hotair--2020-04-02--ABC: 3.4 million people entered U.S. from coronavirus hot spots during key months, including 750,000

ABC: 3.4 million people entered U.S. from coronavirus hot spots during key months, including 750,000 from China

China shut the barn door too late on Wuhan and we shut the barn door too late on China .
But how could it have been otherwise ?
Trump banned travel from China by foreign nationals on January 31 , a point he ’ s returned to repeatedly lately as proof that he was taking the crisis seriously .
Not true — his many comments in January and February about how the virus will go away soon cut the other way — but I ’ m trying to imagine how the public would have reacted if he had banned travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 instead .
He would have been shredded by his antagonists .
Democrats would have accused him of pulling a stunt to distract voters from impeachment .
The media would have attacked him for a xenophobic overreaction to a problem that China seemed to be on top of .
Some outlets criticized him for the ban on the 31st , in fact ; here ’ s a piece at Stat quoting experts who thought the ban would be “ counterproductive.
” The shining lesson of the pandemic to date is that governments need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that if they do they ’ ll be pilloried by skeptics who don ’ t grasp the threat .
Trump would have gotten a noseful of that if he ’ d acted more aggressively to limit traffic from China .
It ’ s 20/20 hindsight to say he should have moved much sooner .
Even though these numbers are garish : Travel data of passengers arriving in the United States from China during the critical period in December , January and February , when the disease took hold in that country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S… “ The United States banned travel to China 12 days after the world heard there was an outbreak of severe pneumonia in Wuhan .
… The problem was , it was too late , ” said Dr. Todd Ellerin , chief of Infectious Disease at South Shore Health and an ABC News Consultant .
“ Even though there had only been 12 confirmed cases in the U.S. on the day President Trump announces the travel ban , the reality was there were many more unconfirmed cases.
” … ABC News examined data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travelers entering the U.S. from eight of the hardest-hit countries : 343,402 arrived from Italy , 418,848 from Spain and about 1.9 million more came from Britain… Combined with those from China , that ’ s more than 3.4 million people from just four countries — nearly half , about 1.5 million , Americans returning home .
We ’ ll never know how early the virus arrived in the U.S. but the first known case was January 19 in Washington .
Genetic evidence suggests that COVID-19 began spreading locally in the community immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to test for the disease at that point , or in the weeks immediately following , America today might look more like South Korea .
But the fact remains that a ban on travel to or from China before the U.S. had any known cases of the disease would have caused a public uproar .
China managed to contain SARS , didn ’ t it ?
Then why not give them the benefit of the doubt on containing this ?
The timing of the China ban is defensible , however disastrous .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump didn ’ t end travel from Europe until March 12 , just three weeks ago , when there were already nearly 18,000 known cases in Italy .
Spain had more than 5,000 that day and the UK had 800 .
The problem was already thoroughly global .
Italy , in fact , already had 2,000 known cases as far back as March 1 .
Why wasn ’ t travel from Europe banned much sooner , knowing the risk that infected visitors would seed outbreaks here ?
And why weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon entry ?
Those who ’ d recently been abroad were whispering to reporters in mid-March that they received detailed instructions at foreign airports on what to do if they ’ d visited a hot spot like China but were sent on their merry way by Customs and Border Protection once they arrived in the U.S .
The China travel ban in January provided that anyone entering the U.S. who ’ d been to Hubei Province in China within the past 14 days would need to be quarantined for two weeks .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much less of a risk that they could be waved through ?
What ’ s done is done .
What ’ s left is the final frontier : Travel bans among U.S. states .
The Times posted a map today showing a regional disparity in the United States in which people in the northeast and on the west coast are locked down whereas lots of people in the south are still traveling more or less normal distances .
That may be an artifact of how far away grocery stores are in rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that not every state has moved as aggressively as every other one in demanding that people distance themselves from each other .
