hotair--2020-07-16--Seattle City Council member suggests layoffs by race if police budget is slashed, Chief Best says no

Last week Ed wrote about the push to cut Seattle ’ s police budget by 50 percent .
In response to that , Police Chief Carmen Best released a video to her department warning that some budget cuts were probably coming .
“ I will fiercly advocate that we focus on realistic , responsible solutions not political gestures or pandering or political posturing , ” Best said .
She continued , “ I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away .
That is completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was even tweeted out by the White House : In addition to the video , Chief Best sent a letter to Mayor Durkan warning that dramatic cuts would require the layoff of hundreds of officers .
The letter details some of the ways those cuts would impact the department : “ We would have to significantly cut or eliminate Bike Units , Foot Beats , Community Policing Teams , and Anti-Crime Teams.
” In addition there would be significant cuts to investigators of violent crime , sexual assault burglary , domestic abuse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department also pointed out that cutting staff would result in a less diverse work force .
It produced a graph based upon standard last-hired , first-fired practice of the department which pointed out how many officers from each minority group would probably wind up being fired if the cuts go through : Monday , apparently in response to this graphic and the possibility that a lot of diversity would be lost , City Council member Lisa Herbold , who supports the 50 % cut , suggested that perhaps the police could lay off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herbold thinks Chief Best can and should argue for firing more senior white officers in order to maintain the more recently hired “ BIPOC officers.
” Wouldn ’ t firing people based on skin color violate federal anti-discrimination law , specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ?
Herbold obviously believes it would not but Chief Best says her lawyers are telling her differently .
“ It is illegal to make layoffs based on race and so I ’ m not sure where she is getting her legal advice from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are making sure we understand that it ’ s illegal to do that , ” Best said in an interview with a local news station .
Here ’ s the report featuring Chief Best , who remains a lone voice of sanity among officials in the city of Seattle .
Below that is Chief Best ’ s statement to her department about the coming cuts .

Last week Ed wrote about the push to cut Seattle’s police budget by 50 percent. In response to that, Police Chief Carmen Best released a video to her department warning that some budget cuts were probably coming. “I will fiercly advocate that we focus on realistic, responsible solutions not political gestures or pandering or political posturing,” Best said. She continued, “I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless.” That phrase made news and was even tweeted out by the White House:
"I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless," said Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. City Council has advocated her department’s budget be cut 50 percent. https://t.co/RNfTyFWYBw — The White House 45 Archived (@WhiteHouse45) July 13, 2020
In addition to the video, Chief Best sent a letter to Mayor Durkan warning that dramatic cuts would require the layoff of hundreds of officers. The letter details some of the ways those cuts would impact the department: “We would have to significantly cut or eliminate Bike Units, Foot Beats, Community Policing Teams, and Anti-Crime Teams.” In addition there would be significant cuts to investigators of violent crime, sexual assault burglary, domestic abuse, fraud, etc.
The public affairs department also pointed out that cutting staff would result in a less diverse work force. It produced a graph based upon standard last-hired, first-fired practice of the department which pointed out how many officers from each minority group would probably wind up being fired if the cuts go through:
Cuts this deep mean we would lose more than 50% of our (BIPOC) officers. These officers’ life experiences make us a better department and community. 4/4 https://t.co/r0JgDaTEu1 pic.twitter.com/4UbecEXPpM — Seattle Police Dept. (@SeattlePD) July 10, 2020
Monday, apparently in response to this graphic and the possibility that a lot of diversity would be lost, City Council member Lisa Herbold, who supports the 50% cut, suggested that perhaps the police could lay off officers by race:
This means Chief doesn’t have to fire the newest hired first. Chief says firing BIPOC members of the SPD would be harmful & I agree. I know she can argue just as convincingly that maintaining the employment of BIPOC officers is in the interest of efficient operations of the SPD. — Lisa Herbold (@Lisa_Herbold) July 13, 2020
In short, Herbold thinks Chief Best can and should argue for firing more senior white officers in order to maintain the more recently hired “BIPOC officers.” Wouldn’t firing people based on skin color violate federal anti-discrimination law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Herbold obviously believes it would not but Chief Best says her lawyers are telling her differently.
“It is illegal to make layoffs based on race and so I’m not sure where she is getting her legal advice from but the persons who are advising us are making sure we understand that it’s illegal to do that,” Best said in an interview with a local news station. Here’s the report featuring Chief Best, who remains a lone voice of sanity among officials in the city of Seattle. Below that is Chief Best’s statement to her department about the coming cuts.


hotair--2020-07-16--Whodunit solved? Yesterday's cryptocurrency-scam hack on Twitter sure looks like an inside job; <spa

Whodunit solved? Yesterday's cryptocurrency-scam hack on Twitter sure looks like an inside job; Update: Twitter denies

Just how did hackers get to so many high-profile Twitter accounts at once in yesterday ’ s cryptocurrency-scam disruption ?
Vice has an answer , and it won ’ t bolster confidence in the social-media platform .
According to its sources and screenshots received by Vice subsidiary Motherboard , the hack was an inside job : A Twitter insider was responsible for a wave of high profile account takeovers on Wednesday , according to leaked screenshots obtained by Motherboard and two sources who took over accounts .
On Wednesday , a spike of high profile accounts including those of Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barack Obama , Uber , and Apple tweeted cryptocurrency scams in an apparent hack .
“ We used a rep that literally done all the work for us , ” one of the sources told Motherboard .
The second source added they paid the Twitter insider .
Motherboard granted the sources anonymity to speak candidly about a security incident .
A Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard that the company is still investigating whether the employee hijacked the accounts themselves or gave hackers access to the tool .
The accounts were taken over using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the sources , as well as screenshots of the tool obtained by Motherboard .
One of the screenshots shows the panel and the account of Binance ; Binance is one of the accounts that hackers took over today .
According to screenshots seen by Motherboard , at least some of the accounts appear to have been compromised by changing the email address associated with them using the tool .
In all , Vice has four sources all saying the same thing .
And it makes a lot more sense than a brute-force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into one prominent blue-check account might not be terribly difficult ; it ’ s tough to imagine that Joe Biden adheres strictly to the best practices , for instance , although the Secret Service probably forces Donald Trump ( not hacked , notably , in this instance ) to do so .
But to get to so many and exploit them all at once would have taken months to coordinate , if not years .
The resource and opportunity costs would have made such a project completely impractical .
Rather than attack multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scammers chose to solve the Gordian knot by simply cutting right through it .
They paid off an insider , who opened a single point of failure .
At least , that ’ s what Vice ’ s sources say , and it makes the most sense .
Twitter is acknowledging it too , although they ’ re not sure whether the insider got paid off or was part of the hacking team [ see update below ] : Twitter told Motherboard that it ’ s still investigating whether its employee allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to take over the accounts themselves .
The company referred The Post ’ s questions to its Wednesday statement on the attack , which acknowledged that hackers “ successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools , ” and used that access to take control of high-profile accounts owned by Apple , Uber , Kanye West and others .
San Francisco-based Twitter said it has moved to limit access to its internal systems and tools while it investigates the incident , which it called “ a coordinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re looking into what other malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed , ” Twitter said in a series of tweets .
Still to be explained , however , is what the hackers actually gained from this .
Reportedly they scammed people out of around $ 100,000 worth of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies , but that ’ s a rather paltry sum for all that effort .
The Washington Post reports that security experts are breathing a sigh of relief that money was all they apparently got : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts on Twitter before , including Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey last year .
But the widespread nature of this attack suggested an unusually broad access to internal controls .
While it was unclear how the attacks originated or why they went on for hours , some cybersecurity experts speculated that someone may have gained access to internal Twitter controls that allowed them to take over and post on the accounts .
“ This is massive , ” said cybersecurity expert Rachel Tobac , the CEO of SocialProof Security .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve ever seen .
We are extremely lucky that these attackers are monetarily motivated and not sowing mass chaos all over the world.
” The Hill ’ s Saagar Enjeti made the same point shortly after the blue-checks were freed from their digital cages : One solution to that would be to demand better security from Twitter .
( Josh Hawley has already demanded some answers from Jack Dorsey about how Twitter plans to prevent this in the future . )
Perhaps even better , the rest of us can stop taking Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some verification before assuming that a tweet represents actual reality .
This hack might actually produce that kind of result , an unintended consequence of this scam project .
Would it be an “ unintended ” consequence , though ?
It ’ s tough to say without any firm understanding of the intent behind this hack .
One hundred grand isn ’ t exactly an afterthought , but it ’ s not that much money for a whole lot of risk , especially when its operation was practically guaranteed to point back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bullet , but maybe we haven ’ t heard the last of the gunfire , either .
Update : Twitter denies that the hack came from the inside , or at least denies that they have determined anything like that : Twitter has denied that any of its employees participated in a massive platform breach aimed at scamming users , instead blaming a social engineering attack that allowed the perpetrator to access an administrative control panel .
“ Our investigation is still ongoing , ” the company said in a statement posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We detected what we believe to be a coordinated social engineering attack by people who successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools .
We know they used this access to take control of many highly-visible ( including verified ) accounts and Tweet on their behalf .
We ’ re looking into what other malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed and will share more here as we have it.
” If outsiders can access those tools , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @

Just how did hackers get to so many high-profile Twitter accounts at once in yesterday’s cryptocurrency-scam disruption? Vice has an answer, and it won’t bolster confidence in the social-media platform. According to its sources and screenshots received by Vice subsidiary Motherboard, the hack was an inside job:
A Twitter insider was responsible for a wave of high profile account takeovers on Wednesday, according to leaked screenshots obtained by Motherboard and two sources who took over accounts. On Wednesday, a spike of high profile accounts including those of Joe Biden, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Uber, and Apple tweeted cryptocurrency scams in an apparent hack. “We used a rep that literally done all the work for us,” one of the sources told Motherboard. The second source added they paid the Twitter insider. Motherboard granted the sources anonymity to speak candidly about a security incident. A Twitter spokesperson told Motherboard that the company is still investigating whether the employee hijacked the accounts themselves or gave hackers access to the tool. The accounts were taken over using an internal tool at Twitter, according to the sources, as well as screenshots of the tool obtained by Motherboard. One of the screenshots shows the panel and the account of Binance; Binance is one of the accounts that hackers took over today. According to screenshots seen by Motherboard, at least some of the accounts appear to have been compromised by changing the email address associated with them using the tool.
In all, Vice has four sources all saying the same thing. And it makes a lot more sense than a brute-force attack on Twitter, too. Hacking into one prominent blue-check account might not be terribly difficult; it’s tough to imagine that Joe Biden adheres strictly to the best practices, for instance, although the Secret Service probably forces Donald Trump (not hacked, notably, in this instance) to do so. But to get to so many and exploit them all at once would have taken months to coordinate, if not years. The resource and opportunity costs would have made such a project completely impractical.
Rather than attack multiple points of potential failure, however, the scammers chose to solve the Gordian knot by simply cutting right through it. They paid off an insider, who opened a single point of failure. At least, that’s what Vice’s sources say, and it makes the most sense.
Twitter is acknowledging it too, although they’re not sure whether the insider got paid off or was part of the hacking team [see update below]:
Twitter told Motherboard that it’s still investigating whether its employee allowed hackers to access the tool or used it to take over the accounts themselves. The company referred The Post’s questions to its Wednesday statement on the attack, which acknowledged that hackers “successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools,” and used that access to take control of high-profile accounts owned by Apple, Uber, Kanye West and others. San Francisco-based Twitter said it has moved to limit access to its internal systems and tools while it investigates the incident, which it called “a coordinated social engineering attack.” “We’re looking into what other malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed,” Twitter said in a series of tweets.
Still to be explained, however, is what the hackers actually gained from this. Reportedly they scammed people out of around $100,000 worth of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, but that’s a rather paltry sum for all that effort. The Washington Post reports that security experts are breathing a sigh of relief that money was all they apparently got:
There have been hacks of high-profile individual accounts on Twitter before, including Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey last year. But the widespread nature of this attack suggested an unusually broad access to internal controls. While it was unclear how the attacks originated or why they went on for hours, some cybersecurity experts speculated that someone may have gained access to internal Twitter controls that allowed them to take over and post on the accounts. “This is massive,” said cybersecurity expert Rachel Tobac, the CEO of SocialProof Security. “This is most likely the largest attack I’ve ever seen. We are extremely lucky that these attackers are monetarily motivated and not sowing mass chaos all over the world.”
The Hill’s Saagar Enjeti made the same point shortly after the blue-checks were freed from their digital cages:
Today it's a crypto scam. But this is really serious. Imagine if these were political extremists or hackers trying to ignite war with North Korea or Iran. Or an insider trading plot to crash the economy with false information What a nightmare https://t.co/NtSNXpCvy3 — Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) July 15, 2020
One solution to that would be to demand better security from Twitter. (Josh Hawley has already demanded some answers from Jack Dorsey about how Twitter plans to prevent this in the future.) Perhaps even better, the rest of us can stop taking Twitter so seriously, or at least demand some verification before assuming that a tweet represents actual reality. This hack might actually produce that kind of result, an unintended consequence of this scam project.
Would it be an “unintended” consequence, though? It’s tough to say without any firm understanding of the intent behind this hack. One hundred grand isn’t exactly an afterthought, but it’s not that much money for a whole lot of risk, especially when its operation was practically guaranteed to point back to an internal source. Maybe we dodged a bullet, but maybe we haven’t heard the last of the gunfire, either.
Update: Twitter denies that the hack came from the inside, or at least denies that they have determined anything like that:
Twitter has denied that any of its employees participated in a massive platform breach aimed at scamming users, instead blaming a social engineering attack that allowed the perpetrator to access an administrative control panel. “Our investigation is still ongoing,” the company said in a statement posted on its public “support” account. “We detected what we believe to be a coordinated social engineering attack by people who successfully targeted some of our employees with access to internal systems and tools. We know they used this access to take control of many highly-visible (including verified) accounts and Tweet on their behalf. We’re looking into what other malicious activity they may have conducted or information they may have accessed and will share more here as we have it.”
If outsiders can access those tools, it’s an even bigger problem.


hotair--2020-07-17--Rumble in Hotlanta: The Gov vs. Mayor face mask throwdown

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the pending court battle between Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is that it took this long for a lawsuit like this to reach the courts during the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic .
The situation began to approach the boiling point when Kemp issued an executive order stating that no county , municipal or local governments would be allowed to mandate the use of face masks or other personal protective equipment or impose penalties on citizens who are not in compliance .
For her part , Mayor Lance Bottoms had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order until she and her husband contracted the virus themselves .
Then she had a change of heart , defying the Governor ’ s order .
That brings us to last night when the Governor and the Attorney General announced that they would be taking the Mayor to court to prevent her from enforcing the face mask order .
( Associated Press ) Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp is suing Atlanta ’ s mayor and city council to block the city from enforcing its mandate to wear a mask in public and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kemp and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr , in a suit filed in state court late Thursday in Atlanta , argue that Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has overstepped her authority and must obey Kemp ’ s executive orders under state law .
“ Governor Kemp must be allowed , as the chief executive of this state , to manage the public health emergency without Mayor Bottoms issuing void and unenforceable orders which only serve to confuse the public , ” the lawsuit states .
Kemp on Wednesday clarified his executive orders to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other local governments across the state from requiring people to wear face coverings .
As of this morning , Lance Bottoms is still remaining defiant .
She almost immediately issued a statement saying , “ If being sued by the state is what it takes to save lives in Atlanta , then we will see them in court.
” As to the validity of the Governor ’ s order and the grounds for his objections , neither is entirely clear .
He and the DA claim that his order is enforceable on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the specific provisions providing for such an order weren ’ t provided .
His objection to the Atlanta face mask rule , according to the lawsuit , is that it ’ s “ void and unenforceable ” and may serve to “ confuse the public.
” Of course , since we ’ re talking about an executive order issued during a declared state of emergency , he generally doesn ’ t have to provide much of a reason to begin with .
This showdown could ( and very likely will ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the Governor ’ s office is held by the opposite party as the mayorship in some of their cities .
Texas comes to mind immediately , but there are plenty of other examples .
So the question before us is which level of government is superior ?
Keep in mind that these are all extraordinary orders that have not been enacted into law by any legislature .
Individual executives are issuing these orders entirely on their own .
If the Governor can issue an executive order that overrides the authority of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President issue orders that overrule the decisions of the governors ?
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution is frequently invoked in such cases .
It tells us that the Constitution , federal laws made pursuant to it , and treaties made under its authority , constitute the “ supreme Law of the Land ” , and take priority over any conflicting state laws .
Similar clauses can be found in most state constitutions , establishing the power of the state government .
But in this case , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
As noted above , no legislative body has considered and approved either Keisha Lance Bottoms ’ face mask order or the Governor ’ s mandate against any such rules .
So does any version of the Supremacy Clause actually apply here ?
This could be a very interesting question for the courts to take up , though the question has been raised before with mixed results .
We generally think of executive orders in terms of Presidents , but Governors hold many similar , sweeping powers during a state of emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such orders are allowable and carry the force of law , but only if they are in keeping with the federal or state constitution in question .
Would Governor Kemp ’ s order pass muster in that regard ?
We may find out from the state supreme court in short order .

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the pending court battle between Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is that it took this long for a lawsuit like this to reach the courts during the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. The situation began to approach the boiling point when Kemp issued an executive order stating that no county, municipal or local governments would be allowed to mandate the use of face masks or other personal protective equipment or impose penalties on citizens who are not in compliance. For her part, Mayor Lance Bottoms had resisted the urge to issue such an order until she and her husband contracted the virus themselves. Then she had a change of heart, defying the Governor’s order. That brings us to last night when the Governor and the Attorney General announced that they would be taking the Mayor to court to prevent her from enforcing the face mask order. (Associated Press)
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is suing Atlanta’s mayor and city council to block the city from enforcing its mandate to wear a mask in public and other rules related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Kemp and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, in a suit filed in state court late Thursday in Atlanta, argue that Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has overstepped her authority and must obey Kemp’s executive orders under state law. “Governor Kemp must be allowed, as the chief executive of this state, to manage the public health emergency without Mayor Bottoms issuing void and unenforceable orders which only serve to confuse the public,” the lawsuit states. Kemp on Wednesday clarified his executive orders to expressly block Atlanta and at least 14 other local governments across the state from requiring people to wear face coverings.
As of this morning, Lance Bottoms is still remaining defiant. She almost immediately issued a statement saying, “If being sued by the state is what it takes to save lives in Atlanta, then we will see them in court.”
As to the validity of the Governor’s order and the grounds for his objections, neither is entirely clear. He and the DA claim that his order is enforceable on all local and municipal officials under state law, but the specific provisions providing for such an order weren’t provided. His objection to the Atlanta face mask rule, according to the lawsuit, is that it’s “void and unenforceable” and may serve to “confuse the public.” Of course, since we’re talking about an executive order issued during a declared state of emergency, he generally doesn’t have to provide much of a reason to begin with.
This showdown could (and very likely will) be mirrored in pretty much any state where the Governor’s office is held by the opposite party as the mayorship in some of their cities. Texas comes to mind immediately, but there are plenty of other examples.
So the question before us is which level of government is superior? Keep in mind that these are all extraordinary orders that have not been enacted into law by any legislature. Individual executives are issuing these orders entirely on their own. If the Governor can issue an executive order that overrides the authority of a mayor or county executive, can the President issue orders that overrule the decisions of the governors?
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution is frequently invoked in such cases. It tells us that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and take priority over any conflicting state laws. Similar clauses can be found in most state constitutions, establishing the power of the state government. But in this case, we’re not talking about any “laws” here. As noted above, no legislative body has considered and approved either Keisha Lance Bottoms’ face mask order or the Governor’s mandate against any such rules. So does any version of the Supremacy Clause actually apply here?
This could be a very interesting question for the courts to take up, though the question has been raised before with mixed results. We generally think of executive orders in terms of Presidents, but Governors hold many similar, sweeping powers during a state of emergency. The courts have generally held that such orders are allowable and carry the force of law, but only if they are in keeping with the federal or state constitution in question. Would Governor Kemp’s order pass muster in that regard? We may find out from the state supreme court in short order.


