campaign to distract from that conclusion .
This is the first serious allegation that Xi personally acted to suppress vital medical information at WHO .
WHO calls the BND report “ false allegations , ” and says Tedros and Xi have never spoken by telephone : Der Spiegel reports of a 21 January , 2020 , telephone conversation between WHO Director-General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jingping of China are unfounded and untrue .
Dr Tedros and President Xi did not speak on 21 January and they have never spoken by telephone .
Such inaccurate reports distract and detract from WHO ’ s and the world ’ s efforts to end the COVID-19 pandemic .
To note : China confirmed human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on 20 January .
China ’ s Foreign Ministry — the outlet for its COVID-19 propaganda campaign — issued a thirty-page rebuttal over the weekend as well .
That included a quote from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after spokesman Zhao Lijian ’ s efforts to pin COVID-19 on the US Army : The Chinese foreign ministry , in a 30-page article published on its website , refuted claims in the Der Spiegel article , saying it had responded in a “ timely ” manner and was “ open and transparent ” about alerting nations around the world about the outbreak .
It also responded to comments made by President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that China misled other countries about the pandemic and claimed the virus began in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The foreign ministry quoted President Abraham Lincoln in its defense , according to Reuters .
“ As Lincoln said , you can fool some of the people all the time and fool all the people some of the time , but you can not fool all the people all the time , ” it said in the article .
That has been China ’ s problem all along .
They ’ re trying to fool all the people all the time , and it ’ s just not working .
Unfortunately for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fools and stooges at WHO .
That organization is hopelessly compromised and their insistence on carrying water for China should inform our funding decisions for Tedros and his team in the future .
Update : Jeryl Bier notices that WHO still can ’ t get its story straight : Tough to keep all the lies straight , apparently .

Did Xi Jinping personally act to demand that the World Health Organization hide the virulent transmission qualities of COVID-19? German intel service BND has concluded that Xi pressured WHO director Tedros Ghebreyesus to delay declaring a pandemic for four to six weeks even though the organization had clear evidence of the novel coronavirus’ potential for global catastrophe. According to Der Spiegel and translated by the Daily Caller, BND estimates that Xi’s intervention cost the world four to six weeks of preparation:
Xi met with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on January 21 to request that he withhold information about human-to-human transition and delay the declaration of a global pandemic, according to German magazine Der Spiegel. The news comes amid rising sentiment that China should be held financially responsible for the pandemic. “The BND’s verdict is harsh: At least four, if not six, weeks have been lost in Beijing’s information policy in the fight against the virus,” Der Spiegel reported. … BND is the native German acronym for its Federal Intelligence Service. Four to six weeks of additional preparation time could have avoided the global pandemic entirely, according to a study published in early March. Researchers at the University of Southampton found that if China had acted and gone public with its information just three weeks sooner, it could have reduced spread of the disease by as much as 95%.
Der Spiegel has its article behind a paywall and only available in German, but world reaction to it suggests that the Daily Caller’s translation is accurate. The timeline fits, too. Taiwan had warned WHO in late December of community transmission cases in a message that should have prompted serious concern at the UN subsidiary agency. Doctors in China had already been trying to get the word out on the Wuhan virus earlier than that, only to be suppressed.
And yet, despite all of these red flags, WHO didn’t declare a pandemic until weeks later, at the end of January. Even worse, they sent out an infamous message declaring that they had seen no evidence of community transmission well after Taiwan had warned of it and doctors in China began disappearing after their own warnings. Up to now it had been assumed that China leaned on Tedros, and a “Five Eyes” intel assessment has already concluded that China has engaged in a malicious propaganda campaign to distract from that conclusion. This is the first serious allegation that Xi personally acted to suppress vital medical information at WHO.