“ Let ’ s assume that we flatten the curve , that we push transmission down in the Bay Area and we walk away with 1 percent immunity , ” said an epidemiologist in San Francisco to the Times .
“ Then , people visit from regions that have not sheltered in place , and we have another run of cases .
This is going to happen.
” We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , except this time Wuhan is New York City or New Orleans .
What ’ s to be done ?
Charles Cooke asked a good question a few days ago .
Given the gigantic number of cases in NYC , why on earth are there still flights to and from the city ?
As I write , direct flights from Newark to Miami are going for $ 19 on Frontier and $ 29 on American Airlines .
Given the seriousness of the pandemic — and the number of businesses that have been shuttered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bizarre .
Why , one might reasonably ask , are airplanes not subject to the same social distancing rules as other commercial services ?
The crab shack on the beach near me is closed because the authorities in my county are worried that its customers may stand too closely together while waiting for their tacos .
Is this not an equal risk in Basic Economy on United Airlines ?
Trump is reportedly thinking about restrictions , weighing the economic damage against the risk of infection .
Cargo transports would obviously still need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are avoiding flights anyway for their own safety .
But this feels like a third case of him moving too slowly to restrict travel .
Being late with the China ban was understandable , being late with the Europe ban was less so .
Why not pull the trigger ?

China shut the barn door too late on Wuhan and we shut the barn door too late on China.
But how could it have been otherwise? Trump banned travel from China by foreign nationals on January 31, a point he’s returned to repeatedly lately as proof that he was taking the crisis seriously. Not true — his many comments in January and February about how the virus will go away soon cut the other way — but I’m trying to imagine how the public would have reacted if he had banned travel from China on, say, January 1 instead.
He would have been shredded by his antagonists. Democrats would have accused him of pulling a stunt to distract voters from impeachment. The media would have attacked him for a xenophobic overreaction to a problem that China seemed to be on top of. Some outlets criticized him for the ban on the 31st, in fact; here’s a piece at Stat quoting experts who thought the ban would be “counterproductive.” The shining lesson of the pandemic to date is that governments need to move earlier rather than later, but that if they do they’ll be pilloried by skeptics who don’t grasp the threat. Trump would have gotten a noseful of that if he’d acted more aggressively to limit traffic from China.
It’s 20/20 hindsight to say he should have moved much sooner. Even though these numbers are garish:
Travel data of passengers arriving in the United States from China during the critical period in December, January and February, when the disease took hold in that country, shows a stunning 759,493 people entered the U.S… “The United States banned travel to China 12 days after the world heard there was an outbreak of severe pneumonia in Wuhan. … The problem was, it was too late,” said Dr. Todd Ellerin, chief of Infectious Disease at South Shore Health and an ABC News Consultant. “Even though there had only been 12 confirmed cases in the U.S. on the day President Trump announces the travel ban, the reality was there were many more unconfirmed cases.”… ABC News examined data from December, January and February on travelers entering the U.S. from eight of the hardest-hit countries: 343,402 arrived from Italy, 418,848 from Spain and about 1.9 million more came from Britain… Combined with those from China, that’s more than 3.4 million people from just four countries — nearly half, about 1.5 million, Americans returning home.
We’ll never know how early the virus arrived in the U.S. but the first known case was January 19 in Washington. Genetic evidence suggests that COVID-19 began spreading locally in the community immediately. If we’d been able to test for the disease at that point, or in the weeks immediately following, America today might look more like South Korea. But the fact remains that a ban on travel to or from China before the U.S. had any known cases of the disease would have caused a public uproar. China managed to contain SARS, didn’t it? Then why not give them the benefit of the doubt on containing this?
The timing of the China ban is defensible, however disastrous. The timing of other bans is less defensible. Trump didn’t end travel from Europe until March 12, just three weeks ago, when there were already nearly 18,000 known cases in Italy. Spain had more than 5,000 that day and the UK had 800. The problem was already thoroughly global. Italy, in fact, already had 2,000 known cases as far back as March 1. Why wasn’t travel from Europe banned much sooner, knowing the risk that infected visitors would seed outbreaks here?