hotair--2020-07-16--U.S. sets new daily record with 71,000 confirmed COVID cases, highest deaths since late May

The silver lining is that we also set a new daily record on tests with more than 830,000 conducted .
But if you ’ re thinking that the case count is an artifact of that , check out the graph on hospitalizations .
Clearly infections are rising in the population if we ’ re seeing a trend like this : It ’ s mostly happening in the south and California , but not exclusively : Stat has a long piece out today assessing America ’ s struggle with the virus as essentially “ Sweden but worse.
” Sweden had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) things open but relied on citizens to use good judgment and voluntarily isolate from each other .
They also had a uniform national policy to solve the problem of outbreaks in “ lax ” areas bleeding over into “ strict ” ones .
And there was no hyperventilating about the virus being some sort of hoax , leading people to take it less seriously .
“ In some ways you could say we ’ re doing Sweden , but unintentionally , ” said an American epidemiologist of how things have shaken out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns , but in our case many people aren ’ t showing good judgment about socializing .
We don ’ t have a national policy and realistically couldn ’ t have one due to federalism .
There ’ s lots of paranoia surrounding the virus , from the efficacy of masks to proper attribution of cause of death .
Result : Sweden ’ s suffered a high number of deaths per capita but their epidemic isn ’ t raging the way ours is .
It ’ s depressing enough to lead some to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New York , and European hot spots — have reached herd immunity without realizing it .
There ’ s lots of chatter lately about chunks of the population maybe having immunity to the virus due to T-cells instead of antibodies .
It could be that the reason New York City ’ s case counts remain ultra-low is that everyone there has either died from infection , developed antibodies , or fought the virus off via T-cells .
There ’ s nowhere left for SARS-CoV-2 to go locally .
If that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Florida , and Arizona are en route to the same outcome .
The wrinkle in that hopeful theory is that New York ( and Sweden , to a lesser extent ) paid a steep price in order to reach immunity .
Tate Reeves , the governor of Mississippi , did a little back-of-the-envelope math on Twitter a few nights ago to try to reckon with what herd immunity would require in his state : Even if the threshold for herd immunity is much lower than scientists expect due to T-cells , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pain on the path to achieving it .
The only person who ’ s happy with New York ’ s performance on COVID-19 is Andrew Cuomo .
Another thing New York and Sweden have in common is devastating outbreaks in their nursing homes , a key driver of the high death tolls in both jurisdictions .
The story of America ’ s “ second wave ” until recently was that the virus was mostly spreading among young adults , which helped explain why for weeks the number of daily deaths nationally didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s begun to change .
Yesterday 52 people tested positive at a single nursing home in Austin , Texas .
More than 1,800 infections in nursing homes across Texas have been reported since last Friday .
The rest of the Sun Belt is seeing the same trend : Facilities in the Houston and Tampa metropolitan areas marked a nearly 800 % cumulative increase in new cases among residents from the last week of May through the week ended June 28 , the most recent period available , with more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both cities .
In Phoenix , the increase topped 900 % , more than three times the national increase , as nursing homes reported 545 new cases .
Data from Miami and San Antonio nursing homes showed fast growth in cases as well .
“ We first see it in the community , and then we see it in the residents and staff , and then you see the deaths , ” said David Grabowski , a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies nursing homes .
“ As it spreads to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much farther along than we were in the Northeastern states in March and April ” in efforts to shield residents from the virus , he said… The latest data also show nursing homes in some hard-hit areas still struggle to obtain protective equipment needed to slow the virus ’ s spread .
In the Phoenix area , for instance , 25 % of facilities reported in the federal data having less than a week ’ s supply of at least one category of protective gear , such as masks , gloves and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final week .
What sort of death toll in nursing homes might be required in order for Texas and Florida to reach herd immunity ?
Given all the ominous and discouraging data lately , we ’ re left to wonder if there wasn ’ t a political motivation for this : It ’ s hard to see why the White House would snatch away data-gathering duties on COVID-19 from the CDC in the middle of a pandemic and hand it to a more politicized agency like HHS unless they were hoping to suppress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reasons .
But that theory is compromised by the fact that the states all publish their own numbers .
The COVID Tracking Project data that forms the basis for this post is based on state data , not the CDC .
In fact , as I write this , there *is* data on the CDC webpage that ’ s featured in Ornstein ’ s tweet ( although it ’ s from two days ago , not current ) .
Has the White House relented ?
Unless the states stop publishing their individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way for Team Trump to hide the ball on how bad the pandemic is .
Plus , according to the Times , Deborah Birx was part of the plan to move data-gathering from the CDC to HHS .
Unless she ’ s in on the alleged cover-up , I ’ m not sure what the allegation here is .
I ’ ll leave you with this tweet , which neatly encapsulates the sterling American effort in managing coronavirus :

The silver lining is that we also set a new daily record on tests with more than 830,000 conducted. But if you’re thinking that the case count is an artifact of that, check out the graph on hospitalizations. Clearly infections are rising in the population if we’re seeing a trend like this:
Our updates is published. States reported a record number of tests (831k) and cases (71k). At 977, the reported death count is the highest since May 29. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 rose to a level we haven’t seen since April 23. pic.twitter.com/wiybSfnetX — The COVID Tracking Project (@COVID19Tracking) July 16, 2020
It’s mostly happening in the south and California, but not exclusively:
Cases are moving up not only because of the known hotspot states, but because the surge is broadening. Nine states reported over 2000 new cases today. pic.twitter.com/Sd3yZBqiZH — The COVID Tracking Project (@COVID19Tracking) July 16, 2020
Stat has a long piece out today assessing America’s struggle with the virus as essentially “Sweden but worse.” Sweden had a deliberate strategy: They kept (most) things open but relied on citizens to use good judgment and voluntarily isolate from each other. They also had a uniform national policy to solve the problem of outbreaks in “lax” areas bleeding over into “strict” ones. And there was no hyperventilating about the virus being some sort of hoax, leading people to take it less seriously. “In some ways you could say we’re doing Sweden, but unintentionally,” said an American epidemiologist of how things have shaken out here by contrast. We ended the lockdowns, but in our case many people aren’t showing good judgment about socializing. We don’t have a national policy and realistically couldn’t have one due to federalism. There’s lots of paranoia surrounding the virus, from the efficacy of masks to proper attribution of cause of death.
Result: Sweden’s suffered a high number of deaths per capita but their epidemic isn’t raging the way ours is. It’s depressing enough to lead some to grasp at the possibility that Sweden — and New York, and European hot spots — have reached herd immunity without realizing it. There’s lots of chatter lately about chunks of the population maybe having immunity to the virus due to T-cells instead of antibodies. It could be that the reason New York City’s case counts remain ultra-low is that everyone there has either died from infection, developed antibodies, or fought the virus off via T-cells. There’s nowhere left for SARS-CoV-2 to go locally. If that’s what happened in NYC, maybe Texas, Florida, and Arizona are en route to the same outcome.
The wrinkle in that hopeful theory is that New York (and Sweden, to a lesser extent) paid a steep price in order to reach immunity. Tate Reeves, the governor of Mississippi, did a little back-of-the-envelope math on Twitter a few nights ago to try to reckon with what herd immunity would require in his state:
The experts say we need 70-80% of the population to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. Let’s assume they’re wrong (it’s certainly possible, they have been before.) Let’s assume they’re being way overly cautious and we actually only need 40% infection for herd immunity. — Tate Reeves (@tatereeves) July 13, 2020
Over the last two weeks, our hospital system has started to become stressed to the point of pain. We are seeing the early signs and effects of it becoming overwhelmed. We had to suspend elective surgeries again. — Tate Reeves (@tatereeves) July 13, 2020
I’m not one of these guys that immediately dismisses any idea that challenges the expert status quo talking points. I’m pretty skeptical by nature. That’s healthy. But herd immunity is not anything like a realistic solution in the short or mid-term. I wish it was. — Tate Reeves (@tatereeves) July 13, 2020
Even if the threshold for herd immunity is much lower than scientists expect due to T-cells, there’s still going to be plenty of pain on the path to achieving it. The only person who’s happy with New York’s performance on COVID-19 is Andrew Cuomo.
Another thing New York and Sweden have in common is devastating outbreaks in their nursing homes, a key driver of the high death tolls in both jurisdictions. The story of America’s “second wave” until recently was that the virus was mostly spreading among young adults, which helped explain why for weeks the number of daily deaths nationally didn’t rise. Recently, though, that’s begun to change. Yesterday 52 people tested positive at a single nursing home in Austin, Texas. More than 1,800 infections in nursing homes across Texas have been reported since last Friday. The rest of the Sun Belt is seeing the same trend:
Facilities in the Houston and Tampa metropolitan areas marked a nearly 800% cumulative increase in new cases among residents from the last week of May through the week ended June 28, the most recent period available, with more than 400 new cases during that period in both cities. In Phoenix, the increase topped 900%, more than three times the national increase, as nursing homes reported 545 new cases. Data from Miami and San Antonio nursing homes showed fast growth in cases as well. “We first see it in the community, and then we see it in the residents and staff, and then you see the deaths,” said David Grabowski, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies nursing homes. “As it spreads to these new states, we’re not that much farther along than we were in the Northeastern states in March and April” in efforts to shield residents from the virus, he said… The latest data also show nursing homes in some hard-hit areas still struggle to obtain protective equipment needed to slow the virus’s spread. In the Phoenix area, for instance, 25% of facilities reported in the federal data having less than a week’s supply of at least one category of protective gear, such as masks, gloves and hand sanitizer, in June’s final week.
What sort of death toll in nursing homes might be required in order for Texas and Florida to reach herd immunity?
Given all the ominous and discouraging data lately, we’re left to wonder if there wasn’t a political motivation for this:
I had hoped it was a glitch, but no…The @CDCgov hospital capacity dashboard has gone dark. @CDCDirector has said CDC still has access to the data but apparently the public no longer does. pic.twitter.com/FyRt7YHvKc — Charles Ornstein (@charlesornstein) July 16, 2020
It’s hard to see why the White House would snatch away data-gathering duties on COVID-19 from the CDC in the middle of a pandemic and hand it to a more politicized agency like HHS unless they were hoping to suppress some or all of the numbers for political reasons. But that theory is compromised by the fact that the states all publish their own numbers. The COVID Tracking Project data that forms the basis for this post is based on state data, not the CDC. In fact, as I write this, there *is* data on the CDC webpage that’s featured in Ornstein’s tweet (although it’s from two days ago, not current). Has the White House relented? Unless the states stop publishing their individual daily numbers, there’s no way for Team Trump to hide the ball on how bad the pandemic is. Plus, according to the Times, Deborah Birx was part of the plan to move data-gathering from the CDC to HHS. Unless she’s in on the alleged cover-up, I’m not sure what the allegation here is.
I’ll leave you with this tweet, which neatly encapsulates the sterling American effort in managing coronavirus:


