hotair--2020-05-04--California hairstylists are ready to revolt

You said it .
They stink on ice .
Sorry .
I can rarely resist a good Mel Brooks quote .
But in all seriousness , there may be a bit of a peasant revolt shaping up in California .
Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s latest lockdown orders have shuttered even more businesses .
One group that ’ s been particularly hard hit are the barbers and hair salon workers .
Those “ nonessential ” operations have been shut down for a while .
And now some of the hairstylists are threatening to go rogue and start traveling to practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( CBS Los Angeles ) A local business owner is campaigning to be labeled “ essential ” so that she , and others in her position , can get back to work .
Veteran stylist Raychel Harrison has been spending her time preparing color to-go for her loyal customers after being forced to close her salon in Calabasas six weeks ago… When Harrison saw the governor ’ s proposal this week for reopening California , with salons in Stage 3 , behind retail , schools , and childcare , she wrote an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconsider .
Harrison ended her letter to the Governor with a warning .
If the state doesn ’ t relent and let them reopen the salons soon , stylists are going to start taking their operations on the road and serving customers in their homes , potentially making more people sick .
She also brings up a point about California ’ s obscene licensing requirements , though perhaps unintentionally .
She notes that California hairstylists are required to take 1,600 hours of sanitation law courses in order to receive a permit allowing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one hand , you would think that anyone taking that many classes is probably already up to speed in terms of keeping their operation sanitary .
But the other point is the fact that a hairstylist has to take 1,600 hours of courses to get a license .
That ’ s simply insane .
I ’ m not sure if my doctor had to put in that many hours of classwork .
Aren ’ t barbers and hairstylists considered to be part of “ the trades ?
” ( As in , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work in that field . )
The regulatory state in California is totally out of control , but this is ridiculous even for them .
Still , it sounds as if Harrison is making several good points here .
While it ’ s clearly true that stylists and barbers have to work in close proximity to their clients and even come in contact with them , they should be able to minimize the risk of contagion with some basic precautions .
If both people are wearing masks , the stylist wears gloves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been sterilized between every appointment , is the risk really that great ?
I understand that barbers and hairstylists probably don ’ t leap to mind when you think of “ essential services , ” but perhaps that ’ s not really the point here .
Harrison says she hasn ’ t been able to receive any sort of federal relief as a small business owner and she apparently doesn ’ t qualify for unemployment .
Even if she received a loan she ’ s not sure how she would repay it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ business owners out there in the “ nonessential ” category who are in the same boat .
If they ’ re willing to safely give it a try and their customers are ready to come back , shouldn ’ t they have a chance to at least try ?
It ’ s a question that ’ s going to require an answer sooner rather than later .
A different California salon owner defied the state ’ s orders and opened up last week anyway .
The County Public Health Department said the owner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lockdown America .

Sire, the peasants are revolting!
You said it. They stink on ice.
Sorry. I can rarely resist a good Mel Brooks quote. But in all seriousness, there may be a bit of a peasant revolt shaping up in California. Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest lockdown orders have shuttered even more businesses. One group that’s been particularly hard hit are the barbers and hair salon workers. Those “nonessential” operations have been shut down for a while. And now some of the hairstylists are threatening to go rogue and start traveling to practice their craft at people’s homes. (CBS Los Angeles)
A local business owner is campaigning to be labeled “essential” so that she, and others in her position, can get back to work. Veteran stylist Raychel Harrison has been spending her time preparing color to-go for her loyal customers after being forced to close her salon in Calabasas six weeks ago… When Harrison saw the governor’s proposal this week for reopening California, with salons in Stage 3, behind retail, schools, and childcare, she wrote an open letter, urging the state to reconsider.
Harrison ended her letter to the Governor with a warning. If the state doesn’t relent and let them reopen the salons soon, stylists are going to start taking their operations on the road and serving customers in their homes, potentially making more people sick. She also brings up a point about California’s obscene licensing requirements, though perhaps unintentionally. She notes that California hairstylists are required to take 1,600 hours of sanitation law courses in order to receive a permit allowing them to practice their trade.
On the one hand, you would think that anyone taking that many classes is probably already up to speed in terms of keeping their operation sanitary. But the other point is the fact that a hairstylist has to take 1,600 hours of courses to get a license. That’s simply insane. I’m not sure if my doctor had to put in that many hours of classwork. Aren’t barbers and hairstylists considered to be part of “the trades?” (As in, you don’t need a college degree to work in that field.) The regulatory state in California is totally out of control, but this is ridiculous even for them.
Still, it sounds as if Harrison is making several good points here. While it’s clearly true that stylists and barbers have to work in close proximity to their clients and even come in contact with them, they should be able to minimize the risk of contagion with some basic precautions. If both people are wearing masks, the stylist wears gloves, and all of the equipment has been sterilized between every appointment, is the risk really that great?
I understand that barbers and hairstylists probably don’t leap to mind when you think of “essential services,” but perhaps that’s not really the point here. Harrison says she hasn’t been able to receive any sort of federal relief as a small business owner and she apparently doesn’t qualify for unemployment. Even if she received a loan she’s not sure how she would repay it. There are plenty of other workers and business owners out there in the “nonessential” category who are in the same boat. If they’re willing to safely give it a try and their customers are ready to come back, shouldn’t they have a chance to at least try?
It’s a question that’s going to require an answer sooner rather than later. A different California salon owner defied the state’s orders and opened up last week anyway. The County Public Health Department said the owner should face criminal charges. Welcome to Lockdown America.


hotair--2020-05-04--When flexibility meets fraud: FDA hits reverse on COVID-19 antibody tests

The inevitable end to a hasty emergency decision with easily predictable consequences .
After watching a flood of “ unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits , ” the Food and Drug Administration today reversed its earlier decision on experimental antibody test kits .
From now on , only those tests that have been granted emergency use authorization can be sold in the US , reducing the market down to a dozen products : U.S. regulators Monday pulled back a decision that allowed scores of coronavirus blood tests to hit the market without first providing proof that they worked .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the action because some sellers have made false claims about the tests and their accuracy .
Companies will now have to show their tests work or risk having them pulled from the market .
Under pressure to increase testing options , the FDA in March essentially allowed companies to begin selling tests as long as they notified the agency of their plans and provided disclaimers , including that they were not FDA approved .
The policy was intended to allow “ flexibility ” needed to quickly ramp up production , officials said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would allow fraud , ” Dr. Anand Shah , an FDA deputy commissioner , said in a statement .
“ We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans.
” Fraud ?
In medical quasi-scientific consumer products ?
The deuce you say .
The FDA has an entire section of its website dedicated to warning against false and/or unproven claims from over-the-counter products , which sell like hotcakes to people worried about their health even under normal circumstances .
Removing all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FDA had its heart in the right place by allowing test manufacturers to flood the zone with new capacity to identify COVID-19 antibodies as a way to leverage private-sector innovation .
Unfortunately , the lack of solid science behind the tests — and the desire to sell them under any pretenses necessary — made the flood of new tests more dangerous than the lack of reliable tests .
False positives on antibody tests would encourage more public circulation of people who unknowingly remain vulnerable to a COVID-19 infection .
Thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would also allow those people to amplify the spread of the disease at some point as well .
This move was overdue , as these issues had been emerging for weeks .
One major issue is that the better tests might have suffered from the lack of confidence that had developed over antibody testing with the fraudsters still in the market .
( My clinic issued a warning to its patients not to seek any antibody testing at all until the FDA took more action , for instance . )
The good news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new tests to its officially authorized list , including a new antibody test from Roche today .
The data from Roche promises a 99.8 % accuracy rating , but this still requires a clinic visit and a full blood draw despite the stock video Today uses to highlight the news : Basel-based Roche , which also makes molecular tests to identify active COVID-19 infections , said its antibody test has a specificity rate exceeding 99.8 % and sensitivity of 100 % , meaning tests would show very few false positives and no false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the mistaken conclusion that someone has immunity .
Roche said its test relies on intravenous blood draws , with higher accuracy than finger-prick tests .
“ If you take blood from a finger prick , you will never be able to achieve the same level of specificity that you will achieve … when you take blood from the vein , ” Schinecker said .
“ You have to have very , very high specificity .
Even 0.1 % or 0.2 % makes a difference.
” Once we have firmly established that antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests will have a critical impact on our ability to re-enter normal economic activity .
Shelter-in-place isn ’ t sustainable and isn ’ t working as well as people had hoped , former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb told CNBC ’ s Squawk Box .
To get to a point where we can live with COVID-19 , we have to get people vaccinated and increase herd immunity .
More than anything , though , we need reliable tests and vaccines , not snake oil — a point that the FDA belatedly embraced today .