And why weren’t people returning from Europe screened more aggressively upon entry? Those who’d recently been abroad were whispering to reporters in mid-March that they received detailed instructions at foreign airports on what to do if they’d visited a hot spot like China but were sent on their merry way by Customs and Border Protection once they arrived in the U.S. The China travel ban in January provided that anyone entering the U.S. who’d been to Hubei Province in China within the past 14 days would need to be quarantined for two weeks. By early March, were visitors from Italy so much less of a risk that they could be waved through?
What’s done is done. What’s left is the final frontier: Travel bans among U.S. states. The Times posted a map today showing a regional disparity in the United States in which people in the northeast and on the west coast are locked down whereas lots of people in the south are still traveling more or less normal distances. That may be an artifact of how far away grocery stores are in rural areas, but the underlying point remains that not every state has moved as aggressively as every other one in demanding that people distance themselves from each other. “Let’s assume that we flatten the curve, that we push transmission down in the Bay Area and we walk away with 1 percent immunity,” said an epidemiologist in San Francisco to the Times. “Then, people visit from regions that have not sheltered in place, and we have another run of cases. This is going to happen.” We’ll have the Wuhan problem all over again, except this time Wuhan is New York City or New Orleans. What’s to be done?
Charles Cooke asked a good question a few days ago. Given the gigantic number of cases in NYC, why on earth are there still flights to and from the city?
As I write, direct flights from Newark to Miami are going for $19 on Frontier and $29 on American Airlines. Given the seriousness of the pandemic — and the number of businesses that have been shuttered as a precaution — this seems downright bizarre. Why, one might reasonably ask, are airplanes not subject to the same social distancing rules as other commercial services? The crab shack on the beach near me is closed because the authorities in my county are worried that its customers may stand too closely together while waiting for their tacos. Is this not an equal risk in Basic Economy on United Airlines?
Trump is reportedly thinking about restrictions, weighing the economic damage against the risk of infection. Cargo transports would obviously still need to be allowed. And certainly most people are avoiding flights anyway for their own safety. But this feels like a third case of him moving too slowly to restrict travel. Being late with the China ban was understandable, being late with the Europe ban was less so. Why not pull the trigger?


hotair--2020-04-02--Federal judge to WI governor, legislature: You gotta be kidding about holding a primary next week, r

Federal judge to WI governor, legislature: You gotta be kidding about holding a primary next week, right? Update: Absentee ballot deadline extended

In five days , Wisconsin plans to hold its statewide primary as scheduled , even while a stay-at-home order remains in place .
Yesterday , an exasperated federal judge concluded he could do nothing to stop it — but blasted Gov .
Tony Evers and the state legislature for not rescheduling it .
Judge William Conley dropped a big hint that while his authority can ’ t allow him to order the election postponed , he ’ s very interested in entertaining disenfranchisement lawsuits after the fact that could allow him to overturn its results : A federal judge slammed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ignoring their responsibilities by not postponing next week ’ s election because of the coronavirus pandemic as the Democratic governor prepared to deploy the National Guard to help at the polls .
“ The State of Wisconsin ’ s Legislature and governor are not willing to step up and say there ’ s a public health crisis and make it absolutely clear that we should not be allowing poll workers and voters to congregate on April 7 , ” U.S. District Judge William Conley said near the end of a four-hour hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had the power to delay Tuesday ’ s election but would consider making some changes to voting rules .
He said those who have brought lawsuits could come back to him after the election if they believe large numbers of people were disenfranchised .
In other words , not-so-nice election ya got there .
Shame if anything happened to the results .
Activist attorneys have to be licking their chops to file those lawsuits on April 8 , the day after the primary .
Conley has to hope that this invitation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class to act first rather than have its election twice .
