hotair--2020-03-18--Are people being too pessimistic about the longer-term impact of coronavirus?

Yesterday in this post I imagined our situation as akin to standing on a train track with a train one thousand feet away and roaring right at us .
At a moment like that , you don ’ t plan .
You don ’ t think .
You don ’ t game out strategy .
You move .
Right now we ’ re moving via massive social distancing .
The problem is that the cost of moving — not even fully out of the way of the train , merely enough to avoid a head-on collision — is immense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers of jobs .
Worse , it ’ s not a one-time cost .
If we move successfully out of the way of this first wave of the disease , we ’ ll find ourselves on a second track with another train just a little further away than the first one was .
What do we do then ?
More self-maiming ?
Even if it works , at what point does the human toll from the economic pain outstrip the human toll from the epidemic ?
Josh Barro makes the case that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dodging the second ( and third and fourth ) train , with less economic injury .
As technology and industrial capacity catch up to what the country needs to limit the disease ’ s spread , massive self-isolation won ’ t be necessary .
Hopefully .
[ T ] he nature of the disruption does not have to stay constant .
It is necessary now to close schools and businesses , and tell people to drastically reduce social contacts in a way that is economically devastating to many businesses and workers .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we get at interventions to identify and isolate specific people with the virus , the less we should need to rely on interventions that isolate the entire population .
That ’ s a reason the ramp-up of widely available testing remains such an important goal for the U.S. : More testing should , in time , allow for more normal living… If an outbreak becomes widespread enough , it becomes impractical to conduct effective surveillance and isolation of an infected population that is simply too large to track .
So my suggestion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing capability into New York City today , it would be fine to reopen the Broadway theaters .
But at some point , the massive shutdowns we are undertaking in much of the U.S. ( and ought to be undertaking in more of it ) should make it possible to sharply reduce the rate of new infections to a point where widespread testing and monitoring can become a cornerstone of a strategy to prevent uncontrolled outbreaks — if we actually have the capability to do such testing and monitoring .
This would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for social distancing measures , but it could allow for a reduction in their intensity .
In other words , we need to strive to become South Korea as quickly as possible .
Many people who get sick and recover during the first wave of the disease will — hopefully — acquire a degree of immunity to the second wave .
( Which is why some doctors claim that each “ wave ” of the disease should produce a flatter curve than the one before , provided we ’ re willing to reinstitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will lessen the pressure to enforce widespread social distancing .
Meanwhile , testing will become widely available — hopefully hopefully hopefully — soon , such that it ’ ll be easier to identify nascent outbreaks across the country and order more targeted isolation measures .
The U.S. also needs masks , lots of them , since masks worn by an infected person can limit the odds that they ’ ll pass the disease on to others .
Once surgical masks are plentiful ( the more restrictive N95 masks are most urgently needed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up as an informal social custom or even official CDC guidance that everyone wears one in public for the next year or two just in case they ’ re infected and don ’ t know it .
Put it all together and it resembles this theoretically , albeit on a population scale 100,000 times larger .
In the U.S. , it might look like this : We ’ re not going to beat the disease until there ’ s an effective vaccine , which there won ’ t be this year .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we can turn catastrophe into a more manageable crisis .
Frankly , I think we should stop talking about a vaccine .
It ’ ll come eventually , scientists are working on it , but we need effective medical intervention waaaaaaay sooner than the 12- to 18-month timeline for a vaccine .
Antibody treatments and new antiviral drugs are the only games in town until next spring .
A vaccine will blow up the train tracks but effective medicine can slow that train down to the point where contracting COVID-19 isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not usually one for optimism in any situation , especially a situation as dire as this , but here ’ s an optimistic thought to cheer you : In the entire history of the world , it ’ s likely that there ’ s never been a scientific problem getting so much attention from so many talented minds across so many nations with so much advanced technology at their disposal as coronavirus is getting at this moment .
A global Manhattan Project is under way in practice , if not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a team of hundreds of scientists has identified 50 drugs that may be effective treatments for people infected with the coronavirus .
Many scientists are seeking drugs that attack the virus itself .
But the Quantitative Biosciences Institute Coronavirus Research Group , based at the University of California , San Francisco , is testing an unusual new approach… If the research effort succeeds , it will be a significant scientific achievement : an antiviral identified in just months to treat a virus that no one knew existed until January .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the scale at which they ’ re moving , ” said John Young , the global head of infectious diseases at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development , which is collaborating on some of the work .
Some members of the group started studying coronavirus in January , when it was spreading in China .
After evidence came back last month that the disease was spreading in California , members of the group threw their full weight at it .
Per the Times , the task of identifying the cell proteins that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take two years .
This group has managed it in a few weeks , with preliminary findings on drug treatments expected a few days from now .
Lotta very sharp people are playing chess with COVID-19 right now .
Here too : Of course , there ’ s a difference between “ We ’ ve found a drug that seems to work ” and “ We ’ ve been approved to manufacture that drug for humans ” and “ We ’ ve now produced enough of that drug for everyone ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors ” and “ That drug is easy enough to administer that it ’ ll meaningfully reduce the load on hospitals.
” For instance , remdesivir , the most promising antiviral drug , has been administered intravenously to test patients thus far , not as a pill .
But the treatment process has to start somewhere .
Imagine the jubilation globally when someone announces with solid evidence , “ We ’ ve found a drug that seems to work.
” Exit question : C ’ mon , who among you can watch this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to get through this and eventually all be driving Lincolns someday ?

