hotair--2020-05-27--Fauci: Wearing a mask is symbolic, may be no second wave of COVID-19

One of the worst problems of mitigating the coronavirus pandemic has been the ever-changing advice from the experts and professionals in the fields of medicine generally and public health policy specifically .
One day we are told one thing , the next day brings different advice .
President Trump put together a White House coronavirus task force with Dr. Birx at the helm .
Vice-President Pence acts as coordinator .
One of the first pieces of advice was about masks .
At first , medical experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and others said that masks shouldn ’ t be considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mostly out of concern for the supply of personal protection equipment for the medical community and first responders .
Mask production had to be ramped up quickly to keep up with professional demand , let alone for an increasing demand from the public .
As the supplies met the demands , the experts on the White House coronavirus task force decided we should all be wearing masks .
However , they were not taking their own advice , at least when they addressed the public during press briefings .
The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frustrating and confusing .
We would see the task force members and the president standing close together – not the 6 feet apart as recommended – and they were not wearing masks .
The press covering the briefings weren ’ t wearing masks , either .
This has slowly changed now .
Dr. Fauci hasn ’ t always worn a face mask when briefing the press .
He and Dr. Birx have occasionally worn masks up until recently .
Now they seem to be making a point of doing so .
Today Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear a face mask in public .
He admits it is a symbolic gesture at this point and that face masks aren ’ t completely effective but they help .
“ I want to protect myself and protect others , and also because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see that that ’ s the kind of thing you should be doing , ” Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert and a member of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsroom.
” Fauci said he believes that while wearing a mask is not “ 100 % effective , ” it is a valuable safeguard and shows “ respect for another person.
” Here ’ s the thing – shouldn ’ t he and the task force have been setting the example all along , especially in the very beginning of mitigation when the outbreak was new and so many people were at risk ?
Now for him to be making a show of it seems to be virtue-signaling more than anything .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as I have often said .
It ’ s not comfortable , especially for those of us who wear glasses , but it is a common-sense approach to protecting myself and others when just keeping a distance isn ’ t happening .
Standards are loosening up a bit as the pandemic begins to wane .
It can be surprising when a delivery person shows up at the door without a face mask or gloves .
That happened to me Friday and after my initial surprise upon opening the door and seeing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we handled the exchange responsibly , I think .
She stood back and we had a brief , pleasant conversation .
Mission accomplished .
Fauci is correct in saying that face masks aren ’ t completely effective if what we are all reading is true .
Only the medical-grade masks are deemed so , not the cloth masks or disposable paper masks that most of us use .
We are working through a box of disposable masks I ordered when all of this first began .
Cloth masks have become the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have begun cottage industries by making and selling them .
More power to them , capitalism works .
Masks have become political fodder between some segments of society but it ’ s 2020 and that is how it goes .
I come down on the side of personal responsibility .
As America is slowly re-opening the danger of a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic is on everyone ’ s mind .
Again , Dr. Fauci seems to have changed his mind .
Initially , he was not cheerleading the states that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national shutdown .
Now he is saying that a second wave isn ’ t inevitable .
As long as people continue to successfully mitigate the epidemic , a second wave may not happen .
“ We often talk about the the possibility of a second wave , or of an outbreak when you ’ re reopening , ” Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a key member of the White House coronavirus task force , said on CNN .
“ We don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ And particularly when people start thinking about the fall .
I want people to really appreciate that , it could happen but it is not inevitable , ” he added .
Last month , Fauci had said in multiple interviews that a second wave of COVID-19 was indeed unavoidable .
“ It ’ s inevitable that the coronavirus will return next season .
… When it does , how we handle it , will determine our fate , ” he told NBC News .
The focus of Fauci ’ s cautious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 and improvements made by the CDC in coping with the pandemic .
“ I ’ m feeling better about it as we go by with the weeks that go by , and we see that we ’ re getting more and more capability of testing , ” he said , adding that the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control ( CDC ) has built a stronger workforce to help with “ identification , isolation , and contact tracing.
” “ If we do the kinds of things that we ’ re putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workforce , the system , and the will to do the kinds of things that are the clear and effective identification , isolation and contact tracing , we can prevent this second wave that we ’ re talking about , if we do it correctly , ” he continued .
That ’ s where we are today .
Wearing a face mask is still good advice and there is likely a light at the end of the tunnel .
Let ’ s hope the prediction that a second wave isn ’ t inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @

One of the worst problems of mitigating the coronavirus pandemic has been the ever-changing advice from the experts and professionals in the fields of medicine generally and public health policy specifically. One day we are told one thing, the next day brings different advice.
President Trump put together a White House coronavirus task force with Dr. Birx at the helm. Vice-President Pence acts as coordinator. One of the first pieces of advice was about masks. At first, medical experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and others said that masks shouldn’t be considered mandatory in the virus’s mitigation, mostly out of concern for the supply of personal protection equipment for the medical community and first responders. Mask production had to be ramped up quickly to keep up with professional demand, let alone for an increasing demand from the public.
As the supplies met the demands, the experts on the White House coronavirus task force decided we should all be wearing masks. However, they were not taking their own advice, at least when they addressed the public during press briefings. The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude from some of these experts has been frustrating and confusing. We would see the task force members and the president standing close together – not the 6 feet apart as recommended – and they were not wearing masks. The press covering the briefings weren’t wearing masks, either. This has slowly changed now.
Dr. Fauci hasn’t always worn a face mask when briefing the press. He and Dr. Birx have occasionally worn masks up until recently. Now they seem to be making a point of doing so. Today Fauci is renewing his call for Americans to wear a face mask in public. He admits it is a symbolic gesture at this point and that face masks aren’t completely effective but they help.
“I want to protect myself and protect others, and also because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see that that’s the kind of thing you should be doing,” Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, told CNN’s Jim Sciutto on “Newsroom.” Fauci said he believes that while wearing a mask is not “100% effective,” it is a valuable safeguard and shows “respect for another person.”
Here’s the thing – shouldn’t he and the task force have been setting the example all along, especially in the very beginning of mitigation when the outbreak was new and so many people were at risk? Now for him to be making a show of it seems to be virtue-signaling more than anything.
I have no problem with wearing a mask, as I have often said. It’s not comfortable, especially for those of us who wear glasses, but it is a common-sense approach to protecting myself and others when just keeping a distance isn’t happening. Standards are loosening up a bit as the pandemic begins to wane. It can be surprising when a delivery person shows up at the door without a face mask or gloves. That happened to me Friday and after my initial surprise upon opening the door and seeing a young woman smiling at me sans mask, we handled the exchange responsibly, I think. She stood back and we had a brief, pleasant conversation. Mission accomplished.
Fauci is correct in saying that face masks aren’t completely effective if what we are all reading is true. Only the medical-grade masks are deemed so, not the cloth masks or disposable paper masks that most of us use. We are working through a box of disposable masks I ordered when all of this first began. Cloth masks have become the new fashion accessory and lots of creative folks have begun cottage industries by making and selling them. More power to them, capitalism works. Masks have become political fodder between some segments of society but it’s 2020 and that is how it goes. I come down on the side of personal responsibility.
As America is slowly re-opening the danger of a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic is on everyone’s mind. Again, Dr. Fauci seems to have changed his mind. Initially, he was not cheerleading the states that were taking the first steps of rebounding from the national shutdown. Now he is saying that a second wave isn’t inevitable. As long as people continue to successfully mitigate the epidemic, a second wave may not happen.
“We often talk about the the possibility of a second wave, or of an outbreak when you’re reopening,” Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a key member of the White House coronavirus task force, said on CNN. “We don’t have to accept that as an inevitability.” “And particularly when people start thinking about the fall. I want people to really appreciate that, it could happen but it is not inevitable,” he added. Last month, Fauci had said in multiple interviews that a second wave of COVID-19 was indeed unavoidable. “It’s inevitable that the coronavirus will return next season. … When it does, how we handle it, will determine our fate,” he told NBC News.
The focus of Fauci’s cautious optimism is the improvement in testing for COVID-19 and improvements made by the CDC in coping with the pandemic.
“I’m feeling better about it as we go by with the weeks that go by, and we see that we’re getting more and more capability of testing,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) has built a stronger workforce to help with “identification, isolation, and contact tracing.” “If we do the kinds of things that we’re putting in place now, to have the workforce, the system, and the will to do the kinds of things that are the clear and effective identification, isolation and contact tracing, we can prevent this second wave that we’re talking about, if we do it correctly,” he continued.
That’s where we are today. Wearing a face mask is still good advice and there is likely a light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s hope the prediction that a second wave isn’t inevitable doesn’t change next week.


hotair--2020-05-28--Madonna posted a video of her son dancing against racism and people are confused

I guess this is Madonna ’ s career now .
She goes from crisis to crisis , injecting herself into the discussion in a ways that seem sincere but also odd and off-putting .
A few hours ago she posted a video of her son David dancing with this caption : “ Brutal murder travels around the world my son David Dances to honor and pay tribute to George and His Family and all Acts of Racism and Discrimination that happen on a daily basis in America.
” Okay , so David ’ s dancing is fine I guess but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a lot of it doesn ’ t seem very planned out .
It also doesn ’ t help that Madonna wrote this tweet in a way that suggests David is dancing to honor not only George and his family but “ all Acts of Racism and Discrimination.
” Um , no , I don ’ t think that ’ s what you meant to say .
He ’ s not dancing to honor those things .
He ’ s dancing to honor the victims of those things or maybe he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But again , Madonna seems to have thrown this tweet together pretty quickly without reading it .
Anyway , one thing Madonna hasn ’ t lost is the ability to generate a crowd .
Thousands of people are reacting to the video though not in the way she probably hoped .
Some were reminded of that awful Pepsi commercial : Yeah , it ’ s pretty bad , but I ’ ll give Madonna and David this much , at least they aren ’ t endorsing violence as a response .