hotair--2020-07-16--Walmart, Kroger weigh in on national debate: Here is how your next shopping trip will be different

Two of the country ’ s largest retailers have jumped feet first into the national debate on face masks .
Both Walmart and Kroger have decided that all customers must wear a face mask in order to shop in their stores , regardless of local mandates .
It doesn ’ t matter if your town doesn ’ t require face masks in public if you are headed out to Walmart or Kroger , grab one on your way out the door .
Lots of local stores have put the policy into place , this is not anything new for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nationwide mandate for customers .
It ’ s a blanket , one-size-fits-all approach that overrides local government .
Noting there is no nationwide federal rule , the retail giants are putting their own policy into effect for every store in the United States , which number more than 8.000 .
Walmart stated , “ We know this is a simple step everyone can take for their safety and the safety of others.
” This action led to other companies coming forward with national policy , too .
Wednesday was the day that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other companies that already made the same decision went into effect .
Walmart and Kroger have kept their stores open through the pandemic and required workers to wear masks , but like most retailers they previously followed local guidelines for shoppers .
“ We recognize additional precautions are needed to protect our country , ” Kroger said .
Other chains made similar moves after Walmart ’ s announcement Wednesday , including Kohl ’ s Corp. , which operates about 1,000 department stores , and Panera Bread , which has about 2,000 restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had previously adopted mask rules that kicked in on Wednesday .
This may get a little awkward .
Walmart is headquartered in Arkansas , a state without a face mask mandate , and Kroger is headquartered in Ohio which only mandates masks for the most severely affected counties .
The reason there is no nationwide mandate is that it isn ’ t necessary .
In many places in the country , especially rural areas , it is perfectly understandable that people don ’ t feel the urgency of wearing a face mask .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus hot spots , especially those who are most susceptible to the virus .
I wear a mask because I live in a large city and the coronavirus is very much with us .
While out running some errands yesterday afternoon , every person I saw , outside of those in their cars , was wearing one , too .
I admit it gave me a sense of relief .
The face mask wars are real .
The issue has been politicized and it is absolutely a 2020 kind of craziness .
Wear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s your choice because you accept the risks involved with your decision .
And , we all remember how opinions have changed from the beginning of the pandemic when the CDC , Dr. Fauci , the Surgeon General , and every ‘ expert ’ around was telling us that wearing a mask wasn ’ t necessary to mitigate the outbreak .
Now , organizations are weighing in on the hot button topic .
Take , for instance , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differing rules have prompted business leaders to call on the White House and state leaders to adopt a national mask policy .
“ Issuing voluntary guidance on masks is insufficient to protect public health ” and risks continued community spread and a new round of shutdowns , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , National Retail Federation and other business groups wrote in a July 2 letter to the White House and governors .
“ Retailers are protecting the health and safety of communities they serve , ” the NRF said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to set politics aside and follow their example.
” The industry group called on all retailers to adopt nationwide mask policies , saying Walmart ’ s decision was a tipping point in the debate .
Face masks may not completely protect you from the virus but they slow the spread of airborne particles .
There is still much that we don ’ t know about the coronavirus and medical opinions have remained fluid .
So far , only ten large retail chains have mandatory mask policies for all of their stores .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are Starbucks , Costco , H-E-B , Dollar Tree , the Apple store , Verizon , AT & T , and Menards in case you feel a boycott coming on .
Most retailers continue to take their cues from local and state governments .
Retailers are keeping an eye on others and adjusting accordingly .
None of them wanted to be the first to implement a blanket mandate for all stores and feel the wrath of unsatisfied customers .
And most companies want to stay out of political fights .
Meanwhile , lots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks .
Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan is on the record that mask-wearing leads to America ’ s economic recovery .
“ If we all wore a mask , it would substantially mute the transmission of this disease , and we would grow faster , ” Kaplan told FOX Business .
“ We would have a lower unemployment rate , we ’ d grow faster , and we ’ d be far less likely to slow some of our reopenings .
But we ’ ve been uneven so far on our mask-wearing.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d probably hear from me , while monetary and fiscal policy have a key role to play , the primary economic policy from here is broad mask-wearing and good execution of these health care protocols , ” Kaplan said .
“ If we do that , we ’ ll grow faster.
” Kaplan said he still anticipates the economy to shrink by an unprecedented 35 percent in the second quarter but projected it will grow in the third and fourth quarters , putting the economy on track to shrink by about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goldman Sachs analyst note earlier this week reached a similar conclusion about the efficacy of masks on insulating the economy from further virus-related damage .
The Goldman research team , led by chief economist Jan Hatzius , concluded that a national mask mandate would save 5 percent of the nation ’ s GDP , the broadest measure of goods and services produced in the country .
“ The economic benefit from a face mask mandate and increased face mask usage could be sizable , ” they wrote .
Even financial experts are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounds confident that his opinion is correct while the Goldman Sachs statement is more nuanced .
The use of the word “ could ” , as in the last sentence above , signals uncertainty .
That ’ s the problem in a nutshell .
We ’ ve been dealing with the coronavirus for over four months and there is still so much we do not know with certainty .
Even as a mask-wearer myself , I don ’ t think a nationwide policy and a one-size-fits-all approach is a winning solution .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as I was submitting this post , this tweet popped up about Target joining the others in a nationwide mandate policy .
So , there you go .
Look for the trend to continue .