Yesterday in this post I imagined our situation as akin to standing on a train track with a train one thousand feet away and roaring right at us. At a moment like that, you don’t plan. You don’t think. You don’t game out strategy. You move. Right now we’re moving via massive social distancing. The problem is that the cost of moving — not even fully out of the way of the train, merely enough to avoid a head-on collision — is immense, burning vast amounts of wealth and untold numbers of jobs.
Moving requires partially maiming ourselves.
Worse, it’s not a one-time cost. If we move successfully out of the way of this first wave of the disease, we’ll find ourselves on a second track with another train just a little further away than the first one was. What do we do then? More self-maiming? Even if it works, at what point does the human toll from the economic pain outstrip the human toll from the epidemic?
Josh Barro makes the case that we’ll get better and smarter at dodging the second (and third and fourth) train, with less economic injury. As technology and industrial capacity catch up to what the country needs to limit the disease’s spread, massive self-isolation won’t be necessary. Hopefully.
[T]he nature of the disruption does not have to stay constant. It is necessary now to close schools and businesses, and tell people to drastically reduce social contacts in a way that is economically devastating to many businesses and workers. But there is a trade-off: The better we get at interventions to identify and isolate specific people with the virus, the less we should need to rely on interventions that isolate the entire population. That’s a reason the ramp-up of widely available testing remains such an important goal for the U.S.: More testing should, in time, allow for more normal living… If an outbreak becomes widespread enough, it becomes impractical to conduct effective surveillance and isolation of an infected population that is simply too large to track. So my suggestion is not that if you dropped a massive testing capability into New York City today, it would be fine to reopen the Broadway theaters. But at some point, the massive shutdowns we are undertaking in much of the U.S. (and ought to be undertaking in more of it) should make it possible to sharply reduce the rate of new infections to a point where widespread testing and monitoring can become a cornerstone of a strategy to prevent uncontrolled outbreaks — if we actually have the capability to do such testing and monitoring. This would not mean a complete end to the need for social distancing measures, but it could allow for a reduction in their intensity.
In other words, we need to strive to become South Korea as quickly as possible. Many people who get sick and recover during the first wave of the disease will — hopefully — acquire a degree of immunity to the second wave. (Which is why some doctors claim that each “wave” of the disease should produce a flatter curve than the one before, provided we’re willing to reinstitute certain social distancing measures.) That will lessen the pressure to enforce widespread social distancing. Meanwhile, testing will become widely available — hopefully hopefully hopefully — soon, such that it’ll be easier to identify nascent outbreaks across the country and order more targeted isolation measures. The U.S. also needs masks, lots of them, since masks worn by an infected person can limit the odds that they’ll pass the disease on to others. Once surgical masks are plentiful (the more restrictive N95 masks are most urgently needed by medical personnel), it may end up as an informal social custom or even official CDC guidance that everyone wears one in public for the next year or two just in case they’re infected and don’t know it.
Put it all together and it resembles this theoretically, albeit on a population scale 100,000 times larger.
How one small town at the center of the outbreak has cut infections virtually to zero: test all 3,300 in town, isolate the 3 percent who tested positive. Infection rate 10 days later down to .3 percent. https://t.co/5Tgpa7cCgl pic.twitter.com/qlydmYJ0mM — Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) March 18, 2020
In the U.S., it might look like this:
4) Social distancing strategy. Can technology (i.e. temperature scanners) help? What activities can be made safer? What things can/can't we live without for >3 months? Hopefully by working on ALL 4 FRONTS AT ONCE—plus economic stabilization—society can avoid the worst outcomes. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 18, 2020
We’re not going to beat the disease until there’s an effective vaccine, which there won’t be this year. But if we can get our act together, we can turn catastrophe into a more manageable crisis.
Frankly, I think we should stop talking about a vaccine. It’ll come eventually, scientists are working on it, but we need effective medical intervention waaaaaaay sooner than the 12- to 18-month timeline for a vaccine. Antibody treatments and new antiviral drugs are the only games in town until next spring. A vaccine will blow up the train tracks but effective medicine can slow that train down to the point where contracting COVID-19 isn’t a possible death sentence. I’m not usually one for optimism in any situation, especially a situation as dire as this, but here’s an optimistic thought to cheer you: In the entire history of the world, it’s likely that there’s never been a scientific problem getting so much attention from so many talented minds across so many nations with so much advanced technology at their disposal as coronavirus is getting at this moment. A global Manhattan Project is under way in practice, if not in name:
Working at a breakneck pace, a team of hundreds of scientists has identified 50 drugs that may be effective treatments for people infected with the coronavirus. Many scientists are seeking drugs that attack the virus itself. But the Quantitative Biosciences Institute Coronavirus Research Group, based at the University of California, San Francisco, is testing an unusual new approach… If the research effort succeeds, it will be a significant scientific achievement: an antiviral identified in just months to treat a virus that no one knew existed until January. “I’m really impressed at the speed and the scale at which they’re moving,” said John Young, the global head of infectious diseases at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, which is collaborating on some of the work.
Some members of the group started studying coronavirus in January, when it was spreading in China. After evidence came back last month that the disease was spreading in California, members of the group threw their full weight at it. Per the Times, the task of identifying the cell proteins that the virus uses to grow would normally take two years. This group has managed it in a few weeks, with preliminary findings on drug treatments expected a few days from now.
Lotta very sharp people are playing chess with COVID-19 right now. Here too:
If confirmed, this could be a breakthrough: It would be a blood test to determine who has had #COVID19 and thus probably has immunity. This would let us know the scale of asymptomatic infection and let us assign those with probable immunity to frontline duty. Bravo, researchers! https://t.co/LxnEJYpo7d — Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) March 18, 2020
Of course, there’s a difference between “We’ve found a drug that seems to work” and “We’ve been approved to manufacture that drug for humans” and “We’ve now produced enough of that drug for everyone” and “That drug is now easily available to doctors” and “That drug is easy enough to administer that it’ll meaningfully reduce the load on hospitals.” For instance, remdesivir, the most promising antiviral drug, has been administered intravenously to test patients thus far, not as a pill. But the treatment process has to start somewhere. Imagine the jubilation globally when someone announces with solid evidence, “We’ve found a drug that seems to work.”
Exit question: C’mon, who among you can watch this and not agree that we’re going to get through this and eventually all be driving Lincolns someday?


hotair--2020-03-18--Bernie Sanders lashes out: 'I'm dealing with a f**king global crisis'

I wasn ’ t aware that Bernie Sanders had already been elected president .
Apparently he was because when asked about his campaign plans he lashed out at a reporter , “ I ’ m dealing with a f**king global crisis.
” He then added , “ I ’ m trying to do my best to make sure that we don ’ t have an economic meltdown and that people don ’ t die .
Is that enough for you to keep me busy for today ?
” It makes you wonder how he ’ d react if he were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie “ back-bencher ” Sanders really dealing with the crisis ?
Well , last night he did give a live-stream speech about it .
The core of it was his call for all health care bills to be paid for by Medicare during the duration of the coronavirus crisis .
He made clear he wasn ’ t talking about testing or even treatment for people who become ill .
He means everything , apparently .
So if you break a leg while looting during the next three months , Bernie thinks Medicare should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seem to get is that the real danger in this crisis isn ’ t that people won ’ t be able to afford care .
The real danger is that no care will be available because the entire system will be overwhelmed .
Temporary single-payer , which is what he seems to be proposing , doesn ’ t help anyone if there are no beds available in hospitals and it takes 30 mintues to get someone to answer 911 .
Covering costs doesn ’ t address the real threat we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty simple socialist creature .
He just keeps proposing the same solutions regardless of the situation .
In addition , Sanders suggested every household in America should receive $ 2,000 every month for the duration of the crisis .
I don ’ t think it takes a lot of imagination to see what is happening here .
Bernie is officially still in the race but there ’ s no chance he can win at this point .
It ’ s over .
The revolution has failed…again .
But what Bernie can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to waste .
If he can somehow shoehorn free health care and universal basic income into an emergency bill , that would be a tremendous boost for his vision of America .
Of course he ’ s not talking about the cost of all of this .
He says he ’ s trying to avoid an economic meltdown but there are 128 million households in the U.S .
So sending each one a check for $ 2,000 would cost the government $ 256 billion dollars per month .
If we start this next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s a trillion dollars .
If it lasts through the end of the year , that ’ s 2.25 trillion dollars .
And that doesn ’ t include whatever we ’ re spending to cover everyone ’ s medical bills at the same time .
Sanders doesn ’ t care if we add another $ 3-4 trillion to the debt this year .
He just wants a foothold .
If the emergency ends in a few months , Sanders and his comrades can spend the next decade ranting about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free rent and how cruel it was that the government didn ’ t continue both programs in perpetuity .
What they want is a proof of concept , regardless of the price .
And the slightly sad part is that Sanders must realize this is his last chance to see any of this happen .
It ’ s not the coronavirus that ’ s making Bernie so short with reporters , it ’ s the realization that his version of Democratic Socialism isn ’ t going to happen in his lifetime unless he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if Bernie is stressed about dealing with the crisis and running for president , there ’ s a simple solution that would make things easier on him : Drop out now .
There doesn ’ t seem to be any video of Bernie ’ s outburst so you ’ ll have to settle for these highlights of his speech from last night .

I wasn’t aware that Bernie Sanders had already been elected president. Apparently he was because when asked about his campaign plans he lashed out at a reporter, “I’m dealing with a f**king global crisis.” He then added, “I’m trying to do my best to make sure that we don’t have an economic meltdown and that people don’t die. Is that enough for you to keep me busy for today?” It makes you wonder how he’d react if he were actually responsible for handling this.
I noted he's running for president, and he said: “Well right now, right now I'm trying to do my best to make sure that we don't have an economic meltdown and that people don't die. Is that enough for you to keep me busy for today?" — Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 18, 2020
Then @LisaMascaro asked what he's saying to his supporters, and he sidestepped the question, noting he's sent out a statement. Then, I asked about his timeframe — and he was furious Afterwards, he mellowed out and answered questions about the crisis for about two more minutes. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 18, 2020
Is Bernie “back-bencher” Sanders really dealing with the crisis? Well, last night he did give a live-stream speech about it. The core of it was his call for all health care bills to be paid for by Medicare during the duration of the coronavirus crisis. He made clear he wasn’t talking about testing or even treatment for people who become ill. He means everything, apparently. So if you break a leg while looting during the next three months, Bernie thinks Medicare should cover it.
What Bernie doesn’t seem to get is that the real danger in this crisis isn’t that people won’t be able to afford care. The real danger is that no care will be available because the entire system will be overwhelmed. Temporary single-payer, which is what he seems to be proposing, doesn’t help anyone if there are no beds available in hospitals and it takes 30 mintues to get someone to answer 911. Covering costs doesn’t address the real threat we’re facing. But then, Bernie is a pretty simple socialist creature. He just keeps proposing the same solutions regardless of the situation.
In addition, Sanders suggested every household in America should receive $2,000 every month for the duration of the crisis.
I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to see what is happening here. Bernie is officially still in the race but there’s no chance he can win at this point. It’s over. The revolution has failed…again. But what Bernie can do, is not let this crisis go to waste. If he can somehow shoehorn free health care and universal basic income into an emergency bill, that would be a tremendous boost for his vision of America.
Of course he’s not talking about the cost of all of this. He says he’s trying to avoid an economic meltdown but there are 128 million households in the U.S. So sending each one a check for $2,000 would cost the government $256 billion dollars per month. If we start this next month and the crisis lasts through July, that’s a trillion dollars. If it lasts through the end of the year, that’s 2.25 trillion dollars. And that doesn’t include whatever we’re spending to cover everyone’s medical bills at the same time.
Sanders doesn’t care if we add another $3-4 trillion to the debt this year. He just wants a foothold. If the emergency ends in a few months, Sanders and his comrades can spend the next decade ranting about how everyone loved their free health care and free rent and how cruel it was that the government didn’t continue both programs in perpetuity. What they want is a proof of concept, regardless of the price.
And the slightly sad part is that Sanders must realize this is his last chance to see any of this happen. It’s not the coronavirus that’s making Bernie so short with reporters, it’s the realization that his version of Democratic Socialism isn’t going to happen in his lifetime unless he can somehow make it happen right now.
But if Bernie is stressed about dealing with the crisis and running for president, there’s a simple solution that would make things easier on him: Drop out now.
There doesn’t seem to be any video of Bernie’s outburst so you’ll have to settle for these highlights of his speech from last night.