I guess this is Madonna’s career now. She goes from crisis to crisis, injecting herself into the discussion in a ways that seem sincere but also odd and off-putting. A few hours ago she posted a video of her son David dancing with this caption: “Brutal murder travels around the world my son David Dances to honor and pay tribute to George and His Family and all Acts of Racism and Discrimination that happen on a daily basis in America.”
Brutal murder travels around the world my son David Dances to honor and pay tribute to George and His Family and all Acts of Racism and Discrimination that happen on a daily basis in America. #davidbanda #JusticeforGeorgeFloyd #MichaelJackson pic.twitter.com/wLa6YKrYF1 — Madonna (@Madonna) May 28, 2020
Okay, so David’s dancing is fine I guess but this goes on for a long time and a lot of it doesn’t seem very planned out. It also doesn’t help that Madonna wrote this tweet in a way that suggests David is dancing to honor not only George and his family but “all Acts of Racism and Discrimination.” Um, no, I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. He’s not dancing to honor those things. He’s dancing to honor the victims of those things or maybe he’s dancing in spite of those things. But again, Madonna seems to have thrown this tweet together pretty quickly without reading it.
Anyway, one thing Madonna hasn’t lost is the ability to generate a crowd. Thousands of people are reacting to the video though not in the way she probably hoped.
https://twitter.com/Jaeandthecity/status/1266158077352374274
https://twitter.com/HitzLuzick/status/1266154455910821889
https://twitter.com/KingTrillaX/status/1266155856728600576
Some were reminded of that awful Pepsi commercial:
All it took was dancing & a soda pop pic.twitter.com/CLVOGNcm5G — Big Chillin (@DCisChillin) May 28, 2020
Yeah, it’s pretty bad, but I’ll give Madonna and David this much, at least they aren’t endorsing violence as a response.


hotair--2020-05-28--0.4%: Is the CDC's new estimated case fatality rate from COVID-19 accurate?

Let ’ s hope so .
But let ’ s also remind ourselves that the CDC has distinguished itself during the pandemic in two ways .
One was by catastrophically botching the design of the first COVID tests in February , at a moment when rapid testing could have contained the outbreak , because of amateurish errors like contamination in the lab .
The second was calculating daily metrics like case counts and test counts by combining PCR ( nose/throat ) testing , which detects current infections , with antibody testing , which detects previous infections .
Another weird , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s supposed to be the world ’ s finest government agency in detecting and controlling infectious diseases .
Their performance to this point has been , to use a highly technical term , hot garbage .
But if you want to bet on them this time , be my guest .
The key number is the one in the lower right-hand corner , signaling the best current estimate for the case fatality rate .
Is that possible ?
Well , on April 23 , when Andrew Cuomo reported the first round of antibody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team estimated that roughly 0.5 percent of those infected statewide had died .
But note : That was the infection fatality ratio .
The CDC is estimating the case fatality ratio , specifically the fatality ratio among people with confirmed cases who are symptomatic , which is just a subset of the total number of infections .
If they ’ re getting 0.4 percent for that , it means the infection fatality ratio is even smaller — 0.26 percent to be exact , per Robert VerBruggen , who ’ s using the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections are asymptomatic in order to estimate the total number of infections .
If you use the latest numbers from the COVID Tracking Project , America has recorded 94,352 deaths from 1,689,630 confirmed cases .
That ’ s a case fatality ratio of … 5.6 percent .
Li ’ l bit higher than 0.4 percent .
Even if we guesstimated that the total number of infections in the U.S. is five times larger than the number of confirmed cases , i.e .
that 80 percent of all infections are asymptomatic , that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate north of one percent .
So how on earth is the CDC getting 0.4 percent ?
There are other problems .
VerBruggen : He ’ s right about the numbers in New York , and that ’ s without counting thousands more “ probable ” COVID-19 deaths .
For the CDC ’ s case fatality rate to be correct in NYC , literally half the population would have had to have been diagnosed with COVID-19 by this point .
In reality , the last antibody estimate provided by Cuomo in early May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you want to assume that that number has increased to 25 percent by now , after several more weeks of transmission ( in a city that ’ s still limiting interactions via lockdown ) , it would mean an infection fatality rate of 0.8 percent , twice the CDC ’ s estimate .
If you want to add in the 4,742 probable deaths that the City ’ s health department has calculated , the infection fatality rate would be one percent , just like the conventional wisdom says .
VerBruggen ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total number of infections nationwide based on the number of deaths and the CDC ’ s case fatality rate .
Are there anywhere near 25 million infections in the U.S. ?
I ’ d direct you back to this post from a few weeks ago , describing the results of antibody tests conducted on thousands of employees of Major League Baseball across the country .
That sample isn ’ t perfectly representative of the U.S. population so we can ’ t rely too heavily on it as an estimate of all infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Result : One percent were infected , not the 10 percent or so implied by the CDC ’ s number .
Serology tests in even the hardest-hit European countries like Spain and France have found just five percent or so infected .
The CDC ’ s estimate is implausible .
Where are they getting that 0.4 percent figure , anyway ?
How are they calculating it ?
Oddly enough , they won ’ t say .
And scientists are suspicious : Researchers also lambasted the CDC ’ s lack of transparency about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosed almost nothing about its numbers , citing only internal data and a preprint — a study that has not been peer-reviewed — led by scientists in Iran .
“ This is terrible .
This is way too optimistic , ” Andrew Noymer , an associate professor of population health at the University of California at Irvine , told BuzzFeed News , adding , “ With this document , the CDC is determined to smash its credibility with the public health community of which it is supposedly a leader.
” … Carl Bergstrom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , expressed concern that the CDC ’ s numbers will skew projections going forward because there will be some pressure to use the US government ’ s models .
“ Given that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus , I see this as deeply problematic , ” he said by email .
Bergstrom went further in a tweet last week : It could be that the CDC has data that he doesn ’ t have and knows something that the rest of us don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ’ re under pressure from the White House to produce unrealistically rosy assessments to encourage states to reopen .
Or it could be that they ’ re hot garbage , again .
Guess we ’ ll find out eventually .
If you ’ re looking for numerical ammo to support the argument that the risk from COVID-19 is wildly overstated for most of the population , skip the CDC and stick with Avik Roy , who highlights his latest piece with this arresting graph : Fully 43 percent of American deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Roy notes — 0.62 percent of the population .
That ’ s not the all-clear to go party , as plenty of people who get the disease and survive end up facing an ordeal in the hospital and possibly long-lasting disability afterward , but the fatality rate really should reckon somehow with the stark disparity between nursing homes and everyone else .