The inevitable end to a hasty emergency decision with easily predictable consequences. After watching a flood of “unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits,” the Food and Drug Administration today reversed its earlier decision on experimental antibody test kits. From now on, only those tests that have been granted emergency use authorization can be sold in the US, reducing the market down to a dozen products:
U.S. regulators Monday pulled back a decision that allowed scores of coronavirus blood tests to hit the market without first providing proof that they worked. The Food and Drug Administration said it took the action because some sellers have made false claims about the tests and their accuracy. Companies will now have to show their tests work or risk having them pulled from the market. Under pressure to increase testing options, the FDA in March essentially allowed companies to begin selling tests as long as they notified the agency of their plans and provided disclaimers, including that they were not FDA approved. The policy was intended to allow “flexibility” needed to quickly ramp up production, officials said. “However, flexibility never meant we would allow fraud,” Dr. Anand Shah, an FDA deputy commissioner, said in a statement. “We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans.”
Fraud? In medical quasi-scientific consumer products? The deuce you say. The FDA has an entire section of its website dedicated to warning against false and/or unproven claims from over-the-counter products, which sell like hotcakes to people worried about their health even under normal circumstances. Removing all restrictions in a global pandemic? Fuhgeddaboudit.
The FDA had its heart in the right place by allowing test manufacturers to flood the zone with new capacity to identify COVID-19 antibodies as a way to leverage private-sector innovation. Unfortunately, the lack of solid science behind the tests — and the desire to sell them under any pretenses necessary — made the flood of new tests more dangerous than the lack of reliable tests. False positives on antibody tests would encourage more public circulation of people who unknowingly remain vulnerable to a COVID-19 infection. Thanks to the asymptomatic contagious period, bad tests would also allow those people to amplify the spread of the disease at some point as well.
This move was overdue, as these issues had been emerging for weeks. One major issue is that the better tests might have suffered from the lack of confidence that had developed over antibody testing with the fraudsters still in the market. (My clinic issued a warning to its patients not to seek any antibody testing at all until the FDA took more action, for instance.) The good news is that the FDA is still adding new tests to its officially authorized list, including a new antibody test from Roche today. The data from Roche promises a 99.8% accuracy rating, but this still requires a clinic visit and a full blood draw despite the stock video Today uses to highlight the news:
Basel-based Roche, which also makes molecular tests to identify active COVID-19 infections, said its antibody test has a specificity rate exceeding 99.8% and sensitivity of 100%, meaning tests would show very few false positives and no false negatives. A false-positive result could lead to the mistaken conclusion that someone has immunity. Roche said its test relies on intravenous blood draws, with higher accuracy than finger-prick tests. “If you take blood from a finger prick, you will never be able to achieve the same level of specificity that you will achieve … when you take blood from the vein,” Schinecker said. “You have to have very, very high specificity. Even 0.1% or 0.2% makes a difference.”
Once we have firmly established that antibodies indicate a resistance to infection, these tests will have a critical impact on our ability to re-enter normal economic activity. Shelter-in-place isn’t sustainable and isn’t working as well as people had hoped, former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb told CNBC’s Squawk Box. To get to a point where we can live with COVID-19, we have to get people vaccinated and increase herd immunity. More than anything, though, we need reliable tests and vaccines, not snake oil — a point that the FDA belatedly embraced today.


hotair--2020-05-04--Senate can't release information on Tara Reade as Biden requested (also, about that sloppy AP story)

Last Friday , after Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC to deny the allegations made by Tara Reade , he sent a letter to the secretary of the Senate asking that a search be done of the Senate ’ s archives and that the results of the search be made public .
Today the secretary of the Senate indicated that , after speaking with lawyers , that ’ s not something it can do : In a statement , Julie Adams said their legal counsel has reviewed the relevant statute governing such records and advised that “ the Secretary has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested in Vice President Biden ’ s letter of May 1.
” The statement cited the law ’ s confidentiality requirements and past Senate guidance .
If you want to read the secretary ’ s full statement it ’ s here .
What ’ s not clear is whether or not the answer would be different if Tara Reade was requesting a copy of her own records since , presumably , giving them to her wouldn ’ t violate confidentiality laws .
I suspect Biden ’ s campaign will throw up its hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” They got a news cycle about making an effort and that ’ s enough for them .
In fact , given his long , long history in the Senate I wonder if his campaign wasn ’ t at least vaguely aware this request was going nowhere when they made it .
Would it have mattered anyway in light of the big Associated Press scoop over the weekend ?
The “ news ” presented in that story was that Tara Reade ’ s complaint , even if it could be located , wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable , ” Reade said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press .
“ I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.
” Reade told the AP twice that she did not use the phrase “ sexual harassment ” in filing the complaint , but at other points in the interview said that was the behavior she believed she was describing .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassment , retaliation .
The main word I used – and I know I didn ’ t use sexual harassment — I used ‘ uncomfortable.
’ And I remember ‘ retaliation.
’ ” If you spent any time on Twitter Saturday , you ’ d have seen this story was being greeted as if Tara Reade was changing her story or backing off what she ’ d said previously .
That ’ s exactly how Joe Scarborough framed it , i.e .
as a “ big development.
” Tens of thousands of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many more that framed the AP story as proof Reade had changed her story and was not credible .
There ’ s just one problem with that narrative .
Tara Reade has said all along that her complaint didn ’ t mention sexual assault .
In fact , two reporters who have previously interviewed Tara Reade at length seemed surprised the AP was treating this as a scoop .
Here ’ s Ryan Grim from the intercept responding to Scarborough ’ s tweet : And here ’ s Rich McHugh from Business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t have to take their word for it .
Here ’ s what she said in an interview with The Hill back on March 26 : ” “ …I did make a written claim outside the office…how I couched it was in terms of I felt uncomfortable… ” Compare that to what she told the AP : “ The main word I used – and I know I didn ’ t use sexual harassment — I used ‘ uncomfortable.
’ ” Even the wording is almost the same : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Katie Halper on soundcloud and she conveyed the same thing there .
I guess the authors of the AP story didn ’ t bother looking into what she ’ d said previously and wound up presenting something she ’ s said repeatedly five weeks ago as news .
The result was that many readers of the story , who also didn ’ t know she ’ s said the same thing five weeks earlier thought she had changed her story .
This was pretty sloppy work on the part of the Associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if they were trying to sabotage her credibility the way they reported this .
Two more points about the AP story .
First , the initial headline put on this story was “ Tara Reade says a Senate report she filed against Joe Biden didn ’ t refer to sexual harassment or assault.
” Reade herself immediately contradicted that .
What Reade said was that she ’ s not sure she used the words “ sexual harassment.
” However , whether she used that phrase or not , what she was describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to serve drinks at a function because the Senator thought she had nice legs .
She also described retaliation for her complaints which led to her being fired .
The AP eventually changed the headline and added this editor ’ s note at the bottom : The second point about the AP story is this .
Buried at the very bottom was the fact that the AP spoke to two people who back up Reade ’ s story : Unfortunately , the AP doesn ’ t make it clear if these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoken to other reporters before .
The friend from 1993 could be the same unnamed friend I wrote about here but we don ’ t know because the AP doesn ’ t make it clear .
Again , the entire AP story was a mess .
Either it was written by people who weren ’ t familiar with Reade ’ s story or by people with bad intent .
So does the fact that the document in question doesn ’ t detail sexual assault make it irrelevant ?
Not necessarily and here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , several people have come forward saying they remember Reade telling them about sexual harassment and/or sexual assault decades ago .
However , former Biden staffers to whom Reade says she complained about sexual harassment at the time have denied ever having any such conversations with her .
So you have two sets of recollections which are at odds .
As Reade pointed out in an interview with the Daily Caller , finding any evidence that she complained within Biden ’ s Senate office or outside of it about sexual harassment would undermine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s former staffers .
And if we find out the denials from Biden ’ s staffers aren ’ t accurate then their credibility in denying her claim is shot .
Bottom line : If we find any mention of sexual harassment in those files , that won ’ t prove Reade ’ s story of sexual assault , but it will prove Biden ’ s people haven ’ t been telling the truth .