Two of the country’s largest retailers have jumped feet first into the national debate on face masks. Both Walmart and Kroger have decided that all customers must wear a face mask in order to shop in their stores, regardless of local mandates. It doesn’t matter if your town doesn’t require face masks in public if you are headed out to Walmart or Kroger, grab one on your way out the door.
Lots of local stores have put the policy into place, this is not anything new for them. This is news because this is a nationwide mandate for customers. It’s a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach that overrides local government. Noting there is no nationwide federal rule, the retail giants are putting their own policy into effect for every store in the United States, which number more than 8.000. Walmart stated, “We know this is a simple step everyone can take for their safety and the safety of others.” This action led to other companies coming forward with national policy, too. Wednesday was the day that a national mask policy for a couple of other companies that already made the same decision went into effect.
Walmart and Kroger have kept their stores open through the pandemic and required workers to wear masks, but like most retailers they previously followed local guidelines for shoppers. “We recognize additional precautions are needed to protect our country,” Kroger said. Other chains made similar moves after Walmart’s announcement Wednesday, including Kohl’s Corp., which operates about 1,000 department stores, and Panera Bread, which has about 2,000 restaurants. Best Buy Co. and Starbucks Corp. had previously adopted mask rules that kicked in on Wednesday.
This may get a little awkward. Walmart is headquartered in Arkansas, a state without a face mask mandate, and Kroger is headquartered in Ohio which only mandates masks for the most severely affected counties. The reason there is no nationwide mandate is that it isn’t necessary. In many places in the country, especially rural areas, it is perfectly understandable that people don’t feel the urgency of wearing a face mask. It is different for people living in coronavirus hot spots, especially those who are most susceptible to the virus. I wear a mask because I live in a large city and the coronavirus is very much with us. While out running some errands yesterday afternoon, every person I saw, outside of those in their cars, was wearing one, too. I admit it gave me a sense of relief.
The face mask wars are real. The issue has been politicized and it is absolutely a 2020 kind of craziness. Wear one, don’t wear one, it’s your choice because you accept the risks involved with your decision. And, we all remember how opinions have changed from the beginning of the pandemic when the CDC, Dr. Fauci, the Surgeon General, and every ‘expert’ around was telling us that wearing a mask wasn’t necessary to mitigate the outbreak. Now, organizations are weighing in on the hot button topic. Take, for instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation. They both want a nationwide policy.
The differing rules have prompted business leaders to call on the White House and state leaders to adopt a national mask policy. “Issuing voluntary guidance on masks is insufficient to protect public health” and risks continued community spread and a new round of shutdowns, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation and other business groups wrote in a July 2 letter to the White House and governors. “Retailers are protecting the health and safety of communities they serve,” the NRF said in a statement issued Wednesday. “Our elected leaders need to set politics aside and follow their example.” The industry group called on all retailers to adopt nationwide mask policies, saying Walmart’s decision was a tipping point in the debate.
Face masks may not completely protect you from the virus but they slow the spread of airborne particles. There is still much that we don’t know about the coronavirus and medical opinions have remained fluid. So far, only ten large retail chains have mandatory mask policies for all of their stores. Including Walmart and Kroger, the others are Starbucks, Costco, H-E-B, Dollar Tree, the Apple store, Verizon, AT&T, and Menards in case you feel a boycott coming on. Most retailers continue to take their cues from local and state governments. Retailers are keeping an eye on others and adjusting accordingly. None of them wanted to be the first to implement a blanket mandate for all stores and feel the wrath of unsatisfied customers. And most companies want to stay out of political fights. Meanwhile, lots of companies are manufacturing and selling face masks.
Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan is on the record that mask-wearing leads to America’s economic recovery.
“If we all wore a mask, it would substantially mute the transmission of this disease, and we would grow faster,” Kaplan told FOX Business. “We would have a lower unemployment rate, we’d grow faster, and we’d be far less likely to slow some of our reopenings. But we’ve been uneven so far on our mask-wearing.” “If there was one recommendation you’d probably hear from me, while monetary and fiscal policy have a key role to play, the primary economic policy from here is broad mask-wearing and good execution of these health care protocols,” Kaplan said. “If we do that, we’ll grow faster.” Kaplan said he still anticipates the economy to shrink by an unprecedented 35 percent in the second quarter but projected it will grow in the third and fourth quarters, putting the economy on track to shrink by about 5 percent for the year. A Goldman Sachs analyst note earlier this week reached a similar conclusion about the efficacy of masks on insulating the economy from further virus-related damage. The Goldman research team, led by chief economist Jan Hatzius, concluded that a national mask mandate would save 5 percent of the nation’s GDP, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in the country. “The economic benefit from a face mask mandate and increased face mask usage could be sizable,” they wrote.
Even financial experts are not completely on the same page. Kaplan sounds confident that his opinion is correct while the Goldman Sachs statement is more nuanced. The use of the word “could”, as in the last sentence above, signals uncertainty. That’s the problem in a nutshell. We’ve been dealing with the coronavirus for over four months and there is still so much we do not know with certainty. Even as a mask-wearer myself, I don’t think a nationwide policy and a one-size-fits-all approach is a winning solution.
I’ll end with this – just as I was submitting this post, this tweet popped up about Target joining the others in a nationwide mandate policy. So, there you go. Look for the trend to continue.


hotair--2020-07-17--Crayola enters the face mask wars... just in time for back-to-school shopping

It ’ s a new world out there for everyone , thanks to the coronavirus pandemic , and that includes back-to-school supplies for students .
This year parents are tasked with providing face masks for their children , as they will be required to wear them .
Crayola knows an opportunity when it sees it .
The crayon manufacturer is selling a line of face masks for children .
Now available for pre-order , the masks should arrive in time for school opening this fall , if your child ’ s school plans to re-open at all .
The company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can see it now – matching mother and daughter face masks ( or father and son ) .
How 2020 .
Crayola teamed up with manufacturer SchoolMaskPack to produce five-day packs of washable cloth face masks .
A mesh laundry bag is included so that the masks can be tossed in the laundry and ready for the next week ’ s use .
They are made to last for six months .
The Crayola face mask five-packs are more expensive than , say , Old Navy Kids ’ five-packs of cloth face masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Old Navy selling for $ 12.50 while the Crayola face masks are advertised for pre-order at $ 29.99 for kids , $ 39.99 for adults .
Yes , you are paying extra for the brand name .
Oh , and these face masks are not made in America , they are made in Thailand .
Face masks are the new must-have fashion accessory , even for school kids .
Crayola did what smart companies do , take the opportunity when it is presented .
The brand is a trusted name by parents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why not make wearing a hot and uncomfortable face mask a little more fun with cute designs and colors ?
I still find it hard to believe that kids , especially the youngest of students , will be able to handle wearing a face mask during a normal school day if there will be such a thing this fall .
The CDC recommends all children over the age of two wear a face mask in public , unless the child has a breathing issue , like asthma .
Finding the proper fit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tricky .
There are many companies selling face masks for kids .
There are important reasons to have your kid cover their face with a mask , even though they are considered to have a lower risk of infection than adults .
Health experts have indicated that asymptomatic transmission can adversely impact high-risk groups , so kids who don ’ t feel sick can still pass the virus to their grandparents and other family members who could become severely ill or die .
There have also been reported cases of illness linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
According to a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , children over two-years-old should wear a face covering when in public or around people who don ’ t live with them .
Though it ’ s still unknown if children will go back to school in the fall and whether there might be a face mask requirement if they do , it ’ s still a good idea to stock up on multiple face masks for them to wear while playing or in public .
There is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a DIY project that a child can participate in and maybe that would bring more enthusiasm to wearing the mask .
It would also likely save money which would benefit cash-strapped parents who have lost income during coronavirus lockdowns .
Good luck to parents and teachers alike in keeping the face masks on the kids .

It’s a new world out there for everyone, thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, and that includes back-to-school supplies for students. This year parents are tasked with providing face masks for their children, as they will be required to wear them. Crayola knows an opportunity when it sees it.
The crayon manufacturer is selling a line of face masks for children. Now available for pre-order, the masks should arrive in time for school opening this fall, if your child’s school plans to re-open at all. The company also offers adult face masks. I can see it now – matching mother and daughter face masks (or father and son). How 2020. Crayola teamed up with manufacturer SchoolMaskPack to produce five-day packs of washable cloth face masks. A mesh laundry bag is included so that the masks can be tossed in the laundry and ready for the next week’s use. They are made to last for six months.
“It’s looking more and more like wearing masks is the new normal,” says SchoolMaskPack spokesperson Hans Lao. “You should want a fresh mask every day like you want a fresh pair of underwear each day.”
The Crayola face mask five-packs are more expensive than, say, Old Navy Kids’ five-packs of cloth face masks. A quick search shows five-packs at Old Navy selling for $12.50 while the Crayola face masks are advertised for pre-order at $29.99 for kids, $39.99 for adults. Yes, you are paying extra for the brand name. Oh, and these face masks are not made in America, they are made in Thailand.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCgmehpHH1z/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCqVITsjTQM/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCrOWNzhk3G/
Face masks are the new must-have fashion accessory, even for school kids. Crayola did what smart companies do, take the opportunity when it is presented. The brand is a trusted name by parents and it’s a clever move. Why not make wearing a hot and uncomfortable face mask a little more fun with cute designs and colors? I still find it hard to believe that kids, especially the youngest of students, will be able to handle wearing a face mask during a normal school day if there will be such a thing this fall.
“Crayola has always worked to support children in the home and in the classroom,” said Warren Schorr, Vice President of Business Development and Global Licensing at Crayola. “We’re glad to partner with SchoolMaskPack to bring options to their mask system and provide supportive solutions for school communities, parents, teachers, and children.”
The CDC recommends all children over the age of two wear a face mask in public, unless the child has a breathing issue, like asthma. Finding the proper fit for a child’s face can be tricky. There are many companies selling face masks for kids.
There are important reasons to have your kid cover their face with a mask, even though they are considered to have a lower risk of infection than adults. Health experts have indicated that asymptomatic transmission can adversely impact high-risk groups, so kids who don’t feel sick can still pass the virus to their grandparents and other family members who could become severely ill or die. There have also been reported cases of illness linked to COVID-19 said to resemble Kawasaki disease in children. According to a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children over two-years-old should wear a face covering when in public or around people who don’t live with them. Though it’s still unknown if children will go back to school in the fall and whether there might be a face mask requirement if they do, it’s still a good idea to stock up on multiple face masks for them to wear while playing or in public.
There is also the option of making masks at home, a DIY project that a child can participate in and maybe that would bring more enthusiasm to wearing the mask. It would also likely save money which would benefit cash-strapped parents who have lost income during coronavirus lockdowns.
Good luck to parents and teachers alike in keeping the face masks on the kids.