Let’s hope so. But let’s also remind ourselves that the CDC has distinguished itself during the pandemic in two ways. One was by catastrophically botching the design of the first COVID tests in February, at a moment when rapid testing could have contained the outbreak, because of amateurish errors like contamination in the lab. The second was calculating daily metrics like case counts and test counts by combining PCR (nose/throat) testing, which detects current infections, with antibody testing, which detects previous infections. Another weird, inexplicable, amateurish error from what’s supposed to be the world’s finest government agency in detecting and controlling infectious diseases.
Their performance to this point has been, to use a highly technical term, hot garbage. But if you want to bet on them this time, be my guest.
The key number is the one in the lower right-hand corner, signaling the best current estimate for the case fatality rate.
Is that possible? Well, on April 23, when Andrew Cuomo reported the first round of antibody testing results in New York, his team estimated that roughly 0.5 percent of those infected statewide had died. But note: That was the infection fatality ratio. The CDC is estimating the case fatality ratio, specifically the fatality ratio among people with confirmed cases who are symptomatic, which is just a subset of the total number of infections. If they’re getting 0.4 percent for that, it means the infection fatality ratio is even smaller — 0.26 percent to be exact, per Robert VerBruggen, who’s using the CDC’s estimate that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic in order to estimate the total number of infections.
Is that realistic?
If you use the latest numbers from the COVID Tracking Project, America has recorded 94,352 deaths from 1,689,630 confirmed cases. That’s a case fatality ratio of … 5.6 percent. Li’l bit higher than 0.4 percent. Even if we guesstimated that the total number of infections in the U.S. is five times larger than the number of confirmed cases, i.e. that 80 percent of all infections are asymptomatic, that would still leave us with an infection fatality rate north of one percent. So how on earth is the CDC getting 0.4 percent?
There are other problems. VerBruggen:
For one thing, the virus has already killed 0.2 percent of all New Yorkers, and obviously a much higher percentage of those who’ve actually been infected in the city. For another, if we’ve had 100,000 deaths nationwide and a CFR of 0.4 percent, that means we’ve had 25 million symptomatic cases; including cases without symptoms, more than 10 percent of the entire country has been infected, which seems out of sync with what we’re hearing from serology tests.
He’s right about the numbers in New York, and that’s without counting thousands more “probable” COVID-19 deaths. For the CDC’s case fatality rate to be correct in NYC, literally half the population would have had to have been diagnosed with COVID-19 by this point. In reality, the last antibody estimate provided by Cuomo in early May estimated 19.9 percent have been infected. If you want to assume that that number has increased to 25 percent by now, after several more weeks of transmission (in a city that’s still limiting interactions via lockdown), it would mean an infection fatality rate of 0.8 percent, twice the CDC’s estimate. If you want to add in the 4,742 probable deaths that the City’s health department has calculated, the infection fatality rate would be one percent, just like the conventional wisdom says.
VerBruggen’s other point is sound too, estimating the total number of infections nationwide based on the number of deaths and the CDC’s case fatality rate. Are there anywhere near 25 million infections in the U.S.? I’d direct you back to this post from a few weeks ago, describing the results of antibody tests conducted on thousands of employees of Major League Baseball across the country. That sample isn’t perfectly representative of the U.S. population so we can’t rely too heavily on it as an estimate of all infections, but it was a *big* sample. Result: One percent were infected, not the 10 percent or so implied by the CDC’s number. Serology tests in even the hardest-hit European countries like Spain and France have found just five percent or so infected. The CDC’s estimate is implausible.
Where are they getting that 0.4 percent figure, anyway? How are they calculating it? Oddly enough, they won’t say. And scientists are suspicious:
Researchers also lambasted the CDC’s lack of transparency about its data sources. The eight-page document disclosed almost nothing about its numbers, citing only internal data and a preprint — a study that has not been peer-reviewed — led by scientists in Iran. “This is terrible. This is way too optimistic,” Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of population health at the University of California at Irvine, told BuzzFeed News, adding, “With this document, the CDC is determined to smash its credibility with the public health community of which it is supposedly a leader.”… Carl Bergstrom, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, expressed concern that the CDC’s numbers will skew projections going forward because there will be some pressure to use the US government’s models. “Given that these parameter sets underestimate fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus, I see this as deeply problematic,” he said by email.
Bergstrom went further in a tweet last week:
The more I think about it, the more this bothers me. These numbers are so far outside of the scientific consensus that this strikes me as a devious and cynical effort to manipulate not only federal modeling but the broader scientific discourse. — Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) May 21, 2020
It could be that the CDC has data that he doesn’t have and knows something that the rest of us don’t. Or it could be that they’re under pressure from the White House to produce unrealistically rosy assessments to encourage states to reopen. Or it could be that they’re hot garbage, again. Guess we’ll find out eventually.
If you’re looking for numerical ammo to support the argument that the risk from COVID-19 is wildly overstated for most of the population, skip the CDC and stick with Avik Roy, who highlights his latest piece with this arresting graph:
Fully 43 percent of American deaths from coronavirus have come from nursing homes, Roy notes — 0.62 percent of the population. That’s not the all-clear to go party, as plenty of people who get the disease and survive end up facing an ordeal in the hospital and possibly long-lasting disability afterward, but the fatality rate really should reckon somehow with the stark disparity between nursing homes and everyone else.


hotair--2020-05-28--Politico: What if Trump's coronavirus response has been better than people think?

There ’ s a scene in the movie version of World War Z where Brad Pitt arrives in Israel and , despite the outbreak of the zombie apocalypse , things seems to be mostly under control .
An Israeli character explains to Pitt that there is some rule which states that whenever all of the country ’ s leaders take the same position on an issue , one person is obligated to take the alternative view just in case .
In World War Z , that meant that when the Israeli ’ s picked up on chatter about zombies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literally and planned accordingly .
I bring that up because this piece at Politico reminds me of it .
It ’ s titled “ What If Trump ’ s Record on the Pandemic Is Better Than We Think ?
” The assumption underlying the article is that , of course , we all know Trump ’ s record has been horrible , but let ’ s just imagine that maybe there ’ s a bit of media group think going on .
Maybe just for fun we should entertain the possibility that zombie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that Trump isn ’ t directly responsible for every coronavirus death in the U.S .
Author John Harris says this idea was suggested to him by an unnamed colleague who said the negative view of Trump , “ is so widely held by journalists and the sorts of people we talk to most frequently that we risk group-think.
” Despite agreeing his colleague might have a point , Harris initially declines to even attempt to make the case and invites readers to make their best effort to defend the president instead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ does eventually offer the outline of a defense .
Here ’ s what he offered along with my reaction to it : *The country did mostly shut down and the public health system did not comprehensively fail Everyone has been surprised , not just Trump .
I don ’ t know many people who supposed on March 11 ( the night of the president ’ s error-filled Oval Office address on coronavirus ) that by Memorial Day much of the country would still be working from home , or not working at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and much else would be closed .
On the positive side , only in the New York area , and only for a brief window , was there anything like the collapse of the health system in Italy , the fear of which is what prompted the shutdown .
There are really several points here , none of which are really fleshed out .
The first is that in most places we did bend the curve and avoid overwhelming the medical system .
Could we have avoided even more deaths ?
Probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier shutdown ( or more focus on protecting care homes rather than hospitals ) .
And that was never really going to happen for several reasons .
Here ’ s one which Harris makes his second point : Not only is it a lumbering giant , it ’ s a federal system where public health is primarily a state issue .
Keep in mind that everything was still open for business in early March .
Microsoft and a few businesses in Seattle had told people to work at home .
Emerald City Comic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been postponed , but there were still movies and plays in theaters and sporting events with thousands of fans .
Individual businesses could chose to shut down on their own .
The NBA shut itself down on March 11 .
But large scale shutdowns were in the hands of mayors , county officials and governors , not the president .
The first county-wide shut down happened on March 16 .
The first state shut down ( California ) happened on March 19 .
These were local and state decisions .
*Trump and critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was far from alone , even as late as early March , in balking at the necessity for such extreme measures .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo has been praised for his urgency and empathy by many of the same people condemning Trump .
But The New York Times and others have illustrated how he and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio also resisted earlier shutdowns ( moving several days after California ) and sounded Trump-like notes in boasting that New York ’ s superior health system — “ Excuse our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said — would avert the kind of disaster seen elsewhere .
In fact , New York has nearly three times as many deaths as any other state .
Trump might have gotten a D-minus in absolute terms on Melinda Gates ’ test , but in politics the exams are always graded on a curve — i.e.
, in comparison to others .
It ’ s not even that Trump and Cuomo should play by the same rules because they had different responsibilities .
Trump had no actual power to shut down New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But here ’ s the important point : There was never any scenario where entire states were going to shut down weeks earlier than they did .
It wasn ’ t going to happen for one simple reason : There had not been many deaths at that point .
On March 11 , the death toll for the whole country was 38 .
On March 1 the death toll was 2 .
Why didn ’ t counties and governors act sooner , because it still wasn ’ t clear to them or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the death toll rose in early March , that changed .
Of course we know now that there were earlier deaths we missed at the time and that the virus was spreading rapidly at this time .
But the idea that Trump should have shut down the country by mid-February is a progressive fantasy with no basis in reality .
For one , that ’ s a state decision , not a federal one .
For two , even the states run by Democrats didn ’ t shut down that early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death toll for the entire country was zero .
Another frequent argument Harris mentions in passing is that we lost weeks with no sufficient testing thanks to Trump .
It ’ s certainly true as I ’ ve said before that we lost probably 5 weeks thanks to the failure of the CDC and the related failure of the FDA .
Basically we squandered the end of January and all of February because of a ) an unnecessarily complicated test , b ) contamination of that test during in-house manufacture by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct course once the contamination was known , d ) failure to allow outside hospitals to proceed with their own testing while the FDA and CDC argued over how to proceed .
All of this was a genuine disaster for national preparedness but which part of it was Trump ’ s fault exactly ?
Then Sec .
Alex Azar reportedly tried to get the CDC and FDA to work out the problem in mid-February and neither agency was very responsive .
Now just imagine for a moment that President Trump decided to wade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC where they went wrong designing a coronavirus test .
Can you even imagine the outrage of his interference with the experts and scientists who do this for a living ?
He would have been shredded up and down by every news outlet in the country including Politico .
Even if Trump had somehow fixed this a couple of weeks sooner , would it have changed things dramatically ?
I say it would not have for the reason I ’ ve already stated above .
Even if we ’ d had slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t have changed the fact that we had almost no deaths .
States would not have shut down until the death toll was out of single digits .
If they had tried , many people would have pushed back .
None of this means that Trump did an outstanding job .
What it does mean is that many of the things that went wrong , especially where they went the most wrong , were out of his hands .
Cuomo and de Blasio should have shut down New York days earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22nd .
The CDC and FDA should have worked out the issues on which they are world-leading experts before mid-February .
And if all of that had happened , things would have gone somewhat better .
But when people act as if we could have completely avoided all of the disasters associated with this outbreak with a different president , they are just playing politics .
Anyway , if you want to offer your own response to Politico , you can send it to .