Last Friday, after Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC to deny the allegations made by Tara Reade, he sent a letter to the secretary of the Senate asking that a search be done of the Senate’s archives and that the results of the search be made public. Today the secretary of the Senate indicated that, after speaking with lawyers, that’s not something it can do:
In a statement, Julie Adams said their legal counsel has reviewed the relevant statute governing such records and advised that “the Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information as requested in Vice President Biden’s letter of May 1.” The statement cited the law’s confidentiality requirements and past Senate guidance.
If you want to read the secretary’s full statement it’s here. What’s not clear is whether or not the answer would be different if Tara Reade was requesting a copy of her own records since, presumably, giving them to her wouldn’t violate confidentiality laws.
I suspect Biden’s campaign will throw up its hands and say ‘Well, we tried.” They got a news cycle about making an effort and that’s enough for them. In fact, given his long, long history in the Senate I wonder if his campaign wasn’t at least vaguely aware this request was going nowhere when they made it.
Would it have mattered anyway in light of the big Associated Press scoop over the weekend? The “news” presented in that story was that Tara Reade’s complaint, even if it could be located, wouldn’t mention sexual harassment:
“I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press. “I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.” Reade told the AP twice that she did not use the phrase “sexual harassment” in filing the complaint, but at other points in the interview said that was the behavior she believed she was describing. She said: “I talked about sexual harassment, retaliation. The main word I used – and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”
If you spent any time on Twitter Saturday, you’d have seen this story was being greeted as if Tara Reade was changing her story or backing off what she’d said previously. That’s exactly how Joe Scarborough framed it, i.e. as a “big development.”
Big developments since @Morning_Joe interview yesterday: 1. Biden accuser cancels interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News.
2. Now says her complaints did not complain of sexual harassment or assault. https://t.co/jbq0RVbLDe — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) May 2, 2020
Tens of thousands of people liked that tweet and I saw many, many more that framed the AP story as proof Reade had changed her story and was not credible. There’s just one problem with that narrative. Tara Reade has said all along that her complaint didn’t mention sexual assault. In fact, two reporters who have previously interviewed Tara Reade at length seemed surprised the AP was treating this as a scoop. Here’s Ryan Grim from the intercept responding to Scarborough’s tweet:
This is consistent with what she told me and others about the complaint. https://t.co/6sgLyqzoe2 pic.twitter.com/fME8VRZROY — Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) May 2, 2020
And here’s Rich McHugh from Business Insider saying the same thing:
This is consistent with what she told me about the complaint as well. https://t.co/0zd1mxzpG5 — Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) May 3, 2020
But you don’t have to take their word for it. Here’s what she said in an interview with The Hill back on March 26: ” “…I did make a written claim outside the office…how I couched it was in terms of I felt uncomfortable…” Compare that to what she told the AP: “The main word I used – and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’” Even the wording is almost the same:
I’ve gone through her first interview with Katie Halper on soundcloud and she conveyed the same thing there. I guess the authors of the AP story didn’t bother looking into what she’d said previously and wound up presenting something she’s said repeatedly five weeks ago as news. The result was that many readers of the story, who also didn’t know she’s said the same thing five weeks earlier thought she had changed her story. This was pretty sloppy work on the part of the Associated Press. Really, it almost looks as if they were trying to sabotage her credibility the way they reported this.
Two more points about the AP story. First, the initial headline put on this story was “Tara Reade says a Senate report she filed against Joe Biden didn’t refer to sexual harassment or assault.” Reade herself immediately contradicted that.
What Reade said was that she’s not sure she used the words “sexual harassment.” However, whether she used that phrase or not, what she was describing was sexual harassment, i.e. being asked to serve drinks at a function because the Senator thought she had nice legs. She also described retaliation for her complaints which led to her being fired. The AP eventually changed the headline and added this editor’s note at the bottom:
The headline of this story was changed for clarity and to incorporate a direct quote from Reade. The AP also added material to the story, which details the specific words and examples Reade says she used in a Senate complaint about Joe Biden. The AP is adding the material to reflect that while Reade says she did not specifically use the words “sexual harassment” in the complaint, she says the behavior she was describing amounts to sexual harassment.
The second point about the AP story is this. Buried at the very bottom was the fact that the AP spoke to two people who back up Reade’s story:
The AP has also spoken to two additional people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their families’ privacy, who said Reade had told them about aspects of her allegations against Biden years ago. One friend, who knew Reade in 1993, said Reade told them about the alleged assault when it happened. The second friend met Reade more than a decade after the alleged incident and confirmed that Reade had a conversation with the friend in 2007 or 2008 about experiencing sexual harassment from Biden while working in his Senate office.
Unfortunately, the AP doesn’t make it clear if these are two new people who haven’t spoken to other reporters before. The friend from 1993 could be the same unnamed friend I wrote about here but we don’t know because the AP doesn’t make it clear. Again, the entire AP story was a mess. Either it was written by people who weren’t familiar with Reade’s story or by people with bad intent.
So does the fact that the document in question doesn’t detail sexual assault make it irrelevant? Not necessarily and here’s why. As it stands now, several people have come forward saying they remember Reade telling them about sexual harassment and/or sexual assault decades ago. However, former Biden staffers to whom Reade says she complained about sexual harassment at the time have denied ever having any such conversations with her. So you have two sets of recollections which are at odds.
As Reade pointed out in an interview with the Daily Caller, finding any evidence that she complained within Biden’s Senate office or outside of it about sexual harassment would undermine the flat denials issued by Biden’s former staffers.
“That would actually confirm that there was an issue that I went to my supervisors about. It would confirm the serving of the drinks,” she said, referring to her allegation that Biden asked for her to serve drinks at a fundraiser because he liked her legs. She added that it would confirm that Biden’s “staff lied on the record and said that I never had meetings, when I had more than five meetings total – informal and formal, with the three of them at different times throughout my tenure.”
And if we find out the denials from Biden’s staffers aren’t accurate then their credibility in denying her claim is shot. Bottom line: If we find any mention of sexual harassment in those files, that won’t prove Reade’s story of sexual assault, but it will prove Biden’s people haven’t been telling the truth.


hotair--2020-05-04--Snitches get ... glitches? Facebook post exposed 900 Missouri lockdown tipsters

Just how many people will drop a dime on their neighbors for violating shelter-in-place orders and social-distancing protocols ?
The number could be higher than you ’ d think — or maybe not anymore , not after what happened to tipsters in St. Louis County , Missouri .
Last week , KSDK reported that an internal document got posted to Facebook exposing the names and contact data of over 900 people who had called to complain about violations .
The publication of this data has tipsters outraged — but perhaps not as outraged as their initial targets : A spree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that St. Louis County released the information it got from people who reported businesses in violation of the stay-at-home order .
The document , released in response to a Sunshine Law request , included names and contact information of the people making the reports .
In their messages , some asked for anonymity .
… The Facebook post headline said , “ Here ya go .
The gallery of snitches , busybodies , and employees who rat out their own neighbors and employers over the Panic-demic.
” What most of them did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were subject to public-records demands , even though the form itself provided a disclaimer on this point .
The person who initially posted the information on Facebook pointed to the disclaimer to argue that he had no responsibility for any consequences that follow from the release of the information .
However , he did also say that he intended the release to disincentivize snitching in the future , too : A person whose Facebook profile name is Jared Totsch told the I-Team that he posted the documents knowing that there might be consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they are worried about retaliation , they should have read the fine print which stated their tips would be open public record subject to a Sunshine request , and should not have submitted tips in that manner to begin with , ” wrote Totsch .
“ I released the info in an attempt to discourage such behavior in the future.
” This episode flew mainly under the radar until last night , when several British tabloids seized on the KSDK report .
The Daily Mail , the Sun , and the Independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete with their global social-media reach .
The renewed and expanded attention highlights anew all sorts of questions , some of them less amusing than others , about liberty in the time of COVID-19 and the limits of transparency at any time .
First off , when do tipsters ’ personal information become public data ?
The county attorney insisted that the police could not redact that information , but that is almost assuredly wrong .
Anonymous tips and complaint processes have long been established for both civil and criminal enforcement , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees a safe method of allowing enforcement of such regulations without fear of retaliation .
Beyond that , do police routinely release personal info for people who call in tips on drug deals ?
Gang violence ?
Organized-crime activity ?
This release will dry up a lot of information for St. Louis County , Missouri , not just about COVID-19 .
As satisfying as it might be to those who oppose shelter-in-place requirements , this is a really dumb decision .
Second , the 900+ tips in such a short period of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to our first question : just how many of our neighbors would call police to complain about us ?
Fewer than those who would refuse , but it ’ s a much closer call than you might imagine : A few other points are worth noting from the crosstabs .
The younger the respondent , the more likely they would be to snitch , with pluralities favoring reporting under 35 years of age .
Trump voters are much more opposed than most other demos as 24/61 , while a near-majority of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independents are nearly evenly split but lean against reporting ( 33/39 ) .
No demo has a majority in favor of reporting , but a few demos have majorities opposing it : Trump voters as just noted , rural voters ( 53/38 ) , men ( 32/51 ) , Republicans ( 25/60 ) , very conservative ( 24/63 ) and somewhat conservative voters ( 33/52 ) .There is also a larger-than-usual contingent of unsure respondents , overall 21 % , which suggests that this might change over time , too .
This raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of us see ourselves as ‘ whistleblowers , ’ while others see us as busybodies and collaborators in an encroaching police state ?
The longer that these emergency measures remain in place , the more those two points of view will come into conflict , with potentially dangerous results .
This is one very important reason that “ flatten the curve ” measures need to be time-limited to just getting necessary health-care resources in place .
The suspension of normal liberties and the heightened fear make for a bad long-term combination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with which a third or more of our neighbors feel inclined to collaborate .
Update : Our friend and former colleague Noah Rothman warned six years ago about being on the path of becoming a “ snitch nation ” : There is value in collective self-policing , a feature of health societies that will never and should never disappear entirely .
And public shaming has a rich , if lamentable , Western tradition dating back to the stockades .
But the rise of an informant culture in America is distinct from self-policing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged practice of informing on others more in service to a base desire to indulge in a little schadenfreude than anything else .
Whether these developments suggest that America is going down a dark path is perfectly debatable… for now .
Fearless public discussion and debate is precisely what is at stake .
This century has been characterized by regular demands that we all watchful eye on our neighbors .
Maybe , though , it would be better for the pendulum to swing back a bit to an era when minding your own @ @ @ @ @ @