hotair--2020-07-17--Prof. Glen Loury: 'You can live with disparities, or you can live in totalitarianism'

Glen Loury is a professor of economics who teaches at Brown University .
Yesterday City Journal published an interview with Loury conducted by one of his former students .
Loury , who is black , had plenty to say about the current moment in our culture where “ structural racism ” has become an explanation for everything and disparities are seen not as signs of individual choices or group behaviors but proof of the need for more direct control over outcomes .
We ’ ll get to his take on racial disparities in outcomes but first here ’ s his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we find ourselves in : I don ’ t know if you saw my piece in Quillette about the looting and the rioting , but I pick up these pieces published in the New York Times , respectable left-wing journals .
I ’ m reading them , and the writer is saying , “ America was founded on looting .
What did you think the Boston Tea Party was ?
” Or , “ You ’ re talking about looting when George Floyd lies dead ?
Oh , I see , black lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property.
” These are , to my mind , incomprehensibly idiotic .
I don ’ t mean that to cast aspersions .
The civilization that we all enjoy rests upon a very fragile foundation .
Look .
I ’ m in my backyard .
It ’ s very nice .
I ’ ve got a lot of space .
There ’ s a fence .
The birds come .
I have a lawn .
It ’ s mine !
Now , if a homeless person comes and squats in my backyard , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed , forcibly .
There should be no lack of clarity about whether George Floyd ’ s death somehow excuses or justifies burning a bodega to the ground that a Muslim immigrant spends his whole life building .
Being confused about that , equivocating about that , splitting the difference about that—I don ’ t understand how we ’ re going to have a reasoned discussion .
My thoughts go back to , protect civilization .
Again , I know how that sounds .
It ’ s hyperbolic .
It ’ s exaggerated—but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that this is not the time for argument .
This is the time to protect civilization and protect institutions .
When people start toppling statues of Abraham Lincoln and spray-painting on statues of George Washington , “ a slave owner , ” things fall apart .
The center can not hold .
We teeter on the brink of catastrophe .
Eventually the interviewer asks Loury if there is any hope of reducing some of the disparity of outcome we see between blacks and whites in America .
And here Loury is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me rephrase the question , and I ’ m channeling Thomas Sowell now .
You have two alternatives .
You can live with disparities , or you can live in totalitarianism .
Again , hyperbolic , I know .
No , I ’ m not talking about Eastern Europe circa 1960 , but look at it this way : there can ’ t be a disparity without somebody being on top .
People don ’ t recognize this… People don ’ t realize that they ’ re playing with fire when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of systemic failure .
They insist on wholesale interventions into people ’ s exercise of their liberty in order to enact a reduction or elimination of disparities , yet a world without any disparities is a world where you don ’ t have so many—name your group—who ’ ve got so much money or so many prizes .
There are only so many positions .
There is no under-representation without over-representation .
This is arithmetic… A group is a group .
It has characteristics .
Those characteristics matter for whether you play in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you learn to master the violin or the piano .
They matter for whether you pursue technical subjects or choose to become a humanist or a scientist .
They matter for the food that you eat .
They matter for how many children you raise and how you raise them .
They matter as to the age when you first have sex .
They matter for all those things , and I think everyone would agree with that .
But now you ’ re telling me that they don ’ t matter for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm ?
They don ’ t matter for who becomes a chair in the Philosophy Department somewhere ?
Groupness implies disparity because groupness , if taken seriously , implies differences in ways of living life .
Not everybody wants to play the fiddle .
Not everybody wants to dunk a basketball .
Not everybody is frightened to death that their parents are going to be disappointed with them if they come home with an A-minus .
Not everybody is susceptible to being swayed into a social affiliation that requires them to commit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bona fides .
Groups differ .
Groups are not evenly distributed across society .
That ’ s inevitable .
If you insist that those be flattened , you ’ re only going to be able to succeed by imposing a totalitarian regime that monitors everything and jiggers everything , recomputing and refiguring things until we ’ ve got the same number of blacks in proportion to their population and the same number of second-generation Vietnamese immigrants in proportion to their population being admitted to Caltech or the Bronx High School of Science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that world .
There is a reason that Asians take up a disproportionate number of slots at prestigious universities and the reason is not because they are inherently smarter than anyone else .
The reason is because there is a culture of ( sometimes extreme i.e .
Tiger Mom ) pressure on Asian children to perform at a high level .
As a parent with school age children , I ’ ve seen this up close in recent years .
For some children , coming home with an A- really would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of those decisions to do homework and work hard rather than spend time in front of the television or with friends adds up .
So the reality is that if we equalize the number of admissions to Harvard or Yale by race , that winds up inevitably punishing a lot of personal sacrifice and group effort made to earn those slots .
Indeed , that ’ s arguably what has been happening at Harvard for a while .
Earlier this week I wrote about a NY Times feature which looked at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s leading antiracist trainers like Robin DiAngelo .
What the author found was an open hostility to individuality , rational thinking , the written word and even punctuality .
Diminishing these things is seen by the proponents of antiracism as a needed corrective to help level the playing field for black Americans ( other readers of DiAngelo ’ s book have said it ’ s simply a different type of antiblack racism , i.e .
the soft bigotry of low expectations ) .
Near the end of that NY Times piece Harvard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You can try to be competitive by equipping yourself to run the race that ’ s already scheduled , or you can try to change the race.
” I think that really sums up the two camps on this question .
Either you give up on the idea that excellence is possible for everyone and come up with some other way to achieve racial parity or you believe that excellence is real and results from individual and social effort to achieve it .
I believe it ’ s the latter but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment in time .

Glen Loury is a professor of economics who teaches at Brown University. Yesterday City Journal published an interview with Loury conducted by one of his former students. Loury, who is black, had plenty to say about the current moment in our culture where “structural racism” has become an explanation for everything and disparities are seen not as signs of individual choices or group behaviors but proof of the need for more direct control over outcomes. We’ll get to his take on racial disparities in outcomes but first here’s his take on the tenuous moment for civilization we find ourselves in:
I don’t know if you saw my piece in Quillette about the looting and the rioting, but I pick up these pieces published in the New York Times, respectable left-wing journals. I’m reading them, and the writer is saying, “America was founded on looting. What did you think the Boston Tea Party was?” Or, “You’re talking about looting when George Floyd lies dead? Oh, I see, black lives don’t matter as much as property.” These are, to my mind, incomprehensibly idiotic. I don’t mean that to cast aspersions. The civilization that we all enjoy rests upon a very fragile foundation. Look. I’m in my backyard. It’s very nice. I’ve got a lot of space. There’s a fence. The birds come. I have a lawn. It’s mine! Now, if a homeless person comes and squats in my backyard, I call the police. I have him removed, forcibly. There should be no lack of clarity about whether George Floyd’s death somehow excuses or justifies burning a bodega to the ground that a Muslim immigrant spends his whole life building. Being confused about that, equivocating about that, splitting the difference about that—I don’t understand how we’re going to have a reasoned discussion. My thoughts go back to, protect civilization. Again, I know how that sounds. It’s hyperbolic. It’s exaggerated—but only a little! My gut response is that this is not the time for argument. This is the time to protect civilization and protect institutions. When people start toppling statues of Abraham Lincoln and spray-painting on statues of George Washington, “a slave owner,” things fall apart. The center cannot hold. We teeter on the brink of catastrophe.
Eventually the interviewer asks Loury if there is any hope of reducing some of the disparity of outcome we see between blacks and whites in America. And here Loury is very leery about what that might entail.
Let me rephrase the question, and I’m channeling Thomas Sowell now. You have two alternatives. You can live with disparities, or you can live in totalitarianism. Again, hyperbolic, I know. No, I’m not talking about Eastern Europe circa 1960, but look at it this way: there can’t be a disparity without somebody being on top. People don’t recognize this… People don’t realize that they’re playing with fire when they take these disparities as ipso facto evidence of systemic failure. They insist on wholesale interventions into people’s exercise of their liberty in order to enact a reduction or elimination of disparities, yet a world without any disparities is a world where you don’t have so many—name your group—who’ve got so much money or so many prizes. There are only so many positions. There is no under-representation without over-representation. This is arithmetic… A group is a group. It has characteristics. Those characteristics matter for whether you play in the NBA. They matter for whether you learn to master the violin or the piano. They matter for whether you pursue technical subjects or choose to become a humanist or a scientist. They matter for the food that you eat. They matter for how many children you raise and how you raise them. They matter as to the age when you first have sex. They matter for all those things, and I think everyone would agree with that. But now you’re telling me that they don’t matter for who becomes a partner in a law firm? They don’t matter for who becomes a chair in the Philosophy Department somewhere? Groupness implies disparity because groupness, if taken seriously, implies differences in ways of living life. Not everybody wants to play the fiddle. Not everybody wants to dunk a basketball. Not everybody is frightened to death that their parents are going to be disappointed with them if they come home with an A-minus. Not everybody is susceptible to being swayed into a social affiliation that requires them to commit a violent crime in order to prove their bona fides. Groups differ. Groups are not evenly distributed across society. That’s inevitable. If you insist that those be flattened, you’re only going to be able to succeed by imposing a totalitarian regime that monitors everything and jiggers everything, recomputing and refiguring things until we’ve got the same number of blacks in proportion to their population and the same number of second-generation Vietnamese immigrants in proportion to their population being admitted to Caltech or the Bronx High School of Science. I don’t want to live in that world.
There is a reason that Asians take up a disproportionate number of slots at prestigious universities and the reason is not because they are inherently smarter than anyone else. The reason is because there is a culture of (sometimes extreme i.e. Tiger Mom) pressure on Asian children to perform at a high level. As a parent with school age children, I’ve seen this up close in recent years. For some children, coming home with an A- really would be a life changing event. Collectively, all of those decisions to do homework and work hard rather than spend time in front of the television or with friends adds up. So the reality is that if we equalize the number of admissions to Harvard or Yale by race, that winds up inevitably punishing a lot of personal sacrifice and group effort made to earn those slots. Indeed, that’s arguably what has been happening at Harvard for a while.
Earlier this week I wrote about a NY Times feature which looked at the ideas that underpin some of the nation’s leading antiracist trainers like Robin DiAngelo. What the author found was an open hostility to individuality, rational thinking, the written word and even punctuality. Diminishing these things is seen by the proponents of antiracism as a needed corrective to help level the playing field for black Americans (other readers of DiAngelo’s book have said it’s simply a different type of antiblack racism, i.e. the soft bigotry of low expectations).
Near the end of that NY Times piece Harvard economist Ron Ferguson is quoted saying, “You can try to be competitive by equipping yourself to run the race that’s already scheduled, or you can try to change the race.” I think that really sums up the two camps on this question. Either you give up on the idea that excellence is possible for everyone and come up with some other way to achieve racial parity or you believe that excellence is real and results from individual and social effort to achieve it. I believe it’s the latter but that view is clearly out of fashion at this moment in time.