hotair--2020-03-18--Sanders is probably close to suspending his campaign

When I wrote about Bernie ’ s choice this morning , it was hard to say how long he might take to make it or even which way he would go .
But as the day wore on , there were more and more signs that the end appeared to be near for the elderly socialist .
For one thing , he wasn ’ t heading to any of the upcoming primary states to hold rallies .
He and his wife were heading back to Vermont to “ reassess ” the campaign .
When was the last time you heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing them leave the race shortly thereafter ?
Now there ’ s been another indicator that Bernie may have thought better of continuing the battle .
Axios is reporting that the Sanders campaign has “ paused ” all of its digital ads on Facebook .
That ’ s typically a money-saving maneuver for someone who has seen the writing on the wall .
Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign currently has no active Facebook ads , the morning after another disappointing finish in a series of primary contests .
Why it matters : A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a good indicator that candidates are dropping out of the 2020 race before .
Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg made their Facebook ads inactive hours before they suspended their campaigns .
The state of play : Sanders and his wife Jane are traveling back to Vermont today to “ assess the path forward for our campaign , ” per a note from his campaign manager Faiz Shakir .
Keeping in mind that this isn ’ t official yet , there are a few things we should be watching for if Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race .
The first will be whether or not Bernie comes out and endorses Joe Biden and , if so , how heartily he does it .
You ’ ll recall that the 2016 Democratic primary didn ’ t exactly end with hugs and kisses between Sanders and Hillary Clinton .
More than a week ago , during a rally in Iowa , Sanders said that he would absolutely be supporting the eventual nominee if he didn ’ t win and he “ hoped that the other candidates feel the same way.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time picturing him endorsing Biden , really .
While Sanders continued to rail against the “ Democratic establishment ” this cycle , there hasn ’ t been nearly as much bad blood directly between him and Uncle Joe .
Of course , Joe Biden is the other person to watch .
If Bernie does clear out , he ’ s the last man standing .
The one thing he doesn ’ t want to see is a rerun of 2016 where the Bernie Bros blame him for Sanders ’ failure to launch and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the contributing factors in Hillary ’ s loss .
But that means that Biden is facing a choice of his own .
He can start reinforcing his recent lurches to the far left in an effort to convince Sanders ’ supporters that he ’ ll push for some of Bernie ’ s platform to keep them on board .
But if he does , he ’ s feeding more ammunition to Donald Trump when the two meet for debates later this year .
His other choice is to start the inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that risks convincing Bernie ’ s base that Joe is the same moderate , establishment tool that they always accused him of being .
Tough call for Joe Biden , I think .
He ’ s already walking something of a tightrope as it is .
An enthusiastic endorsement from Sanders might go considerably further than a simple press release saying , “ Well , at least he ’ s not Donald Trump.
” If I have to make a call on that question ( and I ’ ve been off on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is ) , I think Biden gets the Sanders endorsement pretty quickly , but it ’ s lukewarm at best .
If Bernie Sanders has given us one calling card over the past five or six years it ’ s that he ’ s really not a good loser .

When I wrote about Bernie’s choice this morning, it was hard to say how long he might take to make it or even which way he would go. But as the day wore on, there were more and more signs that the end appeared to be near for the elderly socialist. For one thing, he wasn’t heading to any of the upcoming primary states to hold rallies. He and his wife were heading back to Vermont to “reassess” the campaign. When was the last time you heard about a candidate reassessing their campaign without seeing them leave the race shortly thereafter?
Now there’s been another indicator that Bernie may have thought better of continuing the battle. Axios is reporting that the Sanders campaign has “paused” all of its digital ads on Facebook. That’s typically a money-saving maneuver for someone who has seen the writing on the wall.
Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign currently has no active Facebook ads, the morning after another disappointing finish in a series of primary contests. Why it matters: A pause in digital advertising spend on Facebook has been a good indicator that candidates are dropping out of the 2020 race before. Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg made their Facebook ads inactive hours before they suspended their campaigns. The state of play: Sanders and his wife Jane are traveling back to Vermont today to “assess the path forward for our campaign,” per a note from his campaign manager Faiz Shakir.
Keeping in mind that this isn’t official yet, there are a few things we should be watching for if Sanders does officially drop out of the primary race. The first will be whether or not Bernie comes out and endorses Joe Biden and, if so, how heartily he does it. You’ll recall that the 2016 Democratic primary didn’t exactly end with hugs and kisses between Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
More than a week ago, during a rally in Iowa, Sanders said that he would absolutely be supporting the eventual nominee if he didn’t win and he “hoped that the other candidates feel the same way.” I don’t have a hard time picturing him endorsing Biden, really. While Sanders continued to rail against the “Democratic establishment” this cycle, there hasn’t been nearly as much bad blood directly between him and Uncle Joe.
Of course, Joe Biden is the other person to watch. If Bernie does clear out, he’s the last man standing. The one thing he doesn’t want to see is a rerun of 2016 where the Bernie Bros blame him for Sanders’ failure to launch and start turning against him. That was one of the contributing factors in Hillary’s loss.
But that means that Biden is facing a choice of his own. He can start reinforcing his recent lurches to the far left in an effort to convince Sanders’ supporters that he’ll push for some of Bernie’s platform to keep them on board. But if he does, he’s feeding more ammunition to Donald Trump when the two meet for debates later this year. His other choice is to start the inevitable glide path back to the center, but that risks convincing Bernie’s base that Joe is the same moderate, establishment tool that they always accused him of being.
Tough call for Joe Biden, I think. He’s already walking something of a tightrope as it is. An enthusiastic endorsement from Sanders might go considerably further than a simple press release saying, “Well, at least he’s not Donald Trump.”
If I have to make a call on that question (and I’ve been off on my guesses too much this year as it is), I think Biden gets the Sanders endorsement pretty quickly, but it’s lukewarm at best. If Bernie Sanders has given us one calling card over the past five or six years it’s that he’s really not a good loser.


hotair--2020-03-18--Baltimore mayor pleads: Stop shooting each other so we can save hospital beds for coronavirus patien

Baltimore mayor pleads: Stop shooting each other so we can save hospital beds for coronavirus patients

Will the COVID-19 pandemic convince Baltimore ’ s criminals to stop shooting each other ?
Count me as skeptical , to say the least .
“ We ’ re not going to tolerate it , ” Baltimore mayor Jack Young declared after a night of violence put seven more people into hospitals , calling it “ unacceptable ” and threatening retribution .
That ’ s an old song in Baltimore , though , so Young added a new verse .
The next bed they “ clog up ” might have served one of the shooters ’ loved ones , Young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city has seen an uptick in violent crimes since Friday , including a mass shooting Tuesday night — where seven people were shot .
Five people were transported to area hospitals via medics and two took private cars to the hospitals for treatment .
All seven are in serious but stable condition .
… “ I want to reiterate how completely unacceptable the level of violence is that we have seen recently , ” Young said .
“ We will not stand for mass shootings and an increase in crime.
” “ For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shoot and kill people of this city , we ’ re not going to tolerate it , ” Young implored .
“ We ’ re going to come after you and we ’ re going to get you.
” He urged people to put down their guns because “ we can not clog up our hospitals and their beds with people that are being shot senselessly because we ’ re going to need those beds for people infected with the coronavirus .
And it could be your mother , your grandmother or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that into consideration.
” The problem in Baltimore over the last couple of years is that the police have not “ come after you ” or “ get you , ” and the criminals know it .
The fallout from the Freddie Gray case pushed police to dial back their assertiveness in Baltimore , fueled by a consent decree that incentivized a retreat from making arrests .
In the absence of community support for police , criminals have become emboldened , and violence has steadily escalated as a result .
That makes Young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ” sound rather empty , at least without any significant change to police policy and community support for enforcement .
That problem didn ’ t start with the coronavirus , nor will an appeal to civic responsibility in a pandemic solve the problem or even alleviate it .
If these perps had any sense of civic responsibility at all , they wouldn ’ t be spraying neighborhoods with bullets .
Rather than sounding tough , Young sounds impotent — and that ’ s worse than not saying anything at all .