Just how many people will drop a dime on their neighbors for violating shelter-in-place orders and social-distancing protocols? The number could be higher than you’d think — or maybe not anymore, not after what happened to tipsters in St. Louis County, Missouri. Last week, KSDK reported that an internal document got posted to Facebook exposing the names and contact data of over 900 people who had called to complain about violations. The publication of this data has tipsters outraged — but perhaps not as outraged as their initial targets:
A spree of social media posts this week warn that St. Louis County released the information it got from people who reported businesses in violation of the stay-at-home order. The document, released in response to a Sunshine Law request, included names and contact information of the people making the reports. In their messages, some asked for anonymity. … The Facebook post headline said, “Here ya go. The gallery of snitches, busybodies, and employees who rat out their own neighbors and employers over the Panic-demic.”
What most of them did not realize was that the forms they used were subject to public-records demands, even though the form itself provided a disclaimer on this point. The person who initially posted the information on Facebook pointed to the disclaimer to argue that he had no responsibility for any consequences that follow from the release of the information. However, he did also say that he intended the release to disincentivize snitching in the future, too:
A person whose Facebook profile name is Jared Totsch told the I-Team that he posted the documents knowing that there might be consequences for the people named within. “If they are worried about retaliation, they should have read the fine print which stated their tips would be open public record subject to a Sunshine request, and should not have submitted tips in that manner to begin with,” wrote Totsch. “I released the info in an attempt to discourage such behavior in the future.”
This episode flew mainly under the radar until last night, when several British tabloids seized on the KSDK report. The Daily Mail, the Sun, and the Independent have all run the story anew, complete with their global social-media reach. The renewed and expanded attention highlights anew all sorts of questions, some of them less amusing than others, about liberty in the time of COVID-19 and the limits of transparency at any time.
First off, when do tipsters’ personal information become public data? The county attorney insisted that the police could not redact that information, but that is almost assuredly wrong. Anonymous tips and complaint processes have long been established for both civil and criminal enforcement, especially for workplace safety violations. That provides employees a safe method of allowing enforcement of such regulations without fear of retaliation. Beyond that, do police routinely release personal info for people who call in tips on drug deals? Gang violence? Organized-crime activity? This release will dry up a lot of information for St. Louis County, Missouri, not just about COVID-19. As satisfying as it might be to those who oppose shelter-in-place requirements, this is a really dumb decision.
Second, the 900+ tips in such a short period of time should raise a few eyebrows and return us to our first question: just how many of our neighbors would call police to complain about us? Fewer than those who would refuse, but it’s a much closer call than you might imagine:
What do you do if your neighbor has 15-20 people over and it’s in violation of stay-at-home orders? A JustTheNews.com survey found that 36% of voters would report their neighbors to the police. Forty-three percent (43%) would not. … There is a huge partisan difference. By a 44% to 31% margin, a plurality of Democrats would turn their neighbors in. By a 60% to 25% margin, Republicans would not. Independents are evenly divided.
A few other points are worth noting from the crosstabs. The younger the respondent, the more likely they would be to snitch, with pluralities favoring reporting under 35 years of age. Trump voters are much more opposed than most other demos as 24/61, while a near-majority of Biden voters are pro-snitching (47/30). Independents are nearly evenly split but lean against reporting (33/39). No demo has a majority in favor of reporting, but a few demos have majorities opposing it: Trump voters as just noted, rural voters (53/38), men (32/51), Republicans (25/60), very conservative (24/63) and somewhat conservative voters (33/52).There is also a larger-than-usual contingent of unsure respondents, overall 21%, which suggests that this might change over time, too.
This raises another question, too. Just how many of us see ourselves as ‘whistleblowers,’ while others see us as busybodies and collaborators in an encroaching police state? The longer that these emergency measures remain in place, the more those two points of view will come into conflict, with potentially dangerous results. This is one very important reason that “flatten the curve” measures need to be time-limited to just getting necessary health-care resources in place. The suspension of normal liberties and the heightened fear make for a bad long-term combination, or the recipe for a police state with which a third or more of our neighbors feel inclined to collaborate.
Update: Our friend and former colleague Noah Rothman warned six years ago about being on the path of becoming a “snitch nation”:


hotair--2020-05-04--Trump moves coronavirus projections from 60,000 to 80-90,000 deaths

Got ta be fair to Trump here .
He didn ’ t come up with the 60,000 figure himself ; that was the projection made by the IHME model in early April , when the curve began to bend thanks to Americans staying home from coast to coast .
Even Anthony Fauci , who ’ s grumbled behind closed doors about the imperfection and variability of models , blessed the 60,000 figure on April 9 : “ The real data are telling us that it is highly likely that we ’ re having a definite positive effect by this mitigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this physical separation – so I believe we are gon na see a downturn in that , ” Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told NBC ’ s “ Today ” show .
“ And it looks more like the 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000 , ” he said .
The IHME model has been rapped all along for being too optimistic .
( About the death toll , I mean .
It was far too pessimistic in projecting the number of hospitalizations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths in the U.S. a few days ago .
The model currently foresees 72,000 U.S. deaths by August 4 , a ludicrous underestimate .
If we average the same number of daily deaths this week as we did last week we stand a chance of passing 72,000 just seven days from now .
All of which is to say : ( 1 ) We should stop paying attention to IHME , at least when it comes to forecasting deaths , and ( 2 ) Trump lowballed the death toll initially only because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
That said , I don ’ t know why he ’ d lowball it *again* by predicting 80-90,000 deaths in his townhall last night with Fox News , as you ’ ll see below .
There ’ s a chance we ’ ll pass that number by the end of *this month , * especially with many states beginning to relax restrictions .
All he ’ s doing by continuing to offer forecasts is handing Democrats ’ attack-ad material .
The script writes itself : First shot is of him projecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of him in this Fox segment projecting 80-90,000 , then the third shot is of him later this month saying , “ It looks more like 100-120,000 deaths , ” then the fourth shot… You get the point .
Dems will use it as a microcosm of incompetence .
“ The administration bungled its response so badly it had to keep raising its estimates of how many would die.
” Birx was asked about the projections yesterday on Fox News as well and wisely played it conservative , reminding viewers that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that was with “ full mitigation , ” i.e .
sustained social distancing .
Hopefully we ’ ll come in under 240,000 .
Although in a worst-case scenario where weekly deaths remain at around 10,000 per week throughout the summer , we could conceivably pass that number in September .
Why was the IHME model off so badly ?
Specifically , why are there still 30,000 new cases and 1,500-2,000 deaths daily despite the draconian measures Americans have taken to crush the curve and bend it downward ?
David Wallace-Wells speculates : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the disease we do not yet understand , or something about how long it incubates that we have failed to recognize .
It is possible the disease remains infectious even after a patient has recovered , perhaps for a significant amount of time .
It is possible that sheltering at home is a flawed quarantining method , since family members can infect one another , and that some meaningful share of the new cases come from within quarantines .
It is possible that some meaningful share comes from within hospitals , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as vectors of the disease .
It is possible that some meaningful share comes from the 50 million exposed frontline workers — employees at grocery stores and meat plants and pharmacies and the post office and so on — who are laboring ( without hazard pay ) to make the quarantines possible for the rest of us .
Quite likely , a few of these factors , and possibly all , are contributing , to some degree ( and 900 workers at a single Tyson Foods plant did just test positive ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decline of deaths or cases as rapid as the ascent a month or so ago .
Birx went on Jeanine Pirro ’ s show on Saturday night and was pressed about whether maybe COVID deaths are being overcounted .
( You can watch that at 1:53 here . )
Isn ’ t it true , said Pirro , that patients infected with the virus who have a severe underlying illness are being counted as coronavirus deaths even though we don ’ t know for sure in some cases that the virus contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people are dying with COVID but not of COVID , has been pushed by Trump-friendly skeptics since the outbreak began as a way of suggesting that maybe he ’ s done a much better job reducing fatalities than anyone thinks .
Birx reminded her that we know people with underlying health problems are more susceptible of succumbing to the virus , but that just leaves Pirro-ites in the position of arguing again that it ’ s the underlying problem , not the complications from the virus , that have caused the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to think about it : According to two separate studies , people with underlying health problem are dying much sooner than we ’ d expect even by the standards of lower life expectancy associated with their underlying problem .
“ Some people think that these people dying would have died this year anyway , ” said one of the lead researchers to the WSJ .
“ That ’ s simply not the case.
” As you can see , even septuagenarians with “ severe ” health problems are losing eight years or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they ’ re dying “ with ” COVID rather than “ of ” COVID , why is that ?
Relatedly , there ’ s the now famous phenomenon of “ excess deaths.
” If people are dying “ with ” COVID rather than “ of ” COVID , we would expect the number of deaths from all causes in April 2020 to look similar to the number in April 2019 .
After all , even in normal times we expect a certain number of deaths each month from cancer , heart disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If coronavirus isn ’ t causing more people ( or many more people ) to die this year then the latest overall mortality figures shouldn ’ t look wildly different from how they looked last year .
In reality , they look wildly different : If people are dying “ with ” COVID , we ’ d expect the number of U.S. deaths to track within that gray band .
What we ’ re actually seeing is a massive spike from confirmed coronavirus deaths ( that ’ s the shaded orange area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 37,000 so far , per WaPo — above that in the unshaded orange area .
Those are the “ excess deaths , ” ones that haven ’ t been confirmed via testing as caused by COVID but which nonetheless happened , waaaaaay above the number of deaths we ’ d expect for this time of year .
This is why epidemiologists continue to insist that the death toll from the disease is being undercounted , not overcounted .
We can ’ t say for certain that every “ excess death ” was due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the baffling spectrum of symptoms doctors have seen in patients that could cause sudden death at home ( strokes and “ happy hypoxia ” are the two that are most well known ) , it ’ s inescapable that the true death toll is higher than the official toll .