hotair--2020-07-17--Chris Wallace versus Trump: Where did Biden say he wants to defund the police?

Man oh man .
This is going to be some interview .
Watch , then read on .
Before we get to the question of who ’ s right and who ’ s wrong , two preliminary questions .
First , why did the president agree to this ?
I thought he hates Wallace .
He can have as much time as he wants on Hannity ’ s show , draw bigger ratings , and never need worry about being challenged on an assertion the way Wallace challenged him here .
All I can think is that maybe his aides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start pulling back some swing voters from Biden and he ’ s more likely to get face time with those voters on Wallace ’ s show than on Hannity ’ s .
Second , why was the president so confident that he knew what was in the “ charter ” published by the Biden/Bernie Unity Task Force ?
He famously doesn ’ t even read his intelligence briefs .
There ’ s no way he pored over a dense 110-page policy document to find out where Democrats stand in minute detail on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace is right .
The document doesn ’ t call for defunding the police .
You can check by following the last link and skimming through pages 7-10 and 56-62 , where the relevant policy recommendations are laid out .
The closest they come to endorsing defunding the police is the passage below .
This is what the Democratic establishment countered with after the George Floyd protests broke out and progressives started running around screaming about defunding or abolishing ( ! )
the police .
That was pure electoral poison , obviously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Instead of defunding police departments , ” they said , “ how about we just un-bundle them a bit ?
” That ’ s “ defunding ” of a sort , but not the hair-raising progressive scenario in which the cops all get fired and no one ’ s patrolling for bad guys anymore .
Police still get money to walk the beat and fight crime , but non-crime stuff like handing out parking tickets and getting the homeless off the streets gets farmed out to other agencies .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also the entire point of the Biden/Bernie Task Force document .
Biden doesn ’ t want to endorse radical leftist ideas like abolishing the police or funding the Green New Deal for fear of alienating swing voters ; the goal of the task force was to find ways for him to pander to progressives short of supporting the most radioactive stuff on their wishlist , the things that might spook the suburbanites whom Democrats covet .
Putting “ defund the police ” in the “ charter ” would have defeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a widely unpopular position and playing into Trump ’ s hands by making it easier for him to frame Sleepy Joe as a tool of the left .
If POTUS understood that , he wouldn ’ t have called for the document in the clip with Wallace , as it was destined to prove him wrong .
Which leaves us to wonder how he got the idea that it endorsed defunding the cops .
Was it from … the primetime hosts on Wallace ’ s own network ?
His intuition that the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potentially potent weapon against Democrats is certainly correct , though .
Downballot Dems have found themselves having to dodge uncomfortable questions about it on the trail : “ Instead of defunding the police , Theresa [ Greenfield ] believes we need real reform with more transparency and body cameras , more civilian oversight and Department of Justice reviews , and better racial bias and de-escalation training and standards , along with other long-term investments to address racial disparities in policing , housing , health care and education , ” Sam Newton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement… “ I do not support defunding the police , ” said Sen. Gary Peters , a Michigan Democrat facing off against GOP combat veteran John James , when first asked about his position on the issue in early June .
“ The police departments are out there protecting citizens , and the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and police are protecting citizens.
” Sen. Doug Jones , an Alabama Democrat considered the most vulnerable Democrat this cycle , said , “ I don ’ t think that ’ s a good idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would ever , ever support.
” … Cal Cunningham , the Democratic challenger leading North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis by 10 points in a recent CNBC poll , in mid-June said , “ Twenty-first century policing reform will require increased investment in law enforcement , not defunding it.
” Trump is a persistent enough messenger that by Election Day I ’ d guess nearly all of his voters will believe Biden wants to outright abolish the cops .
The fateful question is whether he can convince a meaningful number of swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so for the GOP , as the latest trends in House races aren ’ t great and the fundraising trends in Senate races aren ’ t so hot either .
Exit quotation from a GOP strategist who works with Mitch McConnell ’ s campaign : “ Republican senators need to wake up and develop a small-dollar program or they ’ ll be out of a job .
”

Man oh man. This is going to be some interview. Watch, then read on.
Fox's Chris Wallace fact checks Trump and tells Trump that he's wrong to claim that Biden wants to defund the police. pic.twitter.com/arNNZb8K01 — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 17, 2020
Before we get to the question of who’s right and who’s wrong, two preliminary questions. First, why did the president agree to this? I thought he hates Wallace.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1196148537525977088
He can have as much time as he wants on Hannity’s show, draw bigger ratings, and never need worry about being challenged on an assertion the way Wallace challenged him here. All I can think is that maybe his aides have convinced him that he desperately needs to start pulling back some swing voters from Biden and he’s more likely to get face time with those voters on Wallace’s show than on Hannity’s.
Second, why was the president so confident that he knew what was in the “charter” published by the Biden/Bernie Unity Task Force? He famously doesn’t even read his intelligence briefs. There’s no way he pored over a dense 110-page policy document to find out where Democrats stand in minute detail on a universe of issues.
Anyway, Wallace is right. The document doesn’t call for defunding the police. You can check by following the last link and skimming through pages 7-10 and 56-62, where the relevant policy recommendations are laid out. The closest they come to endorsing defunding the police is the passage below. This is what the Democratic establishment countered with after the George Floyd protests broke out and progressives started running around screaming about defunding or abolishing(!) the police. That was pure electoral poison, obviously, and the centrists needed an alternative pronto. “Instead of defunding police departments,” they said, “how about we just un-bundle them a bit?”
That’s “defunding” of a sort, but not the hair-raising progressive scenario in which the cops all get fired and no one’s patrolling for bad guys anymore. Police still get money to walk the beat and fight crime, but non-crime stuff like handing out parking tickets and getting the homeless off the streets gets farmed out to other agencies. That’s the Democratic compromise position — and it’s also the entire point of the Biden/Bernie Task Force document. Biden doesn’t want to endorse radical leftist ideas like abolishing the police or funding the Green New Deal for fear of alienating swing voters; the goal of the task force was to find ways for him to pander to progressives short of supporting the most radioactive stuff on their wishlist, the things that might spook the suburbanites whom Democrats covet. Putting “defund the police” in the “charter” would have defeated the whole purpose by sticking Biden with a widely unpopular position and playing into Trump’s hands by making it easier for him to frame Sleepy Joe as a tool of the left. If POTUS understood that, he wouldn’t have called for the document in the clip with Wallace, as it was destined to prove him wrong.
Which leaves us to wonder how he got the idea that it endorsed defunding the cops. Was it from … the primetime hosts on Wallace’s own network?
His intuition that the “defund” calls on the left are a potentially potent weapon against Democrats is certainly correct, though. Downballot Dems have found themselves having to dodge uncomfortable questions about it on the trail:
“Instead of defunding the police, Theresa [Greenfield] believes we need real reform with more transparency and body cameras, more civilian oversight and Department of Justice reviews, and better racial bias and de-escalation training and standards, along with other long-term investments to address racial disparities in policing, housing, health care and education,” Sam Newton, her spokesman, told RCP in a statement… “I do not support defunding the police,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat facing off against GOP combat veteran John James, when first asked about his position on the issue in early June. “The police departments are out there protecting citizens, and the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and police are protecting citizens.” Sen. Doug Jones, an Alabama Democrat considered the most vulnerable Democrat this cycle, said, “I don’t think that’s a good idea. Defunding and disbanding is not something I would ever, ever support.”… Cal Cunningham, the Democratic challenger leading North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis by 10 points in a recent CNBC poll, in mid-June said, “Twenty-first century policing reform will require increased investment in law enforcement, not defunding it.”
Trump is a persistent enough messenger that by Election Day I’d guess nearly all of his voters will believe Biden wants to outright abolish the cops. The fateful question is whether he can convince a meaningful number of swing voters to believe it too. Hopefully so for the GOP, as the latest trends in House races aren’t great and the fundraising trends in Senate races aren’t so hot either. Exit quotation from a GOP strategist who works with Mitch McConnell’s campaign: “Republican senators need to wake up and develop a small-dollar program or they’ll be out of a job.”