Will the COVID-19 pandemic convince Baltimore’s criminals to stop shooting each other? Count me as skeptical, to say the least. “We’re not going to tolerate it,” Baltimore mayor Jack Young declared after a night of violence put seven more people into hospitals, calling it “unacceptable” and threatening retribution.
That’s an old song in Baltimore, though, so Young added a new verse. The next bed they “clog up” might have served one of the shooters’ loved ones, Young said:
Commissioner Michael Harrison said the city has seen an uptick in violent crimes since Friday, including a mass shooting Tuesday night — where seven people were shot. Five people were transported to area hospitals via medics and two took private cars to the hospitals for treatment. All seven are in serious but stable condition. … “I want to reiterate how completely unacceptable the level of violence is that we have seen recently,” Young said. “We will not stand for mass shootings and an increase in crime.” “For those of you who want to continue to shoot and kill people of this city, we’re not going to tolerate it,” Young implored. “We’re going to come after you and we’re going to get you.” He urged people to put down their guns because “we cannot clog up our hospitals and their beds with people that are being shot senselessly because we’re going to need those beds for people infected with the coronavirus. And it could be your mother, your grandmother or one of your relatives. So take that into consideration.”
The problem in Baltimore over the last couple of years is that the police have not “come after you” or “get you,” and the criminals know it. The fallout from the Freddie Gray case pushed police to dial back their assertiveness in Baltimore, fueled by a consent decree that incentivized a retreat from making arrests. In the absence of community support for police, criminals have become emboldened, and violence has steadily escalated as a result.
That makes Young’s threat to “come after you” sound rather empty, at least without any significant change to police policy and community support for enforcement. That problem didn’t start with the coronavirus, nor will an appeal to civic responsibility in a pandemic solve the problem or even alleviate it. If these perps had any sense of civic responsibility at all, they wouldn’t be spraying neighborhoods with bullets. Rather than sounding tough, Young sounds impotent — and that’s worse than not saying anything at all.


hotair--2020-03-18--Richard Engel: 'This is a bat virus, not a China virus'

This argument about whether or not we should be referring to the coronavirus as a “ Chinese virus ” has been bubbling along for at least a week now .
Today , Richard Engel offered a rant about it on MSNBC : “ If you look at what happened during the Middle Ages , there was lots and lots of scapegoating against an ethnic group or a religious group whenever there were pandemics that affected the society and frightened a lot of people.
” He continued , “ And China certainly feels that is what ’ s happening now with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ or the ‘ Wuhan virus ’ or the ‘ China virus.
’ “ This is a virus that came from the territory of China but came from bats .
This is a bat virus , not a China virus .
It doesn ’ t target Chinese people .
It targets human beings who happen to touch their eyes , nose or mouth.
” Okay , I want to be balanced here because , frankly , me ranting in response to his ranting probably just adds more heat than light to a serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this a bit at a time and try not to dismiss everything he says out of hand .
First , Engel is correct that scapegoating in response to a pandemic is not a new phenomenon .
There have already been a handful of instances in which police believe Asian people have been targeted and beaten for no apparent reason , except that the assailants referenced the coronavirus .
There was one such attack in London earlier this month .
Yesterday the New Yorker published a story about this incident and other “ coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City where an Asian man on the subway was verbally attacked and sprayed with Febreze .
There are only a handful of examples so far , but you certainly wouldn ’ t want to encourage the nascent trend .
And , to be frank , there are a lot of dumb teenagers out there who are no longer in school and are bored .
Some of them might get the wrong message from people in the White House referring to the virus as the “ Kung Flu ” as one reporter claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about where I think Engel loses the thread .
His sympathy for Communist China ’ s hurt feelings is completely misplaced in my view .
China has been actively engaged in spreading conspiracy theories that blame the virus on U.S. soldiers .
The NY Times reported last week that these conspiracy claims , coming from China ’ s Foreign Ministry , have been seen more than 160 million times on Chinese social media .
So this is very widespread even if most American journalists don ’ t seem to be aware it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that ?
Does he have any sympathy for the U.S. military that is being falsely smeared by the Chinese government ?
What China has done , as far as scapegoating goes , is far worse and yet it doesn ’ t rate a mention .
And finally we come to Engel ’ s statement about this being a “ bat virus , not a China virus.
” That ’ s partly true but also very misleading .
It ’ s true in the sense that this novel coronavirus probably did originate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread from bats to some other mammal , likely a pangolin or civet , and from there to human beings .
However , it is certainly not the case , as Engel seems to suggest , that this could have happened just anywhere in the world .
Coronavirus , like SARS before it , originated in China because of a specific set of conditions created under Chinese law .
As the Vox video below explains , these bat viruses keep making their way into human populations in China because China has “ wet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pangolins and other live animals are kept close together in confined spaces .
This allows deadly viruses to spread between species that , in the wild , would probably rarely encounter one another .
So it ’ s true this virus , having made the jump to humans , could now infect anyone .
The virus itself isn ’ t Chinese .
But this pandemic is the result of conditions created by China , conditions which have already created and spread one previous deadly virus .
This wasn ’ t random .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not to mention that when Chinese officials initially uncovered this virus , they actively covered it up for nearly a month while it spread .
Engel is right that we absolutely don ’ t want Asian people to be targeted and harassed in the street ( for something they had nothing to do with ) .
That behavior is wrong and the White House should be careful not to do or say anything that might encourage it .
On the other hand , we do want to a ) reject the Chinese conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure the Chinese government to take responsibility for the conditions that helped create and spread this virus .
Simply put : Scapegoating Asian people is bad , but placing responsibility on the Chinese government is good .

This argument about whether or not we should be referring to the coronavirus as a “Chinese virus” has been bubbling along for at least a week now. Today, Richard Engel offered a rant about it on MSNBC: “If you look at what happened during the Middle Ages, there was lots and lots of scapegoating against an ethnic group or a religious group whenever there were pandemics that affected the society and frightened a lot of people.” He continued, “And China certainly feels that is what’s happening now with people calling it the ‘Wuhan flu’ or the ‘Wuhan virus’ or the ‘China virus.’
“This is a virus that came from the territory of China but came from bats. This is a bat virus, not a China virus. It doesn’t target Chinese people. It targets human beings who happen to touch their eyes, nose or mouth.”
.@RichardEngel: "This is a virus that came from the territory of China but came from bats. This is a bat virus, not a China virus. It doesn't speak Chinese. It doesn't target Chinese people. It targets human beings who happen to touch their eyes, nose or mouth." pic.twitter.com/ljQeT7UQam — MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 18, 2020
Okay, I want to be balanced here because, frankly, me ranting in response to his ranting probably just adds more heat than light to a serious situation. So let’s take this a bit at a time and try not to dismiss everything he says out of hand.
First, Engel is correct that scapegoating in response to a pandemic is not a new phenomenon. There have already been a handful of instances in which police believe Asian people have been targeted and beaten for no apparent reason, except that the assailants referenced the coronavirus. There was one such attack in London earlier this month. Yesterday the New Yorker published a story about this incident and other “coronavirus hate crimes” including one in New York City where an Asian man on the subway was verbally attacked and sprayed with Febreze. There are only a handful of examples so far, but you certainly wouldn’t want to encourage the nascent trend. And, to be frank, there are a lot of dumb teenagers out there who are no longer in school and are bored. Some of them might get the wrong message from people in the White House referring to the virus as the “Kung Flu” as one reporter claimed happened yesterday.
And that’s about where I think Engel loses the thread. His sympathy for Communist China’s hurt feelings is completely misplaced in my view. China has been actively engaged in spreading conspiracy theories that blame the virus on U.S. soldiers. The NY Times reported last week that these conspiracy claims, coming from China’s Foreign Ministry, have been seen more than 160 million times on Chinese social media. So this is very widespread even if most American journalists don’t seem to be aware it is happening. Does Engel have any concern about that? Does he have any sympathy for the U.S. military that is being falsely smeared by the Chinese government? What China has done, as far as scapegoating goes, is far worse and yet it doesn’t rate a mention.
And finally we come to Engel’s statement about this being a “bat virus, not a China virus.” That’s partly true but also very misleading. It’s true in the sense that this novel coronavirus probably did originate in bats. It is believed to have spread from bats to some other mammal, likely a pangolin or civet, and from there to human beings. However, it is certainly not the case, as Engel seems to suggest, that this could have happened just anywhere in the world.
Coronavirus, like SARS before it, originated in China because of a specific set of conditions created under Chinese law. As the Vox video below explains, these bat viruses keep making their way into human populations in China because China has “wet markets” for wildlife animals where bats, pangolins and other live animals are kept close together in confined spaces. This allows deadly viruses to spread between species that, in the wild, would probably rarely encounter one another.
So it’s true this virus, having made the jump to humans, could now infect anyone. The virus itself isn’t Chinese. But this pandemic is the result of conditions created by China, conditions which have already created and spread one previous deadly virus. This wasn’t random. This is a distinctly Chinese problem. Not to mention that when Chinese officials initially uncovered this virus, they actively covered it up for nearly a month while it spread.
Engel is right that we absolutely don’t want Asian people to be targeted and harassed in the street (for something they had nothing to do with). That behavior is wrong and the White House should be careful not to do or say anything that might encourage it. On the other hand, we do want to a) reject the Chinese conspiracy theory about U.S. soldiers and b) pressure the Chinese government to take responsibility for the conditions that helped create and spread this virus.
Simply put: Scapegoating Asian people is bad, but placing responsibility on the Chinese government is good.