Gotta be fair to Trump here. He didn’t come up with the 60,000 figure himself; that was the projection made by the IHME model in early April, when the curve began to bend thanks to Americans staying home from coast to coast. Even Anthony Fauci, who’s grumbled behind closed doors about the imperfection and variability of models, blessed the 60,000 figure on April 9:
“The real data are telling us that it is highly likely that we’re having a definite positive effect by this mitigation things that we’re doing – this physical separation – so I believe we are gonna see a downturn in that,” Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NBC’s “Today” show. “And it looks more like the 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000,” he said.
The IHME model has been rapped all along for being too optimistic. (About the death toll, I mean. It was far too pessimistic in projecting the number of hospitalizations.) In reality, we passed 60,000 deaths in the U.S. a few days ago. The model currently foresees 72,000 U.S. deaths by August 4, a ludicrous underestimate. If we average the same number of daily deaths this week as we did last week we stand a chance of passing 72,000 just seven days from now.
All of which is to say: (1) We should stop paying attention to IHME, at least when it comes to forecasting deaths, and (2) Trump lowballed the death toll initially only because the experts around him were doing so as well.
That said, I don’t know why he’d lowball it *again* by predicting 80-90,000 deaths in his townhall last night with Fox News, as you’ll see below. There’s a chance we’ll pass that number by the end of *this month,* especially with many states beginning to relax restrictions. All he’s doing by continuing to offer forecasts is handing Democrats’ attack-ad material. The script writes itself: First shot is of him projecting 60,000 deaths, then the second shot is of him in this Fox segment projecting 80-90,000, then the third shot is of him later this month saying, “It looks more like 100-120,000 deaths,” then the fourth shot…
You get the point. Dems will use it as a microcosm of incompetence. “The administration bungled its response so badly it had to keep raising its estimates of how many would die.”
Trump: That’s one of the reasons we’re successful, if you call losing 80k-90k people successful
Bret: That number has changed Mr. President. You said 60
Trump: I used to say 65k and now I’m saying 80 or 90 and it goes up and it goes up rapidly pic.twitter.com/v4FbbygF5Q — Acyn (@Acyn) May 3, 2020
Birx was asked about the projections yesterday on Fox News as well and wisely played it conservative, reminding viewers that the White House model projected 100-240,000 deaths, and that was with “full mitigation,” i.e. sustained social distancing. Hopefully we’ll come in under 240,000. Although in a worst-case scenario where weekly deaths remain at around 10,000 per week throughout the summer, we could conceivably pass that number in September.
TRUMP, April 20: "We’re going toward 50 or 60,000 [deaths]." BIRX, today with death toll at 68,000: "Our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 [deaths]." pic.twitter.com/js68n55bSW — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 3, 2020
Why was the IHME model off so badly? Specifically, why are there still 30,000 new cases and 1,500-2,000 deaths daily despite the draconian measures Americans have taken to crush the curve and bend it downward? David Wallace-Wells speculates:
It could be there is some feature of the disease we do not yet understand, or something about how long it incubates that we have failed to recognize. It is possible the disease remains infectious even after a patient has recovered, perhaps for a significant amount of time. It is possible that sheltering at home is a flawed quarantining method, since family members can infect one another, and that some meaningful share of the new cases come from within quarantines. It is possible that some meaningful share comes from within hospitals, with doctors and nurses and administrators all serving as vectors of the disease. It is possible that some meaningful share comes from the 50 million exposed frontline workers — employees at grocery stores and meat plants and pharmacies and the post office and so on — who are laboring (without hazard pay) to make the quarantines possible for the rest of us. Quite likely, a few of these factors, and possibly all, are contributing, to some degree (and 900 workers at a single Tyson Foods plant did just test positive). Together, they are preventing anything resembling a decline of deaths or cases as rapid as the ascent a month or so ago.
Birx went on Jeanine Pirro’s show on Saturday night and was pressed about whether maybe COVID deaths are being overcounted. (You can watch that at 1:53 here.) Isn’t it true, said Pirro, that patients infected with the virus who have a severe underlying illness are being counted as coronavirus deaths even though we don’t know for sure in some cases that the virus contributed to that death? That argument, that people are dying with COVID but not of COVID, has been pushed by Trump-friendly skeptics since the outbreak began as a way of suggesting that maybe he’s done a much better job reducing fatalities than anyone thinks.
Birx reminded her that we know people with underlying health problems are more susceptible of succumbing to the virus, but that just leaves Pirro-ites in the position of arguing again that it’s the underlying problem, not the complications from the virus, that have caused the death. So here’s a data-driven way to think about it: According to two separate studies, people with underlying health problem are dying much sooner than we’d expect even by the standards of lower life expectancy associated with their underlying problem.
“Some people think that these people dying would have died this year anyway,” said one of the lead researchers to the WSJ. “That’s simply not the case.” As you can see, even septuagenarians with “severe” health problems are losing eight years or so off their projected life span. If they’re dying “with” COVID rather than “of” COVID, why is that?
Relatedly, there’s the now famous phenomenon of “excess deaths.” If people are dying “with” COVID rather than “of” COVID, we would expect the number of deaths from all causes in April 2020 to look similar to the number in April 2019. After all, even in normal times we expect a certain number of deaths each month from cancer, heart disease, auto accidents, and so on. If coronavirus isn’t causing more people (or many more people) to die this year then the latest overall mortality figures shouldn’t look wildly different from how they looked last year. In reality, they look wildly different:
If people are dying “with” COVID, we’d expect the number of U.S. deaths to track within that gray band. What we’re actually seeing is a massive spike from confirmed coronavirus deaths (that’s the shaded orange area) plus many thousands more deaths — 37,000 so far, per WaPo — above that in the unshaded orange area. Those are the “excess deaths,” ones that haven’t been confirmed via testing as caused by COVID but which nonetheless happened, waaaaaay above the number of deaths we’d expect for this time of year. This is why epidemiologists continue to insist that the death toll from the disease is being undercounted, not overcounted. We can’t say for certain that every “excess death” was due directly due to the pandemic, but given the baffling spectrum of symptoms doctors have seen in patients that could cause sudden death at home (strokes and “happy hypoxia” are the two that are most well known), it’s inescapable that the true death toll is higher than the official toll.


hotair--2020-05-04--Mayor's response to protests of face mask mandate: "Shame on you"

It ’ s a bumpy ride , this reopening of America .
Mayor Will Joyce of Stillwater , Oklahoma issued an emergency proclamation last Thursday requiring the use of face masks in restaurants and stores , effective May 1 .
By Friday , the proclamation was “ amended ” .
The order was to go into effect Friday as part of the city ’ s reopening plan .
Customers were to be required to wear face masks while patronizing the stores and restaurants opening back up after closing due to the coronavirus pandemic outbreak .
Instead of issuing what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , his order was that businesses require customers to wear a face mask in order to enter .
He put the burden on business owners .
Unfortunately , the business employees suffered the ire of residents .
People issued threats to employees and one of the threats allegedly included a firearm .
And just like that , the mayor changed his mind .
He realized that by putting the burden on the businesses , he endangered the employees who had nothing to do with the order .
He “ amended ” his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face masks for protection .
“ We should all get used to the idea of wearing a face-covering to protect one another.
” The mayor expressed skepticism that the city is on the downward trend with the coronavirus but said he realizes the community is not an island – it will move “ forward in coordination with the state and the larger community around us.
” He explained that he wasn ’ t reacting to “ bullies ” as much as he is trying to protect workers and those at city hall receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going with a middle-ground approach for safety using examples set by other communities across the country but realizes now that “ it wasn ’ t the right approach for Stillwater.
” He responded to those making threats by saying “ shame on you ” .
“ To the people who resort to threats and intimidation when asked to take a simple step to protect your community : shame on you .
Our freedom as Americans comes with responsibilities , too.
” He ’ s right that freedom comes with responsibilities .
Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on government overreach .
He should have just left the decision to individual business owners on how to manage store traffic .
A statement was issued by the mayor and City Manager Norman McNickle .
McNickle sounds particularly disturbed that city residents cited the opinion that such an emergency proclamation was unconstitutional .
He says that is a false claim .
City Manager Norman McNickle said , “ In the short time beginning on May 1 , 2020 , that face coverings have been required for entry into stores/restaurants , store employees have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with verbal abuse .
In addition , there has been one threat of violence using a firearm .
This has occurred in three short hours and in the face of clear medical evidence that face coverings helps contain the spread of COVID-19 .
“ Many of those with objections cite the mistaken belief the requirement is unconstitutional , and under their theory , one can not be forced to wear a mask .
No law or court supports this view .
In fact , a recent Federal lawsuit against Guthrie ’ s face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma .
“ It is further distressing that these people , while exercising their believed rights , put others at risk .
As mentioned , there is clear medical evidence the face coverings prevent COVID-19 spread ; they are recommended by both the CDC and the Oklahoma State Department of Health .
The wearing of face coverings is little inconvenience to protect both the wearer and anyone with whom they have contact .
And , an unprotected person who contracts the virus can infect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is further well settled that a business is private property to which people do not have unfettered right of entry .
Just as a business has the right to enforce ‘ No Shoes , No Shirt , No Service , ’ the business can require a face covering as a condition to entry .
“ The City of Stillwater has attempted to keep people safe by the simple requirement to wear a face covering to protect others .
It is unfortunate and distressing that those who refuse and threaten violence are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a simple show of respect and kindness to others .
The city manager doesn ’ t sound like he has much respect for the little people , does he ?
He ’ s probably right – lawsuits may not hold up in court over the legality of face mask mandates but we also know that such mandates aren ’ t necessarily enforceable , too .
It depends on civil or criminal penalties in place for violations , so it varies from place to place .
Some cities have such a system in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most importantly , social distancing requirements need to stay in place .
The CDC began recommending the wearing of cloth face coverings in public spaces on April 3 .
By then there was new evidence available that people were spreading the virus asymptomatically , meaning the virus can spread through coughs and sneezes from people who are not suffering any symptoms of the coronavirus .
In small or crowded spaces , this is a real risk .
It ’ s important to remember that a mask protects others from you and their mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll continue to wear a face mask in public spaces and stores because ours is an at-risk household .
It is my nature to be cautious with health issues anyway .
Social distancing is the key , though .
You don ’ t need to wear a mask while driving a car , especially if you are alone .
I ’ ve actually seen people do that and it ’ s silly .
Put on the mask before entering the store , though .
You don ’ t really need a face mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dog in the neighborhood unless lots of people are doing the same thing .
In that case , give others plenty of space , walk on different sides of the street if possible .
It ’ s just a matter of using common sense .