hotair--2020-07-17--"Irresponsible": Now Mark Meadows hits Fauci for comparing COVID to 1918 flu pandemic

This makes three top White House advisors who ’ ve taken shots at Fauci this week .
First was Dan Scavino , then Peter Navarro , now it ’ s the White House chief of staff jabbing at the doctor during an answer that started off with him scolding Navarro .
Even the talking points aimed at defending Fauci somehow turn into Fauci-bashing opportunities .
I ’ m torn between two impulses .
One is that of course a Trump crony would continue to do the president ’ s dirty work even while he ’ s pretending not to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meadows has a point here .
Watching him breeze past criticism of Navarro for going “ rogue ” so that he could slam Fauci himself made me laugh .
Meadows isn ’ t even pretending that he ’ s as annoyed with Navarro for attacking a fellow White House advisor as he is with Fauci for an idle remark .
But it is irresponsible for a top expert to blithely compare the threat from COVID-19 to a disease that killed nearly 700,000 Americans and tens of millions around the world .
People look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can expect from the pandemic later this year .
Him chattering carelessly about 1918 is a white-knuckle moment under those circumstances — and he seems to have realized it belatedly .
He tried to clean up what he said afterward : ‘ This is a pandemic of historic proportions .
I think we can ’ t deny that fact .
It ’ s something I think that when history looks back on it , it will be comparable to what we saw in 1918 , ’ Fauci said [ on Tuesday ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Thursday evening and said that he believed his use of the word ‘ comparable ’ had been ‘ taken out of context.
’ ‘ Because people would have thought , my goodness , we ’ re having this now , is it going to be the 50 to 100 million people in 1918 that died ?
’ No , they ’ re not comparable in that way at all , in severity , ’ Fauci explained .
‘ They ’ re very , very different.
’ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , we ’ re historically now looking at a historically important outbreak , because we haven ’ t had anything like this , really , for 102 years , ’ Fauci added .
A little more precision may be in order when explaining the risk from this disease to a country that ’ s on a knife ’ s edge right now amid a second wave of COVID-19 .
Although , in Fauci ’ s defense , at least one other respected public-health expert made the claim earlier this year that coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu had it arrived a century ago instead of now .
It ’ s not some inherent weakness of SARS-CoV-2 that ’ s made it less deadly than H1N1 .
It ’ s 100 years of medical progress .
As for the White House ’ s ongoing war on Fauci , Dan McLaughlin agrees with me that it ’ s idiotic and wonders if it isn ’ t a function of Trump ’ s inner circle trying to manufacture excuses in advance for losing the election this fall : So , why is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House — so determined to attack Fauci and denigrate his credibility ?
Partly , of course , it is reflex : Fauci is an unelected expert who disagrees at times with the president , so he fits neatly into the “ Deep State ” framework .
But what is implied and sometimes stated aloud is more nefarious : the idea that scientists and Democratic officials are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to bring down Trump by keeping the economy suppressed through the election .
This makes sense as a public argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose , and are trying to build a narrative of excuse and alibi for his defeat that knits everything into a shady cabal .
After all , if Trump is simply tied in knots by a hostile conspiracy , that makes him look weak , and it undermines any claim that things will go better under more Trump than under Biden , whose election would presumably end the need for any such conspiracy… The conspiratorial mindset also assumes that more broadly reopening the economy would be an uncomplicated and uncontroversial task without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this theory is that it ignores similar debates roiling much of the rest of the world , from Israel to Australia , France to India , Canada to Sweden .
Different countries and different localities have taken different paths .
Nations with leaders of the center-left or Left have hardly followed a uniform open-it-all-up strategy , as would be the case if the only reason not to follow one was hostility to a right-populist leader .
The oddest thing about making Fauci a foil , as I said yesterday , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his public remarks or takes a strong position about what officials should do .
The hostility to him would be understandable if he inveighed regularly against Trump or stridently criticized reopening schools or businesses , but he never does .
Even his periodic remarks about progress on a vaccine usually amount to little more than “ we ’ re still on track , I ’ m cautiously optimistic.
” If you had to sum him up in one word , that ’ s the word you ’ d choose — “ caution.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we must do so … cautiously .
Schools ?
They ’ re a priority , as children will suffer if they ’ re kept out of class , but let ’ s exercise … caution in how we do it .
Getting mad at a guy who ’ s constantly urging caution is very on-brand for Trump ’ s chaotic operation , and neatly captures why the war on Fauci is so stupid for them politically .
The last thing you should want to be known as in the middle of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ anti-caution.
” Here he is earlier today .
Mask-wearing is one thing he is forceful about ( belatedly ) .
As for containing the virus , he ’ s still optimistic that we can do it .
“ Cautiously optimistic , ” to be precise .

This makes three top White House advisors who’ve taken shots at Fauci this week. First was Dan Scavino, then Peter Navarro, now it’s the White House chief of staff jabbing at the doctor during an answer that started off with him scolding Navarro.
Even the talking points aimed at defending Fauci somehow turn into Fauci-bashing opportunities.
I’m torn between two impulses. One is that of course a Trump crony would continue to do the president’s dirty work even while he’s pretending not to. The other is that, ah, Meadows has a point here.
After saying it was inappropriate for Peter Navarro to write an op-Ed attacking Dr. Fauci, Mark Meadows criticizes Fauci for statements comparing the coronavirus to the 1918 flu epidemic. pic.twitter.com/CcUfyOzZqe — Acyn (@Acyn) July 16, 2020
Watching him breeze past criticism of Navarro for going “rogue” so that he could slam Fauci himself made me laugh. Meadows isn’t even pretending that he’s as annoyed with Navarro for attacking a fellow White House advisor as he is with Fauci for an idle remark.
But it is irresponsible for a top expert to blithely compare the threat from COVID-19 to a disease that killed nearly 700,000 Americans and tens of millions around the world. People look to Fauci as a weathervane for what we can expect from the pandemic later this year. Him chattering carelessly about 1918 is a white-knuckle moment under those circumstances — and he seems to have realized it belatedly. He tried to clean up what he said afterward:
‘This is a pandemic of historic proportions. I think we can’t deny that fact. It’s something I think that when history looks back on it, it will be comparable to what we saw in 1918,’ Fauci said [on Tuesday]… Fauci appeared on a livestream with Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Thursday evening and said that he believed his use of the word ‘comparable’ had been ‘taken out of context.’ ‘Because people would have thought, my goodness, we’re having this now, is it going to be the 50 to 100 million people in 1918 that died?’ No, they’re not comparable in that way at all, in severity,’ Fauci explained. ‘They’re very, very different.’ ‘I was just talking about 102 years then, we’re historically now looking at a historically important outbreak, because we haven’t had anything like this, really, for 102 years,’ Fauci added.
A little more precision may be in order when explaining the risk from this disease to a country that’s on a knife’s edge right now amid a second wave of COVID-19. Although, in Fauci’s defense, at least one other respected public-health expert made the claim earlier this year that coronavirus would have been deadlier than the 1918 flu had it arrived a century ago instead of now. It’s not some inherent weakness of SARS-CoV-2 that’s made it less deadly than H1N1. It’s 100 years of medical progress.
As for the White House’s ongoing war on Fauci, Dan McLaughlin agrees with me that it’s idiotic and wonders if it isn’t a function of Trump’s inner circle trying to manufacture excuses in advance for losing the election this fall:
So, why is Team MAGA — inside and outside the White House — so determined to attack Fauci and denigrate his credibility? Partly, of course, it is reflex: Fauci is an unelected expert who disagrees at times with the president, so he fits neatly into the “Deep State” framework. But what is implied and sometimes stated aloud is more nefarious: the idea that scientists and Democratic officials are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to bring down Trump by keeping the economy suppressed through the election. This makes sense as a public argument only if you already expect Trump to lose, and are trying to build a narrative of excuse and alibi for his defeat that knits everything into a shady cabal. After all, if Trump is simply tied in knots by a hostile conspiracy, that makes him look weak, and it undermines any claim that things will go better under more Trump than under Biden, whose election would presumably end the need for any such conspiracy… The conspiratorial mindset also assumes that more broadly reopening the economy would be an uncomplicated and uncontroversial task without the existence of anti-Trump animus. The problem with this theory is that it ignores similar debates roiling much of the rest of the world, from Israel to Australia, France to India, Canada to Sweden. Different countries and different localities have taken different paths. Nations with leaders of the center-left or Left have hardly followed a uniform open-it-all-up strategy, as would be the case if the only reason not to follow one was hostility to a right-populist leader.
The oddest thing about making Fauci a foil, as I said yesterday, is that he rarely says anything of consequence in his public remarks or takes a strong position about what officials should do. The hostility to him would be understandable if he inveighed regularly against Trump or stridently criticized reopening schools or businesses, but he never does. Even his periodic remarks about progress on a vaccine usually amount to little more than “we’re still on track, I’m cautiously optimistic.” If you had to sum him up in one word, that’s the word you’d choose — “caution.” We need to reopen the economy, but we must do so … cautiously. Schools? They’re a priority, as children will suffer if they’re kept out of class, but let’s exercise … caution in how we do it.
Getting mad at a guy who’s constantly urging caution is very on-brand for Trump’s chaotic operation, and neatly captures why the war on Fauci is so stupid for them politically. The last thing you should want to be known as in the middle of a pandemic, with an election approaching, is “anti-caution.”
Here he is earlier today. Mask-wearing is one thing he is forceful about (belatedly). As for containing the virus, he’s still optimistic that we can do it. “Cautiously optimistic,” to be precise.