Conley compared the plan to conduct a normal election to holding one in a hurricane .
Aren ’ t elected officials concerned about public safety in a pandemic , Conley wondered : “ I don ’ t see a basis on which I can stop this , albeit it ’ s a very risky decision by the state of Wisconsin , ” he said .
The judge compared holding the election during the pandemic to having one during a deadly storm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to realize this is a hurricane and prevent ( the election ) and stop it for public health reasons , ” he said [ . ]
So whose bright idea is it to continue to hold the election , complete with public polling places , while demanding people stay at home ?
Evers kinda-sorta passed the buck to the legislature for not acting to go to an all-absentee ballot election or move the primary date : “ If I could have changed the election on my own , I would have , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
I ’ ve asked the legislature to do its part to ensure a fair and safe election , and I hope we can get some clarity as soon as possible .
The bottom line is that we have to keep folks safe , and we have to make sure everyone who wants to vote has the opportunity to make their voice heard.
” Republicans slapped back at Evers , announcing that he hadn ’ t once expressed any interest in moving the date .
Ahem .
Our Republic would continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the date to , say , early June .
That would give Wisconsin voters plenty of time to get absentee ballots and to figure out how to participate even if they don ’ t want to touch voting booths used by dozens of other people during a pandemic .
How tough is it to figure out that the voting process at the moment could become an amplifier for an epidemic that has workers sitting idle at home already ?
Conley ’ s right to be frustrated , and Wisconsin voters should be even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Update : Conley can ’ t stop the primary from taking place on April 7 , but he decided he has the authority to adjust the absentee voting process : In a ruling Thursday , US District Judge William Conley did extend the deadline for absentee ballots to be returned from Election Day on April 7 to April 13 .
He also pushed back the state ’ s deadline to request absentee ballots from Thursday to Friday , and said the state must also count ballots from those who submit “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they weren ’ t able to get a witness to sign their ballots .
But he did not move the primary despite pleas from mayors and concerns from state and local elections officials about a critical shortage of poll workers that has led Evers to say he ’ ll deploy the National Guard to staff polling stations .
This might incentivize more people to vote absentee , but it ’ s not going to help the precinct staff a whole lot with their social distancing .

In five days, Wisconsin plans to hold its statewide primary as scheduled, even while a stay-at-home order remains in place. Yesterday, an exasperated federal judge concluded he could do nothing to stop it — but blasted Gov. Tony Evers and the state legislature for not rescheduling it. Judge William Conley dropped a big hint that while his authority can’t allow him to order the election postponed, he’s very interested in entertaining disenfranchisement lawsuits after the fact that could allow him to overturn its results:
A federal judge slammed Gov. Tony Evers and lawmakers Wednesday for ignoring their responsibilities by not postponing next week’s election because of the coronavirus pandemic as the Democratic governor prepared to deploy the National Guard to help at the polls. “The State of Wisconsin’s Legislature and governor are not willing to step up and say there’s a public health crisis and make it absolutely clear that we should not be allowing poll workers and voters to congregate on April 7,” U.S. District Judge William Conley said near the end of a four-hour hearing. Conley said he did not believe he had the power to delay Tuesday’s election but would consider making some changes to voting rules. He said those who have brought lawsuits could come back to him after the election if they believe large numbers of people were disenfranchised.
In other words, not-so-nice election ya got there. Shame if anything happened to the results. Activist attorneys have to be licking their chops to file those lawsuits on April 8, the day after the primary. Conley has to hope that this invitation to lawsuits will finally press the Wisconsin governing class to act first rather than have its election twice.
Conley compared the plan to conduct a normal election to holding one in a hurricane. Aren’t elected officials concerned about public safety in a pandemic, Conley wondered:
“I don’t see a basis on which I can stop this, albeit it’s a very risky decision by the state of Wisconsin,” he said. The judge compared holding the election during the pandemic to having one during a deadly storm. “You expect the state of Wisconsin to realize this is a hurricane and prevent (the election) and stop it for public health reasons,” he said[.]