It’s a bumpy ride, this reopening of America. Mayor Will Joyce of Stillwater, Oklahoma issued an emergency proclamation last Thursday requiring the use of face masks in restaurants and stores, effective May 1. By Friday, the proclamation was “amended”.
The order was to go into effect Friday as part of the city’s reopening plan. Customers were to be required to wear face masks while patronizing the stores and restaurants opening back up after closing due to the coronavirus pandemic outbreak. Instead of issuing what he referred to as a “blanket order”, his order was that businesses require customers to wear a face mask in order to enter. He put the burden on business owners. Unfortunately, the business employees suffered the ire of residents. People issued threats to employees and one of the threats allegedly included a firearm.
And just like that, the mayor changed his mind. He realized that by putting the burden on the businesses, he endangered the employees who had nothing to do with the order. He “amended” his action to strongly encouraging the use of face masks for protection. “We should all get used to the idea of wearing a face-covering to protect one another.”
But we had a bit of false start today on face coverings. Masks are an easy and effective way to slow the spread and keep our recovery stays on track. It’s a tricky issue, not because a mask rule is unconstitutional (it’s clearly not), but because it’s so difficult to enforce. — Mayor Will Joyce (@stillwaterwill) May 1, 2020
The mayor expressed skepticism that the city is on the downward trend with the coronavirus but said he realizes the community is not an island – it will move “forward in coordination with the state and the larger community around us.” He explained that he wasn’t reacting to “bullies” as much as he is trying to protect workers and those at city hall receiving threats. Mayor Joyce thought he was going with a middle-ground approach for safety using examples set by other communities across the country but realizes now that “it wasn’t the right approach for Stillwater.”
I am not the kind of person who backs down from bullies, but I also will not send someone else to fight the battle for me. I issued a revised order this afternoon to correct this problem, and we will continue to reevaluate our approach to face coverings. — Mayor Will Joyce (@stillwaterwill) May 1, 2020
He responded to those making threats by saying “shame on you”. “To the people who resort to threats and intimidation when asked to take a simple step to protect your community: shame on you. Our freedom as Americans comes with responsibilities, too.” He’s right that freedom comes with responsibilities. Americans, however, don’t remain silent on government overreach. He should have just left the decision to individual business owners on how to manage store traffic.
A statement was issued by the mayor and City Manager Norman McNickle. McNickle sounds particularly disturbed that city residents cited the opinion that such an emergency proclamation was unconstitutional. He says that is a false claim.
City Manager Norman McNickle said, “In the short time beginning on May 1, 2020, that face coverings have been required for entry into stores/restaurants, store employees have been threatened with physical violence and showered with verbal abuse. In addition, there has been one threat of violence using a firearm. This has occurred in three short hours and in the face of clear medical evidence that face coverings helps contain the spread of COVID-19. “Many of those with objections cite the mistaken belief the requirement is unconstitutional, and under their theory, one cannot be forced to wear a mask. No law or court supports this view. In fact, a recent Federal lawsuit against Guthrie’s face covering order was fully dismissed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. “It is further distressing that these people, while exercising their believed rights, put others at risk. As mentioned, there is clear medical evidence the face coverings prevent COVID-19 spread; they are recommended by both the CDC and the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The wearing of face coverings is little inconvenience to protect both the wearer and anyone with whom they have contact. And, an unprotected person who contracts the virus can infect their own loved ones and others. “It is further well settled that a business is private property to which people do not have unfettered right of entry. Just as a business has the right to enforce ‘No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service,’ the business can require a face covering as a condition to entry. “The City of Stillwater has attempted to keep people safe by the simple requirement to wear a face covering to protect others. It is unfortunate and distressing that those who refuse and threaten violence are so self-absorbed as to not follow what is a simple show of respect and kindness to others.
The city manager doesn’t sound like he has much respect for the little people, does he? He’s probably right – lawsuits may not hold up in court over the legality of face mask mandates but we also know that such mandates aren’t necessarily enforceable, too. It depends on civil or criminal penalties in place for violations, so it varies from place to place. Some cities have such a system in place, others don’t.
Most importantly, social distancing requirements need to stay in place.
“The idea about the face mask is to prevent the virus from coming out of somebody’s mouth and nose, mostly out of their mouth,” said Dr. Joseph Vinetz, a professor in the infectious disease section at Yale School of Medicine, to CNN in April. “They prevent somebody, when they talk or sometimes when they sneeze or cough, from expelling virus and leading to infection in other people.” Masks, however, are not a substitute for social distancing, which is still required to slow the spread of the virus.
The CDC began recommending the wearing of cloth face coverings in public spaces on April 3. By then there was new evidence available that people were spreading the virus asymptomatically, meaning the virus can spread through coughs and sneezes from people who are not suffering any symptoms of the coronavirus. In small or crowded spaces, this is a real risk. It’s important to remember that a mask protects others from you and their mask protects you from them.
I’ll continue to wear a face mask in public spaces and stores because ours is an at-risk household. It is my nature to be cautious with health issues anyway. Social distancing is the key, though. You don’t need to wear a mask while driving a car, especially if you are alone. I’ve actually seen people do that and it’s silly. Put on the mask before entering the store, though. You don’t really need a face mask outside while you’re walking your dog in the neighborhood unless lots of people are doing the same thing. In that case, give others plenty of space, walk on different sides of the street if possible. It’s just a matter of using common sense.


hotair--2020-05-04--How Iceland "beat" the virus

How Iceland "beat" the virus

If you ’ re looking for a “ success story ” in the midst of the pandemic , the next candidate being touted in the press is Iceland .
Today , the country is opening back up for business almost entirely , while residents are still being warned to practice social distancing as much as possible .
So have they “ beaten ” the novel coronavirus ?
The numbers don ’ t lie , and it ’ s definitely true that they have weathered the storm remarkably well thus far .
Their total number of cases and deaths look impressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprehensive testing is impressive .
Of course , they have some built-in advantages not available to most nations .
( Associated Press ) High schools , hair salons , dentists and other businesses across Iceland are reopening Monday after six weeks of lockdown , after this North Atlantic nation managed to tame its coronavirus outbreak .
Iceland has confirmed 1,799 cases of the virus , but just 10 people have died .
The number of new COVID-19 cases each day has fallen from 106 at the peak of the outbreak to single digits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero .
“ I didn ’ t expect the recovery to be this fast , ” said Iceland ’ s chief epidemiologist , Thorolfur Gudnason .
I ’ m happy for the people of Iceland and hope that they continue to be successful in their efforts .
With that said , let ’ s take a look at some of the many factors that played in their favor and why they aren ’ t some sort of role model for the rest of the world .
First of all , the country has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are only 360,000 people on the entire island .
That makes it a lot easier to monitor what ’ s going on and swiftly act to reduce transmission rates .
Also , the disease didn ’ t arrive there until much later than many other places .
They didn ’ t have their first confirmed case until the last day of February .
They had time to watch what was going on in other countries and prepare .
On top of that , the Icelandic culture is far more used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on things like fundamental freedoms .
They began quarantining everyone and anyone as soon as the disease showed up .
Their small population also made it possible for them to quickly conduct testing and subsequent tracing at a faster rate than any larger nation could manage .
They ’ ve already tested a full 13 % of their entire population .
This effort was made even easier by the fact that the island is home to biopharmaceutical company deCODE Genetics .
They rapidly rolled out a testing program looking at asymptomatic people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick .
In the end , they wound up putting more than 19,000 people in quarantine for at least two weeks .
So now Iceland is opening up most of their businesses with the exceptions of gyms and swimming pools .
But they are still going to be isolating themselves from the rest of the world .
Anyone arriving in Iceland from anywhere on the planet will have to go into a mandatory two-week quarantine and then undergo testing before being allowed out in public .
This has sent their tourism industry into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big portion of their economy .
So , yes… Iceland went through their own virus saga and came out of it pretty quickly .
They shared many of the same advantages that New Zealand did .
( One of the other countries being hailed as having “ beaten ” the virus . )
They still had to go to some pretty crazy lengths to accomplish that feat , however .
But hey… what do you expect from a country that almost turned over their government to the Pirate Party a few years @ @

If you’re looking for a “success story” in the midst of the pandemic, the next candidate being touted in the press is Iceland. Today, the country is opening back up for business almost entirely, while residents are still being warned to practice social distancing as much as possible. So have they “beaten” the novel coronavirus? The numbers don’t lie, and it’s definitely true that they have weathered the storm remarkably well thus far. Their total number of cases and deaths look impressively low, and their ability to conduct comprehensive testing is impressive. Of course, they have some built-in advantages not available to most nations. (Associated Press)
High schools, hair salons, dentists and other businesses across Iceland are reopening Monday after six weeks of lockdown, after this North Atlantic nation managed to tame its coronavirus outbreak. Iceland has confirmed 1,799 cases of the virus, but just 10 people have died. The number of new COVID-19 cases each day has fallen from 106 at the peak of the outbreak to single digits — even, on some days, zero. “I didn’t expect the recovery to be this fast,” said Iceland’s chief epidemiologist, Thorolfur Gudnason.
I’m happy for the people of Iceland and hope that they continue to be successful in their efforts. With that said, let’s take a look at some of the many factors that played in their favor and why they aren’t some sort of role model for the rest of the world.
First of all, the country has a tiny population to take care of. There are only 360,000 people on the entire island. That makes it a lot easier to monitor what’s going on and swiftly act to reduce transmission rates.
Also, the disease didn’t arrive there until much later than many other places. They didn’t have their first confirmed case until the last day of February. They had time to watch what was going on in other countries and prepare. On top of that, the Icelandic culture is far more used to “big government solutions” without dwelling on things like fundamental freedoms. They began quarantining everyone and anyone as soon as the disease showed up.
Their small population also made it possible for them to quickly conduct testing and subsequent tracing at a faster rate than any larger nation could manage. They’ve already tested a full 13% of their entire population. This effort was made even easier by the fact that the island is home to biopharmaceutical company deCODE Genetics. They rapidly rolled out a testing program looking at asymptomatic people, not just those who were already obviously sick. In the end, they wound up putting more than 19,000 people in quarantine for at least two weeks.
So now Iceland is opening up most of their businesses with the exceptions of gyms and swimming pools. But they are still going to be isolating themselves from the rest of the world. Anyone arriving in Iceland from anywhere on the planet will have to go into a mandatory two-week quarantine and then undergo testing before being allowed out in public. This has sent their tourism industry into a tailspin, and that’s a big portion of their economy.
So, yes… Iceland went through their own virus saga and came out of it pretty quickly. They shared many of the same advantages that New Zealand did. (One of the other countries being hailed as having “beaten” the virus.) They still had to go to some pretty crazy lengths to accomplish that feat, however. But hey… what do you expect from a country that almost turned over their government to the Pirate Party a few years ago?