There’s a scene in the movie version of World War Z where Brad Pitt arrives in Israel and, despite the outbreak of the zombie apocalypse, things seems to be mostly under control. An Israeli character explains to Pitt that there is some rule which states that whenever all of the country’s leaders take the same position on an issue, one person is obligated to take the alternative view just in case. In World War Z, that meant that when the Israeli’s picked up on chatter about zombies, there was one person who took it literally and planned accordingly.
I bring that up because this piece at Politico reminds me of it. It’s titled “What If Trump’s Record on the Pandemic Is Better Than We Think?” The assumption underlying the article is that, of course, we all know Trump’s record has been horrible, but let’s just imagine that maybe there’s a bit of media group think going on. Maybe just for fun we should entertain the possibility that zombie means zombie or, in this case, that Trump isn’t directly responsible for every coronavirus death in the U.S.
Author John Harris says this idea was suggested to him by an unnamed colleague who said the negative view of Trump, “is so widely held by journalists and the sorts of people we talk to most frequently that we risk group-think.” Despite agreeing his colleague might have a point, Harris initially declines to even attempt to make the case and invites readers to make their best effort to defend the president instead. But despite his initial hesitation, Harris does eventually offer the outline of a defense. Here’s what he offered along with my reaction to it:
*The country did mostly shut down and the public health system did not comprehensively fail Everyone has been surprised, not just Trump. I don’t know many people who supposed on March 11 (the night of the president’s error-filled Oval Office address on coronavirus) that by Memorial Day much of the country would still be working from home, or not working at all, and that campuses, baseball stadiums, and much else would be closed. On the positive side, only in the New York area, and only for a brief window, was there anything like the collapse of the health system in Italy, the fear of which is what prompted the shutdown.
There are really several points here, none of which are really fleshed out. The first is that in most places we did bend the curve and avoid overwhelming the medical system. Could we have avoided even more deaths? Probably, but that would have required an earlier shutdown (or more focus on protecting care homes rather than hospitals). And that was never really going to happen for several reasons. Here’s one which Harris makes his second point:
*The United States is a lumbering giant A sprawling and diverse country with a complex federal system of government is often caught flatfooted, before summoning strength. Before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Army was smaller than the Portugal’s. In the case of the pandemic, many of the acute shortages that marked early coverage have been mitigated. Testing on a per capita basis has surged, including in comparison to many hard-hit countries, though it is still far short of what health experts say is needed. The same is true of early shortfalls in protective equipment and ventilators.
Not only is it a lumbering giant, it’s a federal system where public health is primarily a state issue. Keep in mind that everything was still open for business in early March. Microsoft and a few businesses in Seattle had told people to work at home. Emerald City Comic Con and a few large events had been postponed, but there were still movies and plays in theaters and sporting events with thousands of fans. Individual businesses could chose to shut down on their own. The NBA shut itself down on March 11. But large scale shutdowns were in the hands of mayors, county officials and governors, not the president. The first county-wide shut down happened on March 16. The first state shut down (California) happened on March 19. These were local and state decisions.
*Trump and critics have to play by the same rules… Trump was far from alone, even as late as early March, in balking at the necessity for such extreme measures. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been praised for his urgency and empathy by many of the same people condemning Trump. But The New York Times and others have illustrated how he and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio also resisted earlier shutdowns (moving several days after California) and sounded Trump-like notes in boasting that New York’s superior health system — “Excuse our arrogance as New Yorkers,” Cuomo said — would avert the kind of disaster seen elsewhere. In fact, New York has nearly three times as many deaths as any other state. Trump might have gotten a D-minus in absolute terms on Melinda Gates’ test, but in politics the exams are always graded on a curve — i.e., in comparison to others.
It’s not even that Trump and Cuomo should play by the same rules because they had different responsibilities. Trump had no actual power to shut down New York and enforce social distancing, Cuomo did.
But here’s the important point: There was never any scenario where entire states were going to shut down weeks earlier than they did. It wasn’t going to happen for one simple reason: There had not been many deaths at that point. On March 11, the death toll for the whole country was 38. On March 1 the death toll was 2. Why didn’t counties and governors act sooner, because it still wasn’t clear to them or the public how bad this could be. As the death toll rose in early March, that changed.
Of course we know now that there were earlier deaths we missed at the time and that the virus was spreading rapidly at this time. But the idea that Trump should have shut down the country by mid-February is a progressive fantasy with no basis in reality. For one, that’s a state decision, not a federal one. For two, even the states run by Democrats didn’t shut down that early because it would have seemed crazy when the death toll for the entire country was zero.
Another frequent argument Harris mentions in passing is that we lost weeks with no sufficient testing thanks to Trump. It’s certainly true as I’ve said before that we lost probably 5 weeks thanks to the failure of the CDC and the related failure of the FDA. Basically we squandered the end of January and all of February because of a) an unnecessarily complicated test, b) contamination of that test during in-house manufacture by the CDC, c) failure to swiftly correct course once the contamination was known, d) failure to allow outside hospitals to proceed with their own testing while the FDA and CDC argued over how to proceed.
All of this was a genuine disaster for national preparedness but which part of it was Trump’s fault exactly? Then Sec. Alex Azar reportedly tried to get the CDC and FDA to work out the problem in mid-February and neither agency was very responsive. Now just imagine for a moment that President Trump decided to wade in and start telling the PhDs at the CDC where they went wrong designing a coronavirus test. Can you even imagine the outrage of his interference with the experts and scientists who do this for a living? He would have been shredded up and down by every news outlet in the country including Politico.
Even if Trump had somehow fixed this a couple of weeks sooner, would it have changed things dramatically? I say it would not have for the reason I’ve already stated above. Even if we’d had slightly more testing in late February, that wouldn’t have changed the fact that we had almost no deaths. States would not have shut down until the death toll was out of single digits. If they had tried, many people would have pushed back.
None of this means that Trump did an outstanding job. What it does mean is that many of the things that went wrong, especially where they went the most wrong, were out of his hands. Cuomo and de Blasio should have shut down New York days earlier, on the 19th instead of the 22nd. The CDC and FDA should have worked out the issues on which they are world-leading experts before mid-February. And if all of that had happened, things would have gone somewhat better. But when people act as if we could have completely avoided all of the disasters associated with this outbreak with a different president, they are just playing politics.
Anyway, if you want to offer your own response to Politico, you can send it to [email protected].


hotair--2020-05-28--Will Scarborough sue Trump for defamation?