So whose bright idea is it to continue to hold the election, complete with public polling places, while demanding people stay at home? Evers kinda-sorta passed the buck to the legislature for not acting to go to an all-absentee ballot election or move the primary date:
“If I could have changed the election on my own, I would have, but I can’t without violating state law. I’ve asked the legislature to do its part to ensure a fair and safe election, and I hope we can get some clarity as soon as possible. The bottom line is that we have to keep folks safe, and we have to make sure everyone who wants to vote has the opportunity to make their voice heard.”
Republicans slapped back at Evers, announcing that he hadn’t once expressed any interest in moving the date.
“Not once has the governor suggested moving the election date. In fact, not a single Democratic legislator has even introduced a bill that would move the election date. For Democrats to suggest now that their hands were somehow tied is pure cowardice. I continue to support holding the election on April 7 — our Republic must continue to function.”
Ahem. Our Republic would continue to function just as well if they pushed the date to, say, early June. That would give Wisconsin voters plenty of time to get absentee ballots and to figure out how to participate even if they don’t want to touch voting booths used by dozens of other people during a pandemic. How tough is it to figure out that the voting process at the moment could become an amplifier for an epidemic that has workers sitting idle at home already?
Conley’s right to be frustrated, and Wisconsin voters should be even more unhappy with their current pass-the-buck leadership.
Update: Conley can’t stop the primary from taking place on April 7, but he decided he has the authority to adjust the absentee voting process:
In a ruling Thursday, US District Judge William Conley did extend the deadline for absentee ballots to be returned from Election Day on April 7 to April 13. He also pushed back the state’s deadline to request absentee ballots from Thursday to Friday, and said the state must also count ballots from those who submit “a written affirmation or other statement” that they weren’t able to get a witness to sign their ballots. But he did not move the primary despite pleas from mayors and concerns from state and local elections officials about a critical shortage of poll workers that has led Evers to say he’ll deploy the National Guard to staff polling stations.
This might incentivize more people to vote absentee, but it’s not going to help the precinct staff a whole lot with their social distancing.


hotair--2020-04-03--WaPo: True death toll in Wuhan could be 40,000+

This is pure guesswork , not a leak of a secret official document or something similarly authoritative .
They ’ re passing along informed Internet chatter about the number of urns that may be flowing into Wuhan right now , a topic about which I ’ ve written previously .
Increased activity at crematoriums is a sure sign of local catastrophe , as New Yorkers are seeing firsthand now .
So , on the one hand , 40,000+ is just a guesstimate .
On the other hand , keep in mind that Wuhan is by no means the only area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as NYC is by no means the only area of the United States with them .
( NYC accounts for less than half of America ’ s death toll right now , in fact . )
The salient fact in China ’ s lockdown of the city in late January was that it came too late ; many residents , some infected , had already left for parts unknown .
Just a few days ago , skyscrapers in faraway Shanghai were shuttered for nearly three weeks after having reopened in mid-March .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and are still dying , of the virus in Chinese cities that aren ’ t being watched by outsiders as closely as Wuhan is .
Long lines have been forming at funeral homes in Wuhan over the past two weeks , as family members have been informed they may collect their loved ones ’ remains ahead of Tomb-Sweeping Day .
Some waited six hours to collect an urn , then the ashes .
The Hankou Funeral Parlor ’ s crematorium was operating 19 hours a day , with male staff enlisted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , the home received 5,000 urns , the respected magazine Caixin reported .
Using photos posted online , social media sleuths have estimated that Wuhan funeral homes had returned 3,500 urns a day since March 23 .
That would imply a death toll in Wuhan of about 42,000 — or 16 times the official number .
Another widely shared calculation , based on Wuhan ’ s 84 furnaces running nonstop and each cremation taking an hour , put the death toll at 46,800 .