hotair--2020-05-04--Whitmer on "Believe All Women": Not all sexual-assault claims are equal

Yesterday ’ s appearance on CNN ’ s State of the Union showed that Gretchen Whitmer needs both a better Internet connection and a better argument .
When asked by Jake Tapper to explain why “ believe all women ” applied to Christine Blasey Ford but not Tara Reade despite much more contemporaneous corroboration for the latter , Whitmer accused Tapper of targeting her for the question as a survivor — rather than as a potential Joe Biden running mate .
With pixilation making Whitmer as opaque as her standards , the Michigan governor told Tapper that “ not every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is “ very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is.
” It ’ s quite a display of chutzpah in defense of a double standard : TAPPER : I want to turn now to former Vice President Joe Biden , who denied on Friday an allegation made by a former Senate staffer of his , Tara Reade , who says that he sexually assaulted her in the early ’ 90s .
You have said that you believe Vice President Biden .
I want to compare that to 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blasey Ford after she accused now Justice Brett Kavanaugh of assault .
Kavanaugh also , like Biden , categorically denied that accusation .
And Blasey Ford , to be honest , she did not have the contemporaneous accounts of her view of what happened that Tara Reade does .
You have spoken movingly about how you ’ re a survivor — survivor of assault yourself .
Why do you believe Biden , and not Kavanaugh ?
Are they not both entitled to the same presumption of innocence , regardless of their political views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a survivor and as a feminist , I will say this .
We need to give people an opportunity to tell their story .
But then we have a duty to vet it .
And just because you ’ re a survivor doesn ’ t mean that every claim is equal .
It means we give them the ability to make their case , and the other side as well , and then to make a judgment that is informed .
I have read a lot about this current allegation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have watched his defense .
And there ’ s not a pattern that goes into this .
And I think that , for these reasons , I ’ m very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is .
He ’ s — and you know what ?
And that ’ s all I ’ m going to say about it .
I really resent the fact that , every time a case comes up , all of us survivors have to weigh in .
It is reopening wounds .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word , ask us for our opinion , and let ’ s move on .
TAPPER : Well , just for the record , the reason I ’ m asking you is because you ’ re the only Democrat on the show today , not because you ’ re a survivor , and not because you ’ re a woman .
But thank you so much for your time .
I want to… WHITMER : Yes .
No , and it ’ s not a criticism of you , Jake .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re doing your job , and I appreciate that .
I ’ m just sharing , I think , some of the simmering anger that we survivors have every time that we have got to confront this from someone else ’ s behavior that we weren ’ t a party to , that we weren ’ t even a part of the reality in the moment .
What I think is this .
We owe it to every woman who has a story to listen to that story , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions and be critical thinkers , and then make a judgment , based on all of those pieces .
I have done that in this instance .
And I will tell you this .
I don ’ t believe that it ’ s consistent with the Joe Biden that I know .
And I do believe Joe , and I support Joe Biden .
Tapper ’ s being a bit too kind here , especially in regard to Whitmer ’ s attempt to smear him by accusing him of exploiting her status as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Whitmer the only Democrat on his show to ask , she ’ s also an obvious shortlist candidate as Biden ’ s VP choice .
Whitmer ’ s appearance on SOTU is at least partly motivated to get national exposure in that regard , as was her earlier jousting with Donald Trump .
Any potential running mate will have to deal with this question at some point or another , because Reade ’ s allegations are clearly not going to go away now .
Furthermore , survivors such as Whitmer had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to blasting Kavanaugh in late 2018 .
They referenced their authentic and traumatic experiences to establish their bona fides in the campaign to “ Believe All Women , ” as well as in some cases to shut down other voices who pushed back at the time by arguing that every claim is not equal , just as Whitmer belatedly argued yesterday .
At that time , their argument was that “ due process ” was a patriarchal notion designed to silence women and to deny their survivorship .
This is hardly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s getting so bad that the Washington Post reports today that Democrats are engaging in a “ reexamination of ‘ Believe Women ' ” : Joe Biden , discussing sexual assault claims in early 2018 , told PBS flatly , “ Women should be believed.
” On Friday , facing his own accusations , he stressed on MSNBC the importance of “ taking the woman ’ s claims seriously when she steps forward — and then vet it , look into it.
” That shift in Biden ’ s tone reflects the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he assaulted her 27 years ago is raising new questions for the # MeToo movement .
Democrats and women ’ s activists , eager to unseat a president they consider deeply misogynistic , are facing tough decisions over whether to stick by Biden or distance themselves — and whether to redefine what emerged as a stark rallying cry after centuries of injustice : “ Believe women.
” … Some longtime women ’ s rights activists warn that downplaying former staffer Tara Reade ’ s claims could undermine the movement ’ s credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies it dislikes .
“ I think that this could potentially signal the end of MeToo , ” said Michele Dauber , a Stanford University law professor who heads the Enough is Enough Voter Project and has called for an investigation .
“ The failure to investigate , and the failure to live by our principles , will become silencing.
” It was “ Believe All Women , ” and there was no nuance at all to it when it came to Kavanaugh .
That was true even when two other claims against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even mild scrutiny .
Now it ’ s slowly morphing into “ Believe All Bidens , ” and is becoming even more transparently a political bludgeon against Republicans .
It ’ s another political-hatchet-job strategy used by the Left to protect access to abortion , to be abandoned immediately upon any other application — nothing more and nothing less .
This is precisely why due process matters .
It strips politics from the equation and forces proper scrutiny on all claims .
If Whitmer wanted to defend due process as the highest value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law , that would be marvelous .
It ’ s clear , however , that Whitmer is only arguing for an exemption on “ Believe All Women ” for Biden and by extension all other Democrats on the basis of her personal feelings and political ambitions .
That ’ s as cynical an argument as we ’ re likely to hear on any Sunday talk show .

Yesterday’s appearance on CNN’s State of the Union showed that Gretchen Whitmer needs both a better Internet connection and a better argument. When asked by Jake Tapper to explain why “believe all women” applied to Christine Blasey Ford but not Tara Reade despite much more contemporaneous corroboration for the latter, Whitmer accused Tapper of targeting her for the question as a survivor — rather than as a potential Joe Biden running mate. With pixilation making Whitmer as opaque as her standards, the Michigan governor told Tapper that “not every claim is equal,” and that she is “very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is.”
It’s quite a display of chutzpah in defense of a double standard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LxTcY21qY
TAPPER: I want to turn now to former Vice President Joe Biden, who denied on Friday an allegation made by a former Senate staffer of his, Tara Reade, who says that he sexually assaulted her in the early ’90s. You have said that you believe Vice President Biden. I want to compare that to 2018, when you said you believed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford after she accused now Justice Brett Kavanaugh of assault. Kavanaugh also, like Biden, categorically denied that accusation. And Blasey Ford, to be honest, she did not have the contemporaneous accounts of her view of what happened that Tara Reade does. You have spoken movingly about how you’re a survivor — survivor of assault yourself. Why do you believe Biden, and not Kavanaugh? Are they not both entitled to the same presumption of innocence, regardless of their political views? WHITMER: You know, Jake, as a survivor and as a feminist, I will say this. We need to give people an opportunity to tell their story. But then we have a duty to vet it. And just because you’re a survivor doesn’t mean that every claim is equal. It means we give them the ability to make their case, and the other side as well, and then to make a judgment that is informed. I have read a lot about this current allegation. I know Joe Biden, and I have watched his defense. And there’s not a pattern that goes into this. And I think that, for these reasons, I’m very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is. He’s — and you know what? And that’s all I’m going to say about it. I really resent the fact that, every time a case comes up, all of us survivors have to weigh in. It is reopening wounds. And it is — take us at our word, ask us for our opinion, and let’s move on. TAPPER: Well, just for the record, the reason I’m asking you is because you’re the only Democrat on the show today, not because you’re a survivor, and not because you’re a woman. But thank you so much for your time. I want to… WHITMER: Yes. No, and it’s not a criticism of you, Jake. It’s not a criticism of you. You’re doing your job, and I appreciate that. I’m just sharing, I think, some of the simmering anger that we survivors have every time that we have got to confront this from someone else’s behavior that we weren’t a party to, that we weren’t even a part of the reality in the moment. What I think is this. We owe it to every woman who has a story to listen to that story, and then to vet that story, ask the questions and be critical thinkers, and then make a judgment, based on all of those pieces. I have done that in this instance. And I will tell you this. I don’t believe that it’s consistent with the Joe Biden that I know. And I do believe Joe, and I support Joe Biden.
Tapper’s being a bit too kind here, especially in regard to Whitmer’s attempt to smear him by accusing him of exploiting her status as a sexual assault survivor. Not only was Whitmer the only Democrat on his show to ask, she’s also an obvious shortlist candidate as Biden’s VP choice. Whitmer’s appearance on SOTU is at least partly motivated to get national exposure in that regard, as was her earlier jousting with Donald Trump. Any potential running mate will have to deal with this question at some point or another, because Reade’s allegations are clearly not going to go away now.
Furthermore, survivors such as Whitmer had no problem citing their own experiences when it came to blasting Kavanaugh in late 2018. They referenced their authentic and traumatic experiences to establish their bona fides in the campaign to “Believe All Women,” as well as in some cases to shut down other voices who pushed back at the time by arguing that every claim is not equal, just as Whitmer belatedly argued yesterday. At that time, their argument was that “due process” was a patriarchal notion designed to silence women and to deny their survivorship.
This is hardly the only example of this hypocrisy. It’s getting so bad that the Washington Post reports today that Democrats are engaging in a “reexamination of ‘Believe Women'”:
Joe Biden, discussing sexual assault claims in early 2018, told PBS flatly, “Women should be believed.” On Friday, facing his own accusations, he stressed on MSNBC the importance of “taking the woman’s claims seriously when she steps forward — and then vet it, look into it.” That shift in Biden’s tone reflects the way a former staffer’s claim that he assaulted her 27 years ago is raising new questions for the #MeToo movement. Democrats and women’s activists, eager to unseat a president they consider deeply misogynistic, are facing tough decisions over whether to stick by Biden or distance themselves — and whether to redefine what emerged as a stark rallying cry after centuries of injustice: “Believe women.” … Some longtime women’s rights activists warn that downplaying former staffer Tara Reade’s claims could undermine the movement’s credibility by suggesting it only targets men whose policies it dislikes. “I think that this could potentially signal the end of MeToo,” said Michele Dauber, a Stanford University law professor who heads the Enough is Enough Voter Project and has called for an investigation. “The failure to investigate, and the failure to live by our principles, will become silencing.”
It was “Believe All Women,” and there was no nuance at all to it when it came to Kavanaugh. That was true even when two other claims against the Supreme Court justice fell apart under even mild scrutiny. Now it’s slowly morphing into “Believe All Bidens,” and is becoming even more transparently a political bludgeon against Republicans. It’s another political-hatchet-job strategy used by the Left to protect access to abortion, to be abandoned immediately upon any other application — nothing more and nothing less.
This is precisely why due process matters. It strips politics from the equation and forces proper scrutiny on all claims. If Whitmer wanted to defend due process as the highest value in a society based on a rule of law, that would be marvelous. It’s clear, however, that Whitmer is only arguing for an exemption on “Believe All Women” for Biden and by extension all other Democrats on the basis of her personal feelings and political ambitions. That’s as cynical an argument as we’re likely to hear on any Sunday talk show.