The subject came up at today ’ s White House briefing via a “ question ” from One America News , which sounded less like an actual question and more like a White-House-scripted talking point presented in the form of a question .
Wouldn ’ t Trump totally destroy Scarborough on discovery if he dared file a lawsuit over his Lori Klausutis smears ?
Mika Brzezinski has used the term “ libel ” recently in describing Trump ’ s tweets .
Today , in an op-ed at the Times , law prof Peter Schuck argues that Scarborough really might win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though he ’ s clearly a public figure for purposes of defamation law : After all , the president ’ s innuendo that Mr. Scarborough may have murdered Lori Klausutis — presumably credible to the many Trump Twitter followers who subscribe to conspiracy theories — may seriously harm Mr. Scarborough ’ s reputation with them and others .
Mr. Trump , moreover , often aims his tweets to lead multiple news cycles affecting well beyond his Twitter followers .
The president will surely argue that he has not actually accused anyone of murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But courts have held that such calculated innuendo can constitute defamation , depending on the facts .
This would be for a jury to decide .
Mr. Scarborough , as a public figure in his own right , must satisfy the Supreme Court ’ s demanding test for defamation liability in its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision .
Under this test — designed to free public debate from being unduly constrained by fear of legal liability — Mr. Scarborough must prove that Mr. Trump made his defamatory comment either with actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reckless disregard ” for whether it was true or false .
But the president ’ s tweets about the Klausutis case probably satisfy this test .
After all , he has not cited any evidence to support his calumny either before the tweets or in response to the backlash since then .
If the jury found for Mr. Scarborough , it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages in addition to compensation for his reputational harm .
Every now and then I remember that Trump has called for loosening libel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it easier for him to sue media outlets but in reality would lead him straight into bankruptcy as aggrieved plaintiffs cleaned him out for the smears he ’ s pushed over the years .
Anyway , Schuck ’ s point is fair .
Normally public figures don ’ t bother filing libel suits because it ’ s unlikely they ’ ll meet the Sullivan standard .
If you ’ re famous and a paper damages your reputation by publishing something false about you , it ’ s not enough to show that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to show either that they lied about you deliberately or that they were so sloppy that their conduct amounts to indifference as to whether what they claimed was true or not .
Reporters , even bad reporters , follow a certain professional ethic so that ’ s hard to prove .
But Trump doesn ’ t follow any ethic ( in any aspect of life , really ) .
At a minimum he ’ s indifferent to whether the claim he ’ s making about Scarborough and Klausutis is true .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or read that the medical examiner ruled Klausutis ’ s death an accident many years ago but insists on malevolently suggesting it was foul play in order to wound his enemy , Morning Joe .
Actual malice , they call it .
Pay the man .
Are there non-legal reasons why Scarborough might not want to sue , though ?
The “ Streisand effect ” is always a factor in defamation cases , but less so in this one given the prominence of the defendant .
Typically a public figure won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defamed him because most of the public hasn ’ t seen the defamation and the lawsuit would have the effect of inadvertently publicizing it .
In this case , Trump is the most famous person in the world , smearing Scarborough repeatedly to a global audience .
Mass media is already covering it .
Even news outlets that would normally side with Trump reflexively in a political dispute , like the Wall Street Journal , have said that Trump is in the wrong .
The risk of a Streisand effect is unusually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another cost of doing business when clashing with a political leader with a cult following in 2020 .
Those will increase if Scarborough files suit but doubtless he ’ s getting them already and is taking precautions .
Meanwhile , although OAN ’ s right about Trump ’ s lawyers getting to depose him , his lawyers would get to depose Trump as well — which Scarborough , being a relentless Trump critic , might relish in an election year .
He ’ s tried to do things the easy way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tweets as violations of their terms of service .
They refused , and Trump won ’ t drop the subject .
“ I have no choice but to sue , ” he might tell himself .
I ’ d like to hear more from legal eagles , though , about where the line is constitutionally on the sort of innuendo Trump has engaged in about Scarborough .
He knows enough about defamation law to have avoided flatly asserting that Scarborough murdered Klausutis , but his insinuation is perfectly clear .
( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Are those actionable false statements of fact , that Scarborough is guilty of murder , or merely assertions that the matter should be investigated ?
My hunch is that courts are sufficiently chilly to the idea of public figures filing defamation suits that they ’ d give Trump the benefit of the doubt on what he meant there , even though it ’ s clear what he wants to imply .
And that may be enough for Scarborough to opt against suing .
If he sued and lost , Trump would never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
It ’ d be like losing a lawsuit to Eric Cartman , and might have the pernicious effect of convincing low-information voters that Trump was right , that the court found that Scarborough probably did murder Klausutis .
( Which of course isn ’ t at all what a defamation verdict for the defendant would mean . )
Plus , if anything , victory would goad Trump into tweeting about Scarborough and Klausutis even more .
That ’ s how trolls behave .
Although , given Morning Joe ’ s desire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe that ’ s reason enough for him to sue .
Trump only hurts himself by obsessing publicly about this stuff during the coronavirus epidemic and economic downturn .
If Scarborough ’ s willing to put up with it for a few more months , giving the president a reason to keep talking about it would be a small favor he could do to Biden and the Democrats .
By the way , Schuck also makes the case in his op-ed that Klausutis ’ s widower , who wrote to Twitter a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s tweets , potentially has a valid tort claim against Trump as well .
It ’ s not defamation in his case but intentional infliction of emotional distress .
I doubt that Klausutis is as personally well fortified as Scarborough for months of battle with Trump and all that comes with it , though .
And IIED is a bit of a crapshoot legally , as the jury needs to find the defendant ’ s conduct really , really outrageous .
Since Scarborough , not Lori Klausutis , is the villain in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior clear that bar in suit filed by Mr. Klausutis ?
Seems like a lot of grief with only an iffy chance of compensation .

The subject came up at today’s White House briefing via a “question” from One America News, which sounded less like an actual question and more like a White-House-scripted talking point presented in the form of a question. Wouldn’t Trump totally destroy Scarborough on discovery if he dared file a lawsuit over his Lori Klausutis smears?
Q: Would Trump welcome a defamation suit from Joe Scarborough? McENANY: I would refer you back to my previous comments that the audio from the Don Imus show is disturbing — there is a lot of laughing & joking about this matter that is certainly not a laughing & joking matter pic.twitter.com/uSoffMh5bT — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2020
Mika Brzezinski has used the term “libel” recently in describing Trump’s tweets. Today, in an op-ed at the Times, law prof Peter Schuck argues that Scarborough really might win if he took Trump to court even though he’s clearly a public figure for purposes of defamation law:
After all, the president’s innuendo that Mr. Scarborough may have murdered Lori Klausutis — presumably credible to the many Trump Twitter followers who subscribe to conspiracy theories — may seriously harm Mr. Scarborough’s reputation with them and others. Mr. Trump, moreover, often aims his tweets to lead multiple news cycles affecting well beyond his Twitter followers. The president will surely argue that he has not actually accused anyone of murder and was merely “raising questions.” But courts have held that such calculated innuendo can constitute defamation, depending on the facts. This would be for a jury to decide. Mr. Scarborough, as a public figure in his own right, must satisfy the Supreme Court’s demanding test for defamation liability in its landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision. Under this test — designed to free public debate from being unduly constrained by fear of legal liability — Mr. Scarborough must prove that Mr. Trump made his defamatory comment either with actual knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or false. But the president’s tweets about the Klausutis case probably satisfy this test. After all, he has not cited any evidence to support his calumny either before the tweets or in response to the backlash since then. If the jury found for Mr. Scarborough, it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages in addition to compensation for his reputational harm.
Every now and then I remember that Trump has called for loosening libel laws, which he thinks would make it easier for him to sue media outlets but in reality would lead him straight into bankruptcy as aggrieved plaintiffs cleaned him out for the smears he’s pushed over the years.
Anyway, Schuck’s point is fair. Normally public figures don’t bother filing libel suits because it’s unlikely they’ll meet the Sullivan standard. If you’re famous and a paper damages your reputation by publishing something false about you, it’s not enough to show that they were sloppy in their reporting. You have to show either that they lied about you deliberately or that they were so sloppy that their conduct amounts to indifference as to whether what they claimed was true or not. Reporters, even bad reporters, follow a certain professional ethic so that’s hard to prove. But Trump doesn’t follow any ethic (in any aspect of life, really). At a minimum he’s indifferent to whether the claim he’s making about Scarborough and Klausutis is true. More likely is that he’s heard or read that the medical examiner ruled Klausutis’s death an accident many years ago but insists on malevolently suggesting it was foul play in order to wound his enemy, Morning Joe.
Actual malice, they call it. Pay the man.
Are there non-legal reasons why Scarborough might not want to sue, though? The “Streisand effect” is always a factor in defamation cases, but less so in this one given the prominence of the defendant. Typically a public figure won’t bother to sue a newspaper that’s defamed him because most of the public hasn’t seen the defamation and the lawsuit would have the effect of inadvertently publicizing it. In this case, Trump is the most famous person in the world, smearing Scarborough repeatedly to a global audience. Mass media is already covering it. Even news outlets that would normally side with Trump reflexively in a political dispute, like the Wall Street Journal, have said that Trump is in the wrong. The risk of a Streisand effect is unusually low.
Same goes for death threats, another cost of doing business when clashing with a political leader with a cult following in 2020. Those will increase if Scarborough files suit but doubtless he’s getting them already and is taking precautions. Meanwhile, although OAN’s right about Trump’s lawyers getting to depose him, his lawyers would get to depose Trump as well — which Scarborough, being a relentless Trump critic, might relish in an election year. He’s tried to do things the easy way, appealing to Twitter to delete Trump’s tweets as violations of their terms of service. They refused, and Trump won’t drop the subject. “I have no choice but to sue,” he might tell himself.
I’d like to hear more from legal eagles, though, about where the line is constitutionally on the sort of innuendo Trump has engaged in about Scarborough. He knows enough about defamation law to have avoided flatly asserting that Scarborough murdered Klausutis, but his insinuation is perfectly clear. (“Isn’t it obvious?”)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1260161295019630592
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265271286789558273
Are those actionable false statements of fact, that Scarborough is guilty of murder, or merely assertions that the matter should be investigated? My hunch is that courts are sufficiently chilly to the idea of public figures filing defamation suits that they’d give Trump the benefit of the doubt on what he meant there, even though it’s clear what he wants to imply. And that may be enough for Scarborough to opt against suing. If he sued and lost, Trump would never stop crowing about it and rubbing it in. It’d be like losing a lawsuit to Eric Cartman, and might have the pernicious effect of convincing low-information voters that Trump was right, that the court found that Scarborough probably did murder Klausutis. (Which of course isn’t at all what a defamation verdict for the defendant would mean.)
Plus, if anything, victory would goad Trump into tweeting about Scarborough and Klausutis even more. That’s how trolls behave.
Although, given Morning Joe’s desire to see Trump lose this fall, maybe that’s reason enough for him to sue. Trump only hurts himself by obsessing publicly about this stuff during the coronavirus epidemic and economic downturn. If Scarborough’s willing to put up with it for a few more months, giving the president a reason to keep talking about it would be a small favor he could do to Biden and the Democrats.
By the way, Schuck also makes the case in his op-ed that Klausutis’s widower, who wrote to Twitter a few days ago asking them to remove Trump’s tweets, potentially has a valid tort claim against Trump as well. It’s not defamation in his case but intentional infliction of emotional distress. I doubt that Klausutis is as personally well fortified as Scarborough for months of battle with Trump and all that comes with it, though. And IIED is a bit of a crapshoot legally, as the jury needs to find the defendant’s conduct really, really outrageous. Since Scarborough, not Lori Klausutis, is the villain in Trump’s tweet-smears, would his behavior clear that bar in suit filed by Mr. Klausutis? Seems like a lot of grief with only an iffy chance of compensation.