WHO calls the BND report “false allegations,” and says Tedros and Xi have never spoken by telephone:
Der Spiegel reports of a 21 January, 2020, telephone conversation between WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and President Xi Jingping of China are unfounded and untrue. Dr Tedros and President Xi did not speak on 21 January and they have never spoken by telephone. Such inaccurate reports distract and detract from WHO’s and the world’s efforts to end the COVID-19 pandemic. To note: China confirmed human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on 20 January.
China’s Foreign Ministry — the outlet for its COVID-19 propaganda campaign — issued a thirty-page rebuttal over the weekend as well. That included a quote from Abraham Lincoln that just drips with irony after spokesman Zhao Lijian’s efforts to pin COVID-19 on the US Army:
The Chinese foreign ministry, in a 30-page article published on its website, refuted claims in the Der Spiegel article, saying it had responded in a “timely” manner and was “open and transparent” about alerting nations around the world about the outbreak. It also responded to comments made by President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that China misled other countries about the pandemic and claimed the virus began in a lab in the city of Wuhan. The foreign ministry quoted President Abraham Lincoln in its defense, according to Reuters. “As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all the time and fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,” it said in the article.
That has been China’s problem all along. They’re trying to fool all the people all the time, and it’s just not working. Unfortunately for everyone, it did work on the fools and stooges at WHO. That organization is hopelessly compromised and their insistence on carrying water for China should inform our funding decisions for Tedros and his team in the future.
Update: Jeryl Bier notices that WHO still can’t get its story straight:
I've harped on this a number of times, but decided to bring out the harp again after reading Ed's post:https://t.co/WGrqkvVH7q — Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) May 11, 2020
Tough to keep all the lies straight, apparently.


hotair--2020-05-11--Delta is "consolidating" their routes and dropping several cities

Along with all of the other major airlines , Delta has hit hard times during the novel coronavirus lockdown .
Air travel is currently down by as much as 85 % compared to the same time last year and now they ’ re looking for additional ways to cut costs .
With that in mind , the company announced on Friday that they were going to be providing even fewer services to the public , consolidating many of their routes and eliminating flights to ten different airports .
So now , if you are forced to venture out and fly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance that you ’ ll have to take even more connecting flights or possibly face long stretches of ground travel to reach your destination .
( The Hill ) Delta Air Lines announced Friday that it is suspending service to 10 U.S. airports where it also services a nearby airport until at least September in an attempt to consolidate its flights in metro areas .
“ Building on the numerous health and safety measures Delta has implemented in recent weeks to protect our customers and employees , we will temporarily consolidate our operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning May 13 while customer volume is significantly reduced , ” the company said in an announcement .
“ These changes will allow more of our frontline employees to minimize their COVID-19 exposure risk while ensuring convenient access to Delta ’ s network for those who must travel , ” it continued .
“ Delta will continue providing essential service to impacted communities via neighboring airports.
” Yes , but when are you going to restart the flights to Wuhan ?
Our local market is almost completely out of pangolin meat .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is dropping from its schedules are Chicago Midway ; Oakland International Airport ; Hollywood Burbank ; Long Beach ; Providence , R.I. , Westchester County Airport ; Stewart International ; Akron-Canton , Ohio ; Manchester , N.H. and Newport News/Williamsburg .
If you happen to live near one of those or travel to them regularly , begin making alternate arrangements .
I wouldn ’ t be shocked to see other airlines following suit soon .
With so few people flying these days , it ’ s no doubt impossible to turn a profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of passengers on board .
Even for the main flights between hubs where they might sell the majority of the seats , that ’ s probably not enough traffic to generate the revenue required to cover all of their overhead .
Even for all of the complaints I have about the dismal service that the airlines provide these days and their shocking insistence on getting a government bailout after they spent all of their profits on stock buybacks , I do understand that they have to be able to stay profitable to survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic is finally over isn ’ t going to help matters any .
It ’ s the lack of competition for the remaining airlines that allows them to act in such horrible ways .
Unfortunately , most of the airlines moved toward this idea of using “ hubs ” in a few major cities connecting to regional flights decades ago .