hotair--2020-05-04--NYT op-ed: Time for a "plan B" that doesn't include Biden

When you ’ ve lost Liz Bruenig it might be time to reconsider your approach .
With that in mind , the Democrats might want to take a moment to consider the liberal columnist ’ s latest entry at the New York Times .
She breaks down the albatross of hypocrisy hanging around the party ’ s neck as many of them continue to insist that there ’ s nothing to see in the Tara Reade story .
She does an admirable job of laying out both the elements of Reade ’ s story that cast doubt on her tale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her accusation is “ not nearly as incredible as some have argued.
” Bruenig goes on from there to point out that the Democrats have invested themselves far too heavily in the # MeToo movement to simply turn around and abandon an accuser when it ’ s politically inconvenient to support her .
She further argues that if progressives lower the bar for strict scrutiny of Joe Biden , they lower it for everyone else who is accused in the future .
With that in mind , the author suggests that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that doesn ’ t include Uncle Joe .
I have my own impressions regarding Ms. Reade ’ s allegations , but no one — save Ms. Reade and Mr. Biden — knows with certainty whether her claims are true .
What I can assert with firm conviction is that Democrats ought to start considering a backup plan for 2020… Sexual assault is a crime unlike any other , and its hideous uniqueness is often manifest in the ways its victims cope .
Cavalier dismissal of Ms. Reade ’ s story therefore runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault and its aftermath .
This is collateral damage that Democrats — who have spent the last few years championing the # MeToo movement — should be loath to incur .
Democrats who subject Ms. Reade ’ s allegations to a level of scrutiny not widely applied to accusers in similar circumstances — such as Christine Blasey-Ford , who famously came forward during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court to allege that he had sexually accosted her in high school — also open up past and future cases to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the better bits of analysis of the Tara Reade saga I ’ ve seen coming out of the left .
But there ’ s one glaring problem with it .
Bruenig used several different descriptions to declare that Democrats should be “ formulating an alternative strategy for 2020.
” But at no point does she so much as suggest how that would be accomplished .
The advantages for the Democrats in swapping in a different candidate should be obvious .
While many , like DNC Chair Tom Perez , seem to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges of hypocrisy , the public isn ’ t going to be so easily deceived .
Holding Biden to the same standard that Brett Kavanaugh was ( or at least giving the impression of doing that ) would at least make them consistent .
But there ’ s more to the story than that .
Without intending to do so , Tara Reade could wind up providing a plausible cover story for removing a candidate that has a lot more problems than one sexual assault allegation .
The fact that Uncle Joe has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic is probably the only thing stopping his campaign from turning into even more of a trainwreck .
The few live interviews he ’ s done recently have ranged from being mild and uninteresting to downright alarming when his mind appears to wander , he stumbles over his words and careens from one topic to another .
It just seems to be increasingly obvious that Joe Biden is well past his Best Sell By Date .
And this is the guy that will have to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him out for someone younger , sharper , and preferably without a sexual assault scandal dogging their heels would probably pay big benefits .
But as we ’ ve discussed here in the past , that ’ s easier said than done .
If Biden shows up at whatever passes for a convention this summer with a majority of the pledged delegates , that ’ s pretty much the end of the game .
True , the DNC has a codicil in their rules allowing the committee to replace a nominee if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties .
But that ’ s one heck of a drastic step to take .
Could Biden be quietly convinced to step aside on his own ?
He ’ s been trying to ascend to the Oval Office for decades .
Somehow I doubt it .
And if not , the Democrats will find themselves stuck firmly between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea .

When you’ve lost Liz Bruenig it might be time to reconsider your approach. With that in mind, the Democrats might want to take a moment to consider the liberal columnist’s latest entry at the New York Times. She breaks down the albatross of hypocrisy hanging around the party’s neck as many of them continue to insist that there’s nothing to see in the Tara Reade story. She does an admirable job of laying out both the elements of Reade’s story that cast doubt on her tale as well as the factors that suggest her accusation is “not nearly as incredible as some have argued.”
Bruenig goes on from there to point out that the Democrats have invested themselves far too heavily in the #MeToo movement to simply turn around and abandon an accuser when it’s politically inconvenient to support her. She further argues that if progressives lower the bar for strict scrutiny of Joe Biden, they lower it for everyone else who is accused in the future. With that in mind, the author suggests that it’s time for a “Plan B” that doesn’t include Uncle Joe.
I have my own impressions regarding Ms. Reade’s allegations, but no one — save Ms. Reade and Mr. Biden — knows with certainty whether her claims are true. What I can assert with firm conviction is that Democrats ought to start considering a backup plan for 2020… Sexual assault is a crime unlike any other, and its hideous uniqueness is often manifest in the ways its victims cope. Cavalier dismissal of Ms. Reade’s story therefore runs the risk of advancing misconceptions about sexual assault and its aftermath. This is collateral damage that Democrats — who have spent the last few years championing the #MeToo movement — should be loath to incur. Democrats who subject Ms. Reade’s allegations to a level of scrutiny not widely applied to accusers in similar circumstances — such as Christine Blasey-Ford, who famously came forward during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court to allege that he had sexually accosted her in high school — also open up past and future cases to reproachful disregard.
This is actually one of the better bits of analysis of the Tara Reade saga I’ve seen coming out of the left. But there’s one glaring problem with it. Bruenig used several different descriptions to declare that Democrats should be “formulating an alternative strategy for 2020.” But at no point does she so much as suggest how that would be accomplished.
The advantages for the Democrats in swapping in a different candidate should be obvious. While many, like DNC Chair Tom Perez, seem to be immune to embarrassment and can blithely ignore charges of hypocrisy, the public isn’t going to be so easily deceived. Holding Biden to the same standard that Brett Kavanaugh was (or at least giving the impression of doing that) would at least make them consistent.
But there’s more to the story than that. Without intending to do so, Tara Reade could wind up providing a plausible cover story for removing a candidate that has a lot more problems than one sexual assault allegation. The fact that Uncle Joe has been locked up in his basement by the pandemic is probably the only thing stopping his campaign from turning into even more of a trainwreck. The few live interviews he’s done recently have ranged from being mild and uninteresting to downright alarming when his mind appears to wander, he stumbles over his words and careens from one topic to another.
It just seems to be increasingly obvious that Joe Biden is well past his Best Sell By Date. And this is the guy that will have to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump on the debate stage sooner or later. Swapping him out for someone younger, sharper, and preferably without a sexual assault scandal dogging their heels would probably pay big benefits.
But as we’ve discussed here in the past, that’s easier said than done. If Biden shows up at whatever passes for a convention this summer with a majority of the pledged delegates, that’s pretty much the end of the game. True, the DNC has a codicil in their rules allowing the committee to replace a nominee if they are “unable” to discharge their duties. But that’s one heck of a drastic step to take. Could Biden be quietly convinced to step aside on his own? He’s been trying to ascend to the Oval Office for decades. Somehow I doubt it. And if not, the Democrats will find themselves stuck firmly between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.