hotair--2020-03-18--The crazy pandering behind Biden's female VP pick promise

Anyone who watched the last Democratic Debate likely heard Joe Biden swing for the fences and promise that he would select a woman as his running mate .
Not some specific woman , mind you .
Just “ a woman.
” This caught the attention of plenty of women , particularly among conservatives , and the promise was roundly criticized as being patronizing and insult to the X-X chromosome contingent .
The response from New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz was typical of these complaints .
Rushing to Uncle Joe ’ s defense at the WaPo is Bloomberg journalist Jay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not patronizing , she argues .
It ’ s just common sense .
There ’ s no doubt that there are plenty of women qualified to be vice president .
Indeed , this year , six of them ran for the top job , an historic field , including five sitting members of Congress .
“ The idea that picking the best qualified person is at odds with picking a woman , if ever true , is not in 2020 , ” says Martha Coakley , former Massachusetts attorney general .
“ Women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a great VP and by extension , the President .
Witness the Democratic Primary.
” … And is it patronizing to commit to choosing a woman running mate without naming her ?
After all , if not votes , what can a woman bring to his ticket that a man can ’ t ?
As with so much in this political era , so many of the old memes are being turned on their head .
Here ’ s why Biden picked a woman , and how whomever she is will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes on to cite numerous examples from history to bolster her claim , all the while demonstrating an apparent lack of self-awareness that almost makes the column humorous .
( Almost . )
She goes on to discuss Biden ’ s presumed shortlist of possible VP picks , paying particular attention to Amy Klobuchar , Stacey Abrams , and Sally Yates for some reason .
Experience is what counts , we are told .
Something that Sarah Palin ( ! )
supposedly lacked , in the author ’ s opinion .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a state , with both legislative and executive experience .
Stacey Abrams was… a member of a state house of representatives .
Yates was in the cabinet , but at the deputy level .
At least Klobuchar has been a prosecutor and a member of the United States Senate .
But none of that addresses the original charge .
Quoting Martha Coakley , the argument that “ picking the best-qualified person ” can ’ t be “ at odds with picking a woman ” is gamely offered up .
That would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that .
Nobody is claiming that there aren ’ t any qualified women .
They ’ re bothered by Joe ’ s willingness to announce upfront that his veep ’ s gender will be the deciding factor rather than her qualifications .
Even if we ignore all of that , the entire argument is absurd , to begin with .
You ’ re either saying that you don ’ t care if you pick the best person for the job as long as they are a woman or that women are inherently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as bad as saying the opposite .
At least Biden didn ’ t make himself look more foolish by trying to explain away his promise the way Newton-Small and Joe ’ s other defenders are doing .
Joe is vowing to eliminate one half of the population from the veepstakes for one reason and one reason only .
He ’ s trying to calm the seething anger among the progressive base about all of the female and minority candidates being weeded out of the primary… by their fellow Democratic voters .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Joe ’ s leading contender is reportedly Stacey Abrams , despite having the least experience of any of them and never rising above the state assembly level .
She checks both boxes .
But as noted above , Joe ’ s not even trying to hide his reasons .
He ’ s clearly smart enough to realize it would be a lost cause trying to explain it away otherwise .
He ’ s hoping to put some excitement back into the base , drive turnout and bolster minority and female support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ better to simply let him get on with it than to try to rationalize the obvious pandering going on here .

Anyone who watched the last Democratic Debate likely heard Joe Biden swing for the fences and promise that he would select a woman as his running mate. Not some specific woman, mind you. Just “a woman.” This caught the attention of plenty of women, particularly among conservatives, and the promise was roundly criticized as being patronizing and insult to the X-X chromosome contingent. The response from New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz was typical of these complaints.
How do other women not see that “I’ll pick a woman for my VP” is an insult to all of us? Saying you’ll choose “a woman” instead of naming a specific woman is wildly patronizing. — Karol Markowicz (@karol) March 16, 2020
Rushing to Uncle Joe’s defense at the WaPo is Bloomberg journalist Jay Newton-Small. Of course it’s not patronizing, she argues. It’s just common sense.
There’s no doubt that there are plenty of women qualified to be vice president. Indeed, this year, six of them ran for the top job, an historic field, including five sitting members of Congress. “The idea that picking the best qualified person is at odds with picking a woman, if ever true, is not in 2020,” says Martha Coakley, former Massachusetts attorney general. “Women have the experience, savvy and smarts to be a great VP and by extension, the President. Witness the Democratic Primary.” … And is it patronizing to commit to choosing a woman running mate without naming her? After all, if not votes, what can a woman bring to his ticket that a man can’t? As with so much in this political era, so many of the old memes are being turned on their head. Here’s why Biden picked a woman, and how whomever she is will likely help him come November.
Newton-Small goes on to cite numerous examples from history to bolster her claim, all the while demonstrating an apparent lack of self-awareness that almost makes the column humorous. (Almost.) She goes on to discuss Biden’s presumed shortlist of possible VP picks, paying particular attention to Amy Klobuchar, Stacey Abrams, and Sally Yates for some reason.
Experience is what counts, we are told. Something that Sarah Palin (!) supposedly lacked, in the author’s opinion. Of course, Sarah Palin was just the governor of a state, with both legislative and executive experience. Stacey Abrams was… a member of a state house of representatives. Yates was in the cabinet, but at the deputy level. At least Klobuchar has been a prosecutor and a member of the United States Senate.
But none of that addresses the original charge. Quoting Martha Coakley, the argument that “picking the best-qualified person” can’t be “at odds with picking a woman” is gamely offered up. That would be a great point if anyone had actually said that. Nobody is claiming that there aren’t any qualified women. They’re bothered by Joe’s willingness to announce upfront that his veep’s gender will be the deciding factor rather than her qualifications.
Even if we ignore all of that, the entire argument is absurd, to begin with. You’re either saying that you don’t care if you pick the best person for the job as long as they are a woman or that women are inherently more qualified than men, which is just as bad as saying the opposite.
At least Biden didn’t make himself look more foolish by trying to explain away his promise the way Newton-Small and Joe’s other defenders are doing. Joe is vowing to eliminate one half of the population from the veepstakes for one reason and one reason only. He’s trying to calm the seething anger among the progressive base about all of the female and minority candidates being weeded out of the primary… by their fellow Democratic voters. And that’s also the sole reason that Joe’s leading contender is reportedly Stacey Abrams, despite having the least experience of any of them and never rising above the state assembly level. She checks both boxes.
But as noted above, Joe’s not even trying to hide his reasons. He’s clearly smart enough to realize it would be a lost cause trying to explain it away otherwise. He’s hoping to put some excitement back into the base, drive turnout and bolster minority and female support. His friends in the media would do better to simply let him get on with it than to try to rationalize the obvious pandering going on here.


hotair--2020-03-18--Hillary: Trump is using racism to distract from his coronavirus mistakes by calling it the "Chinese