It may have been seen as a necessary cost-saving measure at the time , but it further degraded the entire air travel experience .
I happen to live in one of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York with only a small , regional airport within reasonable driving distance .
In order to fly from my home to Washington DC , I have to first fly to either Detroit or Philadelphia , depending on which airline I take .
That means I sometimes spend more time on planes and sitting around airports than it would have taken to drive there unless I get very lucky on the layover times between connections .
If there were a major train route closer to my house I ’ d go with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have stemming from this announcement is probably how air travel will work in the future .
The novel coronavirus is changing nearly every aspect of our society and some of those changes will wind up being the new normal .
If Delta determines that they can turn a profit operating out of fewer cities , what incentive will they have to go back to full service once the pandemic has passed ?
This change may wind up being permanent .

Along with all of the other major airlines, Delta has hit hard times during the novel coronavirus lockdown. Air travel is currently down by as much as 85% compared to the same time last year and now they’re looking for additional ways to cut costs. With that in mind, the company announced on Friday that they were going to be providing even fewer services to the public, consolidating many of their routes and eliminating flights to ten different airports. So now, if you are forced to venture out and fly somewhere, there’s an increased chance that you’ll have to take even more connecting flights or possibly face long stretches of ground travel to reach your destination. (The Hill)
Delta Air Lines announced Friday that it is suspending service to 10 U.S. airports where it also services a nearby airport until at least September in an attempt to consolidate its flights in metro areas. “Building on the numerous health and safety measures Delta has implemented in recent weeks to protect our customers and employees, we will temporarily consolidate our operations in several markets served by multiple airports beginning May 13 while customer volume is significantly reduced,” the company said in an announcement. “These changes will allow more of our frontline employees to minimize their COVID-19 exposure risk while ensuring convenient access to Delta’s network for those who must travel,” it continued. “Delta will continue providing essential service to impacted communities via neighboring airports.”
Yes, but when are you going to restart the flights to Wuhan? Our local market is almost completely out of pangolin meat.
All kidding aside, the airports that Delta is dropping from its schedules are Chicago Midway; Oakland International Airport; Hollywood Burbank; Long Beach; Providence, R.I., Westchester County Airport; Stewart International; Akron-Canton, Ohio; Manchester, N.H. and Newport News/Williamsburg. If you happen to live near one of those or travel to them regularly, begin making alternate arrangements.
I wouldn’t be shocked to see other airlines following suit soon. With so few people flying these days, it’s no doubt impossible to turn a profit on a flight with only a handful of passengers on board. Even for the main flights between hubs where they might sell the majority of the seats, that’s probably not enough traffic to generate the revenue required to cover all of their overhead.
Even for all of the complaints I have about the dismal service that the airlines provide these days and their shocking insistence on getting a government bailout after they spent all of their profits on stock buybacks, I do understand that they have to be able to stay profitable to survive. And having fewer airlines when this pandemic is finally over isn’t going to help matters any. It’s the lack of competition for the remaining airlines that allows them to act in such horrible ways.
Unfortunately, most of the airlines moved toward this idea of using “hubs” in a few major cities connecting to regional flights decades ago. It may have been seen as a necessary cost-saving measure at the time, but it further degraded the entire air travel experience. I happen to live in one of those unfashionable, more rural areas in upstate New York with only a small, regional airport within reasonable driving distance. In order to fly from my home to Washington DC, I have to first fly to either Detroit or Philadelphia, depending on which airline I take. That means I sometimes spend more time on planes and sitting around airports than it would have taken to drive there unless I get very lucky on the layover times between connections. If there were a major train route closer to my house I’d go with that choice every time.
The concern we should have stemming from this announcement is probably how air travel will work in the future. The novel coronavirus is changing nearly every aspect of our society and some of those changes will wind up being the new normal. If Delta determines that they can turn a profit operating out of fewer cities, what incentive will they have to go back to full service once the pandemic has passed? This change may wind up being permanent.