hotair--2020-05-28--<span class='red'>Breaking: Walz activates National Guard to control rioting in Twin Cities; Update:

Breaking: Walz activates National Guard to control rioting in Twin Cities; Update: Mass transit shuts down

Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey had made the request earlier .
The spread of attacks into Saint Paul ’ s Midway probably convinced Tim Walz to finally make the call .
The governor issued an executive order authorizing the National Guard to impose order on the streets in the wake of rioting the last two days , an offshoot of protests over the death of George Floyd while in police custody : Gov .
Tim Walz has signed an executive order activating the Minnesota National Guard “ to help protect Minnesotans ’ safety and maintain peace in the wake of George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is time to rebuild .
Rebuild the city , rebuild our justice system , and rebuild the relationship between law enforcement and those they ’ re charged to protect .
George Floyd ’ s death should lead to justice and systemic change , not more death and destruction .
As George Floyd ’ s family has said , ‘ Floyd would not want people to get hurt .
He lived his life protecting people.
’ Let ’ s come together to rebuild , remember , and seek justice for George Floyd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a peacetime emergency order to allow for greater coordination : The National Guard Adjutant General will work with local government agencies to provide personnel , equipment , and facilities needed to respond to and recover from this emergency , according to the news release .
About 200 Minnesota State Patrol troopers will also assist in public safety efforts over the next several days .
The order also declares a peacetime emergency , which activates the State Emergency Operations Center .
The plan — thus far — is to allow for peaceful demonstrations while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As Governor , ” Walz said in his statement , “ I will always defend the right to protest.
” Walz claimed that the National Guard and state trooper will be on hand to protect the protestors just as much as the surrounding businesses .
Just how realistic is that plan , though ?
Once violence starts , police will have to disperse the crowds in order to put an end to it , or even attempt to corral it .
Until this afternoon , the demonstrations and the violence had mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just a couple of hours ago , however , “ flash ” attacks on police cars in the Midway retail area of Saint Paul began occurring , over four miles away from Minneapolis PD ’ s 3rd Precinct : St. Paul police are asking people to avoid parts of the city as crowd sizes increase Thursday .
… Meanwhile , dozens of people tried to loot the Midway Target in St. Paul Thursday .
According to St. Paul Police , a group of 50 to 60 people tried to overwhelm the store ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confronted the group , and the people then dropped the items they ’ d grabbed and fled .
… The group also attempted to go into nearby small businesses but were stopped by police .
KSTP has the video from their traffic helicopter , and one of the people in the chopper wonders aloud why the National Guard hadn ’ t yet been deployed : That turned out to be a pretty good question .
The city of Maplewood , which is 13 miles to the east of the precinct , warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlets either .
That is well into the suburbs , not just from Minneapolis but even St. Paul .
If they ’ re worried about this , then … In a tweet , the Maplewood Police Department warned that “ Due to the potential for flash looting in Maplewood , Police are urging people to avoid retail areas until further notice.
” St. Paul police dispatched about 40 officers to aid Minneapolis firefighters battling scattered blazes throughout the south side Wednesday night .
Those officers since have returned to St. Paul .
Suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed Thursday afternoon in anticipation of looters .
Target in Roseville closed midafternoon , with one employee saying looters had already attempted to break in .
Police squads , lights on , barred entry into parking lots at both Rosedale and Maplewood malls .
Visitors pulled up to storefronts expressing confusion and frustration when they were denied entry .
In other words , batten down the hatches for tonight .
Fortunately , our hatches have mostly been battened down anyway , thanks to the COVID-19 restrictions .
The National Guard has its work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best we can hope is that this gives an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail before more people end up dead .
Update : This might help quiet things down for tonight : All bus service throughout the Twin Cities was suspended at 4 p.m. Thursday , joining the halting of light rail lines earlier in the day in anticipation of upcoming demonstrations , a Metro Transit spokesman said .
The extraordinary move came after two days and nights of sometimes violent unrest that has persisted since the death of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pinned by the neck by a police officer .
While transit spokesman Howie Padilla declined to attribute the suspensions solely to the street violence , “ obviously , we take into consideration whatever situations call for , and if we have to err on the side of public safety for riders and employees , we ’ re going to do that.
” It was necessary to impose the shutdown beyond Minneapolis and St. Paul , where the vast majority of the unrest has occurred , because “ this is not limited to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When will it restart ?
They ’ re , um … not saying yet .
The only mass transit still running are trains to the airport and the last evening train to the northern suburbs , probably just to ensure most people can get back home for the night .
Update : I guess people could still drive to the protests or riots , but … that ’ s easier said than done , as our colleague Julio Rosas showed us earlier :

Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey had made the request earlier. The spread of attacks into Saint Paul’s Midway probably convinced Tim Walz to finally make the call. The governor issued an executive order authorizing the National Guard to impose order on the streets in the wake of rioting the last two days, an offshoot of protests over the death of George Floyd while in police custody:
Gov. Tim Walz has signed an executive order activating the Minnesota National Guard “to help protect Minnesotans’ safety and maintain peace in the wake of George Floyd’s death.” … “It is time to rebuild. Rebuild the city, rebuild our justice system, and rebuild the relationship between law enforcement and those they’re charged to protect. George Floyd’s death should lead to justice and systemic change, not more death and destruction. As George Floyd’s family has said, ‘Floyd would not want people to get hurt. He lived his life protecting people.’ Let’s come together to rebuild, remember, and seek justice for George Floyd,” Walz said.
Walz also issued a peacetime emergency order to allow for greater coordination:
The National Guard Adjutant General will work with local government agencies to provide personnel, equipment, and facilities needed to respond to and recover from this emergency, according to the news release. About 200 Minnesota State Patrol troopers will also assist in public safety efforts over the next several days. The order also declares a peacetime emergency, which activates the State Emergency Operations Center.
The plan — thus far — is to allow for peaceful demonstrations while keeping a lid on everything else. “As Governor,” Walz said in his statement, “I will always defend the right to protest.” Walz claimed that the National Guard and state trooper will be on hand to protect the protestors just as much as the surrounding businesses. Just how realistic is that plan, though? Once violence starts, police will have to disperse the crowds in order to put an end to it, or even attempt to corral it.
Until this afternoon, the demonstrations and the violence had mainly been concentrated in the Seward neighborhood. Just a couple of hours ago, however, “flash” attacks on police cars in the Midway retail area of Saint Paul began occurring, over four miles away from Minneapolis PD’s 3rd Precinct:
St. Paul police are asking people to avoid parts of the city as crowd sizes increase Thursday. … Meanwhile, dozens of people tried to loot the Midway Target in St. Paul Thursday. According to St. Paul Police, a group of 50 to 60 people tried to overwhelm the store’s staff. However, police arrived and confronted the group, and the people then dropped the items they’d grabbed and fled. … The group also attempted to go into nearby small businesses but were stopped by police.
KSTP has the video from their traffic helicopter, and one of the people in the chopper wonders aloud why the National Guard hadn’t yet been deployed:
That turned out to be a pretty good question.
The city of Maplewood, which is 13 miles to the east of the precinct, warned its citizens not to go to retail outlets either. That is well into the suburbs, not just from Minneapolis but even St. Paul. If they’re worried about this, then …
In a tweet, the Maplewood Police Department warned that “Due to the potential for flash looting in Maplewood, Police are urging people to avoid retail areas until further notice.” St. Paul police dispatched about 40 officers to aid Minneapolis firefighters battling scattered blazes throughout the south side Wednesday night. Those officers since have returned to St. Paul. Suburban malls and businesses in Roseville and Maplewood closed Thursday afternoon in anticipation of looters. Target in Roseville closed midafternoon, with one employee saying looters had already attempted to break in. Police squads, lights on, barred entry into parking lots at both Rosedale and Maplewood malls. Visitors pulled up to storefronts expressing confusion and frustration when they were denied entry.
In other words, batten down the hatches for tonight. Fortunately, our hatches have mostly been battened down anyway, thanks to the COVID-19 restrictions. The National Guard has its work cut out in this instance; perhaps the best we can hope is that this gives an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail before more people end up dead.
Update: This might help quiet things down for tonight:
All bus service throughout the Twin Cities was suspended at 4 p.m. Thursday, joining the halting of light rail lines earlier in the day in anticipation of upcoming demonstrations, a Metro Transit spokesman said. The extraordinary move came after two days and nights of sometimes violent unrest that has persisted since the death of George Floyd at a Minneapolis intersection after he was pinned by the neck by a police officer. While transit spokesman Howie Padilla declined to attribute the suspensions solely to the street violence, “obviously, we take into consideration whatever situations call for, and if we have to err on the side of public safety for riders and employees, we’re going to do that.” It was necessary to impose the shutdown beyond Minneapolis and St. Paul, where the vast majority of the unrest has occurred, because “this is not limited to any single geographic area,” Padilla said.
When will it restart? They’re, um … not saying yet. The only mass transit still running are trains to the airport and the last evening train to the northern suburbs, probably just to ensure most people can get back home for the night.
Update: I guess people could still drive to the protests or riots, but … that’s easier said than done, as our colleague Julio Rosas showed us earlier:


hotair--2020-05-28--Canadian court moves closer to extradition of Chinese Huawei executive to the United States

The legal concept is known as “ double criminality.
” … In their indictment against Ms. Meng , now 48 , United States prosecutors charged Ms. Meng with fraudulently deceiving four banks into making transactions to help Huawei evade United States sanctions against Iran… Prosecutors said Ms. Meng lied to representatives of the bank HSBC in 2013 about Huawei ’ s relationship with Skycom , a company that would clear transactions between Huawei and HSBC in Iran , by saying Skycom was a partner , rather than a subsidiary , of Huawei… Ms. Meng , the eldest daughter of Huawei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of China ’ s most prominent businessmen , has denied the allegations .
Obviously the possibility that the daughter of the founder of one of China ’ s leading companies could wind up in an American court and maybe even in an American jail is not sitting well with Xi Jinping and Chinese nationalists .
The Global Times , which is a state-controlled newspaper , published a piece this week warning of repercussions if the case went against Meng Wanzhou : The Canadian judiciary system ’ s handling of the case will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is why Canada must be careful not to politicize it .
While we have no intention of interfering in the decision of the Canadian court , we hope the Canadian side is aware of the importance of a fair ruling for Chinese people .
A decision that panders to the Trump administration would only lead to a rise in netizen resentment , which would affect bilateral relations between China and Canada .
All of this comes on top of a decision two weeks ago by the Trump administration to limit the sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to that by threatening to place major U.S. companies including Apple , Qualcomm , and Cisco on an “ unreliable entity list.
” The Global Times published a story saying “ China will launch rounds of endless investigations on those firms , just like swords hanging over their head.
” In a sense , all of this is just a small part of an ongoing battle over the degree to which the free world is willing to tolerate China ’ s increasingly odious abuse of human rights in order to pursue business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last fall when the NBA reacted badly after Houtson Rockets general manager Daryl Morey expressed solidarity with pro-freedom protesters in Hong Kong .
The same coaches and players who normally have a lot to say about social justice issues suddenly had nothing critical to say about China .
What are a few mandatory re-education camps between friends after all .
And why make a big deal about the basic freedoms of 7 or 8 million people in Hong Kong when the NBA has exhibition basketball games to play .
The NBA and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all of that hypocrisy , but at some point aren ’ t all U.S. companies relying on China turning the same blind eye to a communist country that is increasingly belligerent and repressive ?
If the loss of freedom for millions in Xinijiang or Hong Kong isn ’ t enough to make us reconsider our engagement with China , what is ?
If China ’ s misbehavior in the South China Sea isn ’ t enough , what is ?
If China ’ s dishonest reaction to the coronavirus outbreak isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before we decide the status quo can ’ t continue ?
Do we need to see an invasion of Taiwan before we decide that maybe it ’ s time to stop pretending Xi Jinping ’ s China is going to change for the better ?
Because that ’ s probably what is coming next .
Japan decided back in April that it would fund firms to move their operations out of China and home to Japan .
Maybe the U.S. needs to start thinking along the same lines .
Update : Meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Ambassador ’ s statement about the Canadian court ’ s decision .
According to China , this is solely about the U.S. desire to damage Huawei .
The statement calls this a “ grave political incident .
”

The relationship between Communist China and the free world, particularly the United States, is disintegrating so quickly that it’s hard to keep up. Yesterday, there was a big development in the ongoing dispute over Chinese technology giant Huawei. Back in 2018, the CFO of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Canada at the request of the U.S. government. The U.S. is seeking to extradite her so she can face charges here for inducing a group of banks to violate sanctions the U.S. placed on Iran. Wednesday a court in Canada ruled that Wanzhou’s extradition met the standard of “double criminality.”
In her decision, Heather Holmes, associate chief justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, found that prosecutors had cleared a fundamental hurdle for Ms. Meng’s extradition under Canadian law — demonstrating that the conduct she is accused of in the United States, if proved, also constitutes a crime in Canada. The legal concept is known as “double criminality.”… In their indictment against Ms. Meng, now 48, United States prosecutors charged Ms. Meng with fraudulently deceiving four banks into making transactions to help Huawei evade United States sanctions against Iran… Prosecutors said Ms. Meng lied to representatives of the bank HSBC in 2013 about Huawei’s relationship with Skycom, a company that would clear transactions between Huawei and HSBC in Iran, by saying Skycom was a partner, rather than a subsidiary, of Huawei… Ms. Meng, the eldest daughter of Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, one of China’s most prominent businessmen, has denied the allegations.
Obviously the possibility that the daughter of the founder of one of China’s leading companies could wind up in an American court and maybe even in an American jail is not sitting well with Xi Jinping and Chinese nationalists. The Global Times, which is a state-controlled newspaper, published a piece this week warning of repercussions if the case went against Meng Wanzhou:
The Canadian judiciary system’s handling of the case will come under scrutiny from Chinese netizens, which is why Canada must be careful not to politicize it. While we have no intention of interfering in the decision of the Canadian court, we hope the Canadian side is aware of the importance of a fair ruling for Chinese people. A decision that panders to the Trump administration would only lead to a rise in netizen resentment, which would affect bilateral relations between China and Canada.
All of this comes on top of a decision two weeks ago by the Trump administration to limit the sales of custom microchips to Huawei. China responded to that by threatening to place major U.S. companies including Apple, Qualcomm, and Cisco on an “unreliable entity list.” The Global Times published a story saying “China will launch rounds of endless investigations on those firms, just like swords hanging over their head.”
In a sense, all of this is just a small part of an ongoing battle over the degree to which the free world is willing to tolerate China’s increasingly odious abuse of human rights in order to pursue business interests. This became a big issue last fall when the NBA reacted badly after Houtson Rockets general manager Daryl Morey expressed solidarity with pro-freedom protesters in Hong Kong. The same coaches and players who normally have a lot to say about social justice issues suddenly had nothing critical to say about China. What are a few mandatory re-education camps between friends after all. And why make a big deal about the basic freedoms of 7 or 8 million people in Hong Kong when the NBA has exhibition basketball games to play.
The NBA and other companies were rightly put on the spot for all of that hypocrisy, but at some point aren’t all U.S. companies relying on China turning the same blind eye to a communist country that is increasingly belligerent and repressive? If the loss of freedom for millions in Xinijiang or Hong Kong isn’t enough to make us reconsider our engagement with China, what is? If China’s misbehavior in the South China Sea isn’t enough, what is? If China’s dishonest reaction to the coronavirus outbreak isn’t enough, what will it take before we decide the status quo can’t continue? Do we need to see an invasion of Taiwan before we decide that maybe it’s time to stop pretending Xi Jinping’s China is going to change for the better? Because that’s probably what is coming next.
Japan decided back in April that it would fund firms to move their operations out of China and home to Japan. Maybe the U.S. needs to start thinking along the same lines.
Update: Meant to include this. Here’s the Chinese Ambassador’s statement about the Canadian court’s decision. According to China, this is solely about the U.S. desire to damage Huawei. The statement calls this a “grave political incident.”