Hillary: Trump is using racism to distract from his coronavirus mistakes by calling it the "Chinese virus"

This is a bad look , and a testament to how poor her political instincts are .
1 .
Bleating about terminology sounds impossibly trivial at a moment when the administration is scrambling to manage a looming disaster in New York and beyond .
2 .
The virus did in fact originate in China and there ’ s virtue in reminding people of that at a moment when the scumbag Chinese government is trying to hide its own culpability in the spread of the disease by blaming it on the U.S. Army .
3 .
The American public is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s regime , and so attacking Trump on this point is apt to backfire by generating sympathy for him .
4 .
There are many valid reasons to criticize the president and his deputies for their performance lately , starting with the CDC ’ s catastrophic failure on testing and Trump ’ s own Orwellian attempts to pretend he recognized a major crisis brewing from early on .
“ It ’ s racist to remind people that the virus started in China ” is the weakest possible play .
This clip isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assured… …no matter how much Hillary wishes it did : Why is this person , one of least popular major politicians in America , still inserting herself into public debates ?
Who does she think she ’ s helping ?
Democrats have a new nominee who ’ s far more likable than she is .
If someone ’ s going to run interference for the Chinese government , you ’ d think Democrats would at least want to leave it to him .
Here ’ s a report from the Times of London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s making the rounds on political Twitter today .
Headline : “ Chinese scientists destroyed proof of virus in December.
” The WHO was pushing Chinese disinformation about the disease weeks later , in mid-January : Jim Geraghty wrote about the Chinese government ’ s culpability two days ago .
They allowed Chinese New Year celebrations to proceed after transmission had begun and then allowed some five million people to leave Wuhan province without screening before the lockdown , when they already had reason to suspect person-to-person transmission .
Calling it the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just because that ’ s the nation where the virus originated , it ’ s because that ’ s the nation where the virus was enabled .
They expelled American journalists just yesterday , probably because they know the virus will begin spreading again as the Wuhan lockdown eases and they want to try to cover it up when it does to the greatest extent possible .
( “ Chinese totalitarianism has beaten the disease !
” is good propaganda at a moment when the west is drowning in contagion . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the Chinese government is trying to whitewash its mistakes by convincing people that this is really “ the American virus ” is itself an Orwellian act .
The best argument for dialing back the “ Chinese virus ” nomenclature is that tensions with China right now can only retard our own efforts to limit the virus here .
We do , alas , still depend heavily on Chinese supply chains ; if Chinese scientists develop an effective treatment for the disease , we ’ ll obviously want to avail ourselves of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s interest to play nice .
For now .
But the day is coming when that interest will change , not just for us but for lots of countries .
And Beijing knows it .

This is a bad look, and a testament to how poor her political instincts are.
1. Bleating about terminology sounds impossibly trivial at a moment when the administration is scrambling to manage a looming disaster in New York and beyond.
2. The virus did in fact originate in China and there’s virtue in reminding people of that at a moment when the scumbag Chinese government is trying to hide its own culpability in the spread of the disease by blaming it on the U.S. Army.
3. The American public is in no mood to sympathize with China’s regime, and so attacking Trump on this point is apt to backfire by generating sympathy for him.
4. There are many valid reasons to criticize the president and his deputies for their performance lately, starting with the CDC’s catastrophic failure on testing and Trump’s own Orwellian attempts to pretend he recognized a major crisis brewing from early on. “It’s racist to remind people that the virus started in China” is the weakest possible play.
This clip isn’t going to hurt him, rest assured…
When asked why he continues to call it the “Chinese virus” the President’s response is “because it comes from China, it’s not racist at all” pic.twitter.com/P20TgRdXbY — Acyn (@Acyn) March 18, 2020
…no matter how much Hillary wishes it did:
The president is turning to racist rhetoric to distract from his failures to take the coronavirus seriously early on, make tests widely available, and adequately prepare the country for a period of crisis. Don't fall for it. Don't let your friends and family fall for it. — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 18, 2020
Why is this person, one of least popular major politicians in America, still inserting herself into public debates? Who does she think she’s helping? Democrats have a new nominee who’s far more likable than she is. If someone’s going to run interference for the Chinese government, you’d think Democrats would at least want to leave it to him.
Here’s a report from the Times of London, published two weeks ago, that’s making the rounds on political Twitter today. Headline: “Chinese scientists destroyed proof of virus in December.”
Chinese laboratories identified a mystery virus as a highly infectious new pathogen by late December last year, but they were ordered to stop tests, destroy samples and suppress the news, a Chinese media outlet has revealed. A regional health official in Wuhan, centre of the outbreak, demanded the destruction of the lab samples that established the cause of unexplained viral pneumonia on January 1. China did not acknowledge there was human-to-human transmission until more than three weeks later.
The WHO was pushing Chinese disinformation about the disease weeks later, in mid-January:
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG — World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) January 14, 2020
Jim Geraghty wrote about the Chinese government’s culpability two days ago. They allowed Chinese New Year celebrations to proceed after transmission had begun and then allowed some five million people to leave Wuhan province without screening before the lockdown, when they already had reason to suspect person-to-person transmission. Calling it the “Chinese virus” now is defensible not just because that’s the nation where the virus originated, it’s because that’s the nation where the virus was enabled.
Terrible. We desperately need accurate reporting from China. The pandemic originated in Wuhan & was initially covered up by Chinese authorities. University of Southampton study found there would have been a 95% REDUCTION in cases & less spread if Beijing intervened 3 wks sooner. https://t.co/YJRCxYH5Sa — Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) March 18, 2020
They expelled American journalists just yesterday, probably because they know the virus will begin spreading again as the Wuhan lockdown eases and they want to try to cover it up when it does to the greatest extent possible. (“Chinese totalitarianism has beaten the disease!” is good propaganda at a moment when the west is drowning in contagion.) To whine about terminology at a moment when the Chinese government is trying to whitewash its mistakes by convincing people that this is really “the American virus” is itself an Orwellian act.
The best argument for dialing back the “Chinese virus” nomenclature is that tensions with China right now can only retard our own efforts to limit the virus here. We do, alas, still depend heavily on Chinese supply chains; if Chinese scientists develop an effective treatment for the disease, we’ll obviously want to avail ourselves of their knowledge. It’s in everyone’s interest to play nice. For now.
But the day is coming when that interest will change, not just for us but for lots of countries. And Beijing knows it.


hotair--2020-03-18--Cuomo: You know who's doing a good job on NY's COVID-19 outbreak? <i>Trump</i>

Perhaps this crisis might produce a better environment for cooperation after all .
This statement might have been seen as a simple process-smoothing sop from Andrew Cuomo to Donald Trump , but Cuomo sounds pretty sincere — and detailed in his praise .
In his press conference updating events on the COVID-19 outbreak , Cuomo emphasized that he and Trump have always had a good working relationship , and that Trump has been “ fully engaged ” in the coronavirus containment efforts in New York .
“ We ’ re fighting the same war , ” Cuomo said of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same trench.
” That ’ s quite a change of pace from the partisan bickering of the past few weeks : Cuomo ’ s complimentary treatment of Trump has a solid factual basis too , at least for Cuomo .
The governor announced that New York has now confirmed more than 2,000 cases of COVID-19 infection , the most of any state , and that requires a more robust response .
Trump has now ordered a Navy hospital ship to go to New York City to provide more capacity for overtaxed medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help address an anticipated bed shortage over the next few weeks : Gov .
Andrew Cuomo announced there are now over 2,000 cases of coronavirus in New York – the most in the country .
A total of 549 people are currently hospitalized – approximately 23 percent of the total number of cases .
However , 108 confirmed coronavirus cases have been discharged from hospitals since the start of the pandemic .
Gov .
Cuomo stressed that the rate of the curve of the virus suggests that in 45 days the state could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is a capacity of 53,000 beds in the state .
The White House announced today that the Army Corps of Engineers is consulting with Cuomo on building out more hospital space , too , a key concern for Cuomo .
Small wonder , then , that Cuomo felt compelled to show some grace — and thankfully , Cuomo decided to do so .
That wasn ’ t the only news out of Cuomo ’ s presser .
While he offered solicitous praise for Trump , Cuomo at least indirectly rebuked New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his suggestion of a total lockdown .
“ That ’ s not going to happen , ” Cuomo declared : New York Governor Andrew Cuomo rejected the notion that New York City could be facing a ‘ Shelter-in-place ’ order on Wednesday , contradicting a warning from Mayor Bill de Blasio that residents should prepare for one .
“ That is not going to happen , shelter in place , for New York City , ” said Cuomo on a Wednesday morning podcast .
“ For any city or county to take an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve it .
And I wouldn ’ t approve shelter in place.
” … De Blasio ’ s preparation warning on Tuesday followed an announcement that New York City would be testing 5,000 residents for the COVID-19 Wuhan virus per day , while “ highly prioritizing ” those that should be tested .
De Blasio and Cuomo presented a united front when announcing the closure of NYC schools until at least April 20 , but Cuomo said a mandated quarantine would be more of a problem than the spread of disease .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t leave your home…the fear , the panic is a bigger problem than the virus , ” Cuomo said during the Wednesday interview .
Clearly , Cuomo doesn ’ t have any trouble telling de Blasio that he ’ s not in the same trench , so to speak , even if they ’ re fighting the same war .
That underscores the sincerity of Cuomo ’ s remarks about Trump , or at least the graciousness involved in making them part of the public record .
If we can get more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing now will result in more political cooperation down the road .

Perhaps this crisis might produce a better environment for cooperation after all. This statement might have been seen as a simple process-smoothing sop from Andrew Cuomo to Donald Trump, but Cuomo sounds pretty sincere — and detailed in his praise. In his press conference updating events on the COVID-19 outbreak, Cuomo emphasized that he and Trump have always had a good working relationship, and that Trump has been “fully engaged” in the coronavirus containment efforts in New York.
“We’re fighting the same war,” Cuomo said of Trump, and “we’re in the same trench.” That’s quite a change of pace from the partisan bickering of the past few weeks:
Cuomo compliments President Trump's response to New York's coronavirus crisis, saying the president is "fully engaged on trying to help New York" and "very creative and energetic" https://t.co/yMZlZ5gV1w pic.twitter.com/XyTTVXNk4J — CBS News (@CBSNews) March 18, 2020
Cuomo’s complimentary treatment of Trump has a solid factual basis too, at least for Cuomo. The governor announced that New York has now confirmed more than 2,000 cases of COVID-19 infection, the most of any state, and that requires a more robust response. Trump has now ordered a Navy hospital ship to go to New York City to provide more capacity for overtaxed medical facilities in the state, which will help address an anticipated bed shortage over the next few weeks:
UPDATE: The federal government is sending a hospital ship to New York, the USNS Comfort. The Comfort, which has about 1,000 rooms on it, will be moored in New York Harbor. Hospital beds are what we need. pic.twitter.com/CwTVJhJvDi — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) March 18, 2020
Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced there are now over 2,000 cases of coronavirus in New York – the most in the country. A total of 549 people are currently hospitalized – approximately 23 percent of the total number of cases. However, 108 confirmed coronavirus cases have been discharged from hospitals since the start of the pandemic. Gov. Cuomo stressed that the rate of the curve of the virus suggests that in 45 days the state could need up to 110,000 beds. Currently, there is a capacity of 53,000 beds in the state.
The White House announced today that the Army Corps of Engineers is consulting with Cuomo on building out more hospital space, too, a key concern for Cuomo. Small wonder, then, that Cuomo felt compelled to show some grace — and thankfully, Cuomo decided to do so.
That wasn’t the only news out of Cuomo’s presser. While he offered solicitous praise for Trump, Cuomo at least indirectly rebuked New York City mayor Bill de Blasio for his suggestion of a total lockdown. “That’s not going to happen,” Cuomo declared:
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo rejected the notion that New York City could be facing a ‘Shelter-in-place’ order on Wednesday, contradicting a warning from Mayor Bill de Blasio that residents should prepare for one. “That is not going to happen, shelter in place, for New York City,” said Cuomo on a Wednesday morning podcast. “For any city or county to take an emergency action, the state has to approve it. And I wouldn’t approve shelter in place.” … De Blasio’s preparation warning on Tuesday followed an announcement that New York City would be testing 5,000 residents for the COVID-19 Wuhan virus per day, while “highly prioritizing” those that should be tested. De Blasio and Cuomo presented a united front when announcing the closure of NYC schools until at least April 20, but Cuomo said a mandated quarantine would be more of a problem than the spread of disease. “Quarantine in place, you can’t leave your home…the fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus,” Cuomo said during the Wednesday interview.
Clearly, Cuomo doesn’t have any trouble telling de Blasio that he’s not in the same trench, so to speak, even if they’re fighting the same war. That underscores the sincerity of Cuomo’s remarks about Trump, or at least the graciousness involved in making them part of the public record. If we can get more of that in both directions, perhaps our social distancing now will result in more political cooperation down the road.


hotair--2020-03-18--Orange County, CA orders 'public and private gatherings' shut down, then apologizes for 'confusion'

I live in Orange County , California so when the county ’ s public health office issued a notice yesterday ordering public and private gatherings to be shut down , I paid attention .
The full notice , which was released yesterday afternoon , does not call for people to shelter in place .
However , it does seem to suggest that all non-essential businesses should be shuttered .
Here ’ s how it reads : • None All public and private gatherings of any number of people , including at places of work , occurring outside a single household @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing in this Order prohibits the gathering of members of a household or living unit .
a .
This prohibition applies to all professional , social , and community gatherings , regardless of their sponsor , that are not engaged in Essential Activities , as defined below… This is followed by a couple of pages outlining what Essential Activities are exempt from the order .
Basically it ’ s the same list of exempt businesses that Northern California counties including San Francisco outlined earlier this week .
Pharmacies , grocery stores , gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shops , farming , child care facilities , laundromats , media , hardware stores , shipping , airlines , taxis , and a few others are exempt .
Restaurants are allowed to remain open but only to serve food for take-out or delivery .
Dining rooms and bars that only serve alcohol must close .
Obviously , once you list the essential businesses , anyone who isn ’ t on that list is expected to close down .
At least that ’ s how it sounded to many people .
I know people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , telling people to stay home because of this order .
Here ’ s how CBS Los Angeles reported this initially : But about four hours after the order was issued , the Orange County Emergency Operations Center published a new press release attempting to clarify the earlier one .
It reads in part , “ It is important for all Orange County businesses to remain open while practicing social distancing consistent with the Governor ’ s guidance.
” The next paragraph states , “ Unfortunately , the order as written caused wide-spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been able to locate this press release on the website but it was tweeted out around 7:30 pm last night .
Even after the correction was issued , some local officials were still making statements reflecting the initial press release : The county is about to hold some kind of press conference as I write this to clarify what is going on .
So far , this is not creating a lot of confidence that the people in charge of this situation know what they are doing .
Here ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the order last night :

I live in Orange County, California so when the county’s public health office issued a notice yesterday ordering public and private gatherings to be shut down, I paid attention. The full notice, which was released yesterday afternoon, does not call for people to shelter in place. However, it does seem to suggest that all non-essential businesses should be shuttered. Here’s how it reads:
Effective immediately and continuing until 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2020, the following will be in effect in Orange County:
All public and private gatherings of any number of people, including at places of work, occurring outside a single household or living unit are prohibited. However nothing in this Order prohibits the gathering of members of a household or living unit. a. This prohibition applies to all professional, social, and community gatherings, regardless of their sponsor, that are not engaged in Essential Activities, as defined below…
This is followed by a couple of pages outlining what Essential Activities are exempt from the order. Basically it’s the same list of exempt businesses that Northern California counties including San Francisco outlined earlier this week. Pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, first responders, auto repair shops, farming, child care facilities, laundromats, media, hardware stores, shipping, airlines, taxis, and a few others are exempt. Restaurants are allowed to remain open but only to serve food for take-out or delivery. Dining rooms and bars that only serve alcohol must close.
Obviously, once you list the essential businesses, anyone who isn’t on that list is expected to close down. At least that’s how it sounded to many people. I know people who shut down entire offices last night, telling people to stay home because of this order. Here’s how CBS Los Angeles reported this initially:
But about four hours after the order was issued, the Orange County Emergency Operations Center published a new press release attempting to clarify the earlier one. It reads in part, “It is important for all Orange County businesses to remain open while practicing social distancing consistent with the Governor’s guidance.” The next paragraph states, “Unfortunately, the order as written caused wide-spread confusion.” So far I haven’t been able to locate this press release on the website but it was tweeted out around 7:30 pm last night.
#OCCOVID19 | @OCHealth Order is NOT an Order to Shelter in Place. pic.twitter.com/B0L0IrDARW — Orange County Emergency Operations Center (@OrangeCountyEOC) March 18, 2020
Even after the correction was issued, some local officials were still making statements reflecting the initial press release:
https://twitter.com/inminivanhell/status/1240136234909028354
The county is about to hold some kind of press conference as I write this to clarify what is going on. So far, this is not creating a lot of confidence that the people in charge of this situation know what they are doing. Here’s how KCAL 9 reported on the confusion over the order last night:


hotair--2020-03-18--Central American nation blocks deportation flights from U.S.

Deportation flights from the U.S. to Guatemala have been paused .
Guatemala officials , under instructions from President Alejandro Giammattei closed the country ’ s borders for fifteen days .
The action was taken “ as a precautionary measure ” while additional health checks are established to combat the spread of the coronavirus .
This pause in normal operations has an immediate effect on the Trump administration ’ s policy of barring asylum-seeking migrants from the region .
Guatemala plays an important role in the Trump administration ’ s immigration policy enforcement efforts .
It is the primary transit country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. southern border .
In recent days , the country has blocked entry to Americans , as well as travelers from Canada and a few European and Asian countries .
Guatemala has six confirmed cases of COVID-19 and the government is taking strong , aggressive measures to squash the pandemic ’ s spread .
COVID-19 spreads rapidly and Guatemala is the first in the region to bar Americans from entry .
Other Western Hemisphere countries are taking measures to bar Americans from entering , such as El Salvador , Honduras , Panama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chile , and Peru .
Some are shutting borders , even to their own returning citizens .
So , where does this leave the agreement made between the U.S. and Guatemala to assist in securing the U.S.- Mexico border ?
Nowhere .
Right now , it ’ s shut down , for the time being , another piece in the puzzle of how countries move forward in light of the threats posed by COVID-19 .
Closing off a country from incoming travelers is a step in mitigating the spread of the disease .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cooperative Agreement , was signed by the previous Guatemalan government and President Trump .
It was signed after much consternation from the Guatemalan government officials .
Guatemala was concerned from the jump that the number of migrants sent back for them to process would be too much to handle .
Its high court initially blocked the agreement .
President Giammattei took office in January .
Guatemala has been a partner in Central America to the Trump administration by accepting the asylum-seekers as it allows them to seek asylum there instead of in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 900 men , women and children who have arrived at the U.S. border from El Salvador and Honduras have been sent to Guatemala .
Before the decision to block deportation flights , the Guatemalan government had posted a schedule for 10 flights this week from the United States .
One arrived Monday afternoon from Brownsville , Texas , carrying 56 Guatemalans and 17 Salvadorans , but another set for Tuesday was canceled , according to Alejandra Mena , a spokeswoman with Guatemala ’ s immigration institute .
Guatemalan authorities had said previously that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Customs Enforcement that they would not send people to Guatemala who were sick or displayed symptoms of the virus .
Returning immigrants receive health screenings before boarding deportation flights and after arriving in Guatemala City , said Joaquin Samayoa , spokesman for the Minister of Foreign Relations in Guatemala .
Those found to be sick would be quarantined , he added .
This action against the COVID-19 pandemic also derails preparations being made by the Department of Homeland Security to add Mexican migrants to those being sent to Guatemala , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salvador and Honduras .
The Honduran government suspended repatriation flights from Mexico last week when three of its citizens exhibited symptoms of COVID-19 after deportation from the U.S. and they were put into isolation .
The open-borders crowd expresses concern that the immigration policies of the Trump administration will increase the spread of COVID-19 .
That ’ s one way to spin objections to the administration securing the U.S. southern border , right ?
Casa del Migrante , a shelter in Guatemala City that since November has housed hundreds of Salvadorans and Hondurans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the weekend that it would stop receiving immigrants who had been deported from the U.S. or Mexico .
Mauro Verzeletti , director of the shelter , declared Guatemala ’ s action “ extraordinary ” and “ a victory.
” For days , he had called for the U.S. to stop deportation flights to Guatemala , to slow the spread of the virus .
He said the immigrants were already vulnerable to illnesses because they arrived from the U.S. physically exhausted and simply “ in a really bad condition.
” Monday , Verzeletti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss what he described as a “ high-level humanitarian crisis.
” The ACLU joined with other groups to file suit against ICE on Monday .
They are asking that migrants in detention be released as they are susceptible to COVID-19 .
Immigration judges , prosecutors , and lawyers have called on the Justice Department to close immigration courts .
I can understand courts closing but releasing those in detention centers ?
Where would they go ?
They would be released out into the general public and scatter , as happened before the crackdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of law .
It makes no sense .

Deportation flights from the U.S. to Guatemala have been paused. Guatemala officials, under instructions from President Alejandro Giammattei closed the country’s borders for fifteen days. The action was taken “as a precautionary measure” while additional health checks are established to combat the spread of the coronavirus.
This pause in normal operations has an immediate effect on the Trump administration’s policy of barring asylum-seeking migrants from the region. Guatemala plays an important role in the Trump administration’s immigration policy enforcement efforts. It is the primary transit country for people coming through Central America to the U.S. southern border. In recent days, the country has blocked entry to Americans, as well as travelers from Canada and a few European and Asian countries.
Guatemala has six confirmed cases of COVID-19 and the government is taking strong, aggressive measures to squash the pandemic’s spread. COVID-19 spreads rapidly and Guatemala is the first in the region to bar Americans from entry. Other Western Hemisphere countries are taking measures to bar Americans from entering, such as El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, and Peru. Some are shutting borders, even to their own returning citizens.
So, where does this leave the agreement made between the U.S. and Guatemala to assist in securing the U.S.- Mexico border? Nowhere. Right now, it’s shut down, for the time being, another piece in the puzzle of how countries move forward in light of the threats posed by COVID-19. Closing off a country from incoming travelers is a step in mitigating the spread of the disease.
The agreement, known as the Asylum Cooperative Agreement, was signed by the previous Guatemalan government and President Trump. It was signed after much consternation from the Guatemalan government officials. Guatemala was concerned from the jump that the number of migrants sent back for them to process would be too much to handle. Its high court initially blocked the agreement. President Giammattei took office in January.
Guatemala has been a partner in Central America to the Trump administration by accepting the asylum-seekers as it allows them to seek asylum there instead of in the U.S. Since November, more than 900 men, women and children who have arrived at the U.S. border from El Salvador and Honduras have been sent to Guatemala.
Before the decision to block deportation flights, the Guatemalan government had posted a schedule for 10 flights this week from the United States. One arrived Monday afternoon from Brownsville, Texas, carrying 56 Guatemalans and 17 Salvadorans, but another set for Tuesday was canceled, according to Alejandra Mena, a spokeswoman with Guatemala’s immigration institute. Guatemalan authorities had said previously that they had been assured by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they would not send people to Guatemala who were sick or displayed symptoms of the virus. Returning immigrants receive health screenings before boarding deportation flights and after arriving in Guatemala City, said Joaquin Samayoa, spokesman for the Minister of Foreign Relations in Guatemala. Those found to be sick would be quarantined, he added.
This action against the COVID-19 pandemic also derails preparations being made by the Department of Homeland Security to add Mexican migrants to those being sent to Guatemala, as well as rolling out similar agreements with El Salvador and Honduras. The Honduran government suspended repatriation flights from Mexico last week when three of its citizens exhibited symptoms of COVID-19 after deportation from the U.S. and they were put into isolation. The open-borders crowd expresses concern that the immigration policies of the Trump administration will increase the spread of COVID-19. That’s one way to spin objections to the administration securing the U.S. southern border, right?
Casa del Migrante, a shelter in Guatemala City that since November has housed hundreds of Salvadorans and Hondurans returned under the U.S.-Guatemala agreement, announced over the weekend that it would stop receiving immigrants who had been deported from the U.S. or Mexico. Mauro Verzeletti, director of the shelter, declared Guatemala’s action “extraordinary” and “a victory.” For days, he had called for the U.S. to stop deportation flights to Guatemala, to slow the spread of the virus. He said the immigrants were already vulnerable to illnesses because they arrived from the U.S. physically exhausted and simply “in a really bad condition.” Monday, Verzeletti met with Guatemalan officials and diplomats to discuss what he described as a “high-level humanitarian crisis.”
The ACLU joined with other groups to file suit against ICE on Monday. They are asking that migrants in detention be released as they are susceptible to COVID-19. Immigration judges, prosecutors, and lawyers have called on the Justice Department to close immigration courts. I can understand courts closing but releasing those in detention centers? Where would they go? They would be released out into the general public and scatter, as happened before the crackdown by the Trump administration – re-establishing the rule of law. It makes no sense.