John noted the guesstimates circulating online yesterday too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those numbers migrating from online speculation to the pages of the Washington Post .
An interesting detail in the Post ’ s story and this new one from the Times is that Chinese authorities seem nervous about “ Tomb-Sweeping Day , ” an upcoming annual holiday at which families traditionally visit the graves of ancestors to pay their respects .
The government plans to hold a three-minute national moment of silence to honor those who died from COVID-19 but they ’ re discouraging mourners from congregating at cemeteries .
Rituals have been banned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed into graveyards in cities like Beijing but the practice is strictly forbidden in Wuhan until May .
Which could mean one of two things , not mutually exclusive .
One : The virus is still circulating widely enough that the government fears a major new outbreak if people assemble .
Two : Public discontent with how the original outbreak was handled is also circulating widely enough that the government fears a major outbreak of popular dissent if people assemble and begin sharing their grievances with each other .
From the NYT : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the police in Wuhan , where the pandemic began , have been dispatched to break up groups on WeChat , a popular messaging app , set up by the relatives of coronavirus victims .
Government censors have scrubbed images circulating on social media showing relatives in the city lining up at funeral homes to collect ashes .
Officials have assigned minders to relatives like Mr. Liu , to follow them as they pick burial plots , claim their loved ones ’ remains and bury them , grieving family members say .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Mr. Liu asked .
“ Where is the humanity ?
” The ruling Communist Party says it is trying to prevent large gatherings from causing a new outbreak .
But its tight controls appear to be part of a concerted attempt to avoid an outpouring of anguish and anger that could be a visceral reminder of its early missteps and efforts to conceal the outbreak .
Those same public displays or discussions of loss could also feed skepticism over how China has counted the dead .
Liu ’ s father died of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on accompanying him to the burial , presumably to make sure he didn ’ t share his complaints about dignity and humanity with anyone there , in case they ’ re of a like mind .
Which many of them are , no doubt .
Another Wuhan resident quoted in the Times piece “ wants to know why it took officials weeks to inform the public that the virus could spread among humans.
” Good question .
Lots of New Yorkers want to know too .
I want to believe that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Wuhan , that someone will leak , but then I remember that we still don ’ t know how many people were murdered at Tiananmen Square .
When the Chinese government wants to keep a secret , it keeps a secret .
On that note , via NPR , I ’ ll leave you with this ( occasionally profane ) video uploaded a few weeks ago by Detroit bus driver Jason Hargrove .
Hargrove was annoyed that a passenger boarded his bus just as the COVID-19 epidemic was taking off in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covering her mouth .
People need to take this seriously , he pleaded .
News came yesterday that he ’ s since died of coronavirus , one of thousands of American victims of China ’ s cover-up .

This is pure guesswork, not a leak of a secret official document or something similarly authoritative. They’re passing along informed Internet chatter about the number of urns that may be flowing into Wuhan right now, a topic about which I’ve written previously. Increased activity at crematoriums is a sure sign of local catastrophe, as New Yorkers are seeing firsthand now.
So, on the one hand, 40,000+ is just a guesstimate.
On the other hand, keep in mind that Wuhan is by no means the only area of China with deaths from coronavirus, just as NYC is by no means the only area of the United States with them. (NYC accounts for less than half of America’s death toll right now, in fact.) The salient fact in China’s lockdown of the city in late January was that it came too late; many residents, some infected, had already left for parts unknown. Just a few days ago, skyscrapers in faraway Shanghai were shuttered for nearly three weeks after having reopened in mid-March.
God only knows how many have died, and are still dying, of the virus in Chinese cities that aren’t being watched by outsiders as closely as Wuhan is.
Long lines have been forming at funeral homes in Wuhan over the past two weeks, as family members have been informed they may collect their loved ones’ remains ahead of Tomb-Sweeping Day. Some waited six