hotair--2020-05-28--Twitter fact-checks more tweets -- from a Chinese spokesman who blamed the U.S. for coronavirus

The New York Post is taking credit for goading them into doing this , which would be amazing if true .
How did Twitter not come up with the idea on its own to pair its fact-checking of Trump with a little fact-checking of some MAGA enemies ?
That would have blunted the criticism that they had it in for the president specifically .
And it would have convinced some critics out of the gate that their dubious new feature may have virtues after all .
If Twitter ’ s going to ding the ChiComs for spreading malevolent misinformation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for pushing misinformation about mail-in ballots , maybe that ’ s a trade worth making .
But no , according to the Post , it took a little well-aimed whataboutism by its reporters to give Twitter the bright idea that more fact-checking might be their way out of the frying pan for now .
Even if it ’ s destined to land them in the fire later by creating unrealistic expectations among users of the platform .
[ W ] hen The Post asked Twitter spokeswoman Liz Kelley whether the company would similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweets , she said they would not add fact-check warnings “ at this time.
” Pressed further for a rationale , Kelley later said the company had changed its mind and “ after further review , we ’ ve added labels to these two tweets.
” In a statement to The Post , Twitter said : “ The tweets in question contain potentially misleading and harmful content about COVID-19 and have been labeled to provide additional context to the public .
This enforcement decision is in line with the approach we shared earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trashiest tweets in recent memory on a platform overflowing with human garbage : Zhao Lijian is the spokesman for China ’ s foreign ministry .
That was official CCP propaganda .
One might ask : Why are Chinese spokesmen allowed to post on Twitter in the first place given that the platform is formally banned in China ( although accessible via simple workarounds , like VPNs ) ?
And if Twitter ’ s going to fact-check Zhao , when will it get around to fact-checking the oceans of other ChiCom propaganda washing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China would be a full-time job for thousands upon thousands of people .
I hope Twitter ’ s ready to make some hires .
Zhao ’ s tweets weren ’ t the only ones they fact-checked yesterday .
This one , much closer to home and more current , was noticed by the Times : The guy in the MAGA hat isn ’ t the cop who killed George Floyd .
Slapping a “ manipulated media ” tag on that tweet is actually a sterling example of how Twitter ’ s new feature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correcting a dangerous , inflammatory mistake before it ’ s had time to gain momentum online .
It ’ s a fact-check in the truest sense too : We can debate the virtues of mail-in ballots , which is what Twitter dinged Trump for , but there ’ s no debating that that ’ s just not the same person in the photos Ice Cube tweeted .
If Twitter ’ s going to keep going with the fact-checks , though , it has to do a better job of marshaling the evidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at when you click the “ Get the facts about COVID-19 ” link that was added to Zhao Lijian ’ s tweet .
It ’ s a hash , almost inscrutable .
It should start by refuting his core claim that the U.S. seeded coronavirus in Wuhan but instead it starts with a Reuters piece noting that COVID-19 originated in animals , not in a lab .
It goes on with that theme via a few tweets from a CNN producer from April , then — more than halfway down the page — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese officials and news outlets have shared unsubstantiated theories that a US lab was the source of the virus ” followed by an excerpt from a New York Times story to that effect .
Anyone who didn ’ t take the trouble to scroll would have missed the refutation of Zhao ’ s point .
In fact , given the influence China has over U.S. media , it ’ s suspicious that the fact-check page leads with a seeming non sequitur that ’ s *favorable* to China .
If you want to punish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , it ’ s weird that the very first thing in your case against them would be an assertion ( from the WHO , of all outfits ) that China didn ’ t let the virus escape from a lab , rather it came from animals .
Which fact is actually being checked here , Twitter ?

The New York Post is taking credit for goading them into doing this, which would be amazing if true.
How did Twitter not come up with the idea on its own to pair its fact-checking of Trump with a little fact-checking of some MAGA enemies? That would have blunted the criticism that they had it in for the president specifically. And it would have convinced some critics out of the gate that their dubious new feature may have virtues after all. If Twitter’s going to ding the ChiComs for spreading malevolent misinformation with geopolitical consequences every time it dings Trump for pushing misinformation about mail-in ballots, maybe that’s a trade worth making.
But no, according to the Post, it took a little well-aimed whataboutism by its reporters to give Twitter the bright idea that more fact-checking might be their way out of the frying pan for now. Even if it’s destined to land them in the fire later by creating unrealistic expectations among users of the platform.
[W]hen The Post asked Twitter spokeswoman Liz Kelley whether the company would similarly annotate Zhao Lijian’s dubious March tweets, she said they would not add fact-check warnings “at this time.” Pressed further for a rationale, Kelley later said the company had changed its mind and “after further review, we’ve added labels to these two tweets.” In a statement to The Post, Twitter said: “The tweets in question contain potentially misleading and harmful content about COVID-19 and have been labeled to provide additional context to the public. This enforcement decision is in line with the approach we shared earlier this month.”
These are indeed among the trashiest tweets in recent memory on a platform overflowing with human garbage:
Zhao Lijian is the spokesman for China’s foreign ministry. That was official CCP propaganda. One might ask: Why are Chinese spokesmen allowed to post on Twitter in the first place given that the platform is formally banned in China (although accessible via simple workarounds, like VPNs)? And if Twitter’s going to fact-check Zhao, when will it get around to fact-checking the oceans of other ChiCom propaganda washing through its servers every day?
Fact-checking China would be a full-time job for thousands upon thousands of people. I hope Twitter’s ready to make some hires.
Zhao’s tweets weren’t the only ones they fact-checked yesterday. This one, much closer to home and more current, was noticed by the Times:
The guy in the MAGA hat isn’t the cop who killed George Floyd. Slapping a “manipulated media” tag on that tweet is actually a sterling example of how Twitter’s new feature really might do some social good by correcting a dangerous, inflammatory mistake before it’s had time to gain momentum online. It’s a fact-check in the truest sense too: We can debate the virtues of mail-in ballots, which is what Twitter dinged Trump for, but there’s no debating that that’s just not the same person in the photos Ice Cube tweeted.
If Twitter’s going to keep going with the fact-checks, though, it has to do a better job of marshaling the evidence. Go look at the page you arrive at when you click the “Get the facts about COVID-19” link that was added to Zhao Lijian’s tweet. It’s a hash, almost inscrutable. It should start by refuting his core claim that the U.S. seeded coronavirus in Wuhan but instead it starts with a Reuters piece noting that COVID-19 originated in animals, not in a lab. It goes on with that theme via a few tweets from a CNN producer from April, then — more than halfway down the page — you finally see a note that “Chinese officials and news outlets have shared unsubstantiated theories that a US lab was the source of the virus” followed by an excerpt from a New York Times story to that effect. Anyone who didn’t take the trouble to scroll would have missed the refutation of Zhao’s point.
In fact, given the influence China has over U.S. media, it’s suspicious that the fact-check page leads with a seeming non sequitur that’s *favorable* to China. If you want to punish the foreign ministry for telling lies about America, it’s weird that the very first thing in your case against them would be an assertion (from the WHO, of all outfits) that China didn’t let the virus escape from a lab, rather it came from animals. Which fact is actually being checked here, Twitter?


hotair--2020-05-28--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Minneapolis shakes, Twitter flakes, Biden's stakes, economy brakes (but

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Minneapolis shakes, Twitter flakes, Biden's stakes, economy brakes (but not breaks), and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll keep track of developments in the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What impact will that have on Joe Biden ’ s running-mate decision ?
Duane and I will debate Trump ’ s EO on Section 230 and how Twitter created a mess for itself , plus take a peek at the best slapfight on Twitter , too !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll keep track of developments in the death of George Floyd right here in Minneapolis. What impact will that have on Joe Biden’s running-mate decision? Duane and I will debate Trump’s EO on Section 230 and how Twitter created a mess for itself, plus take a peek at the best slapfight on Twitter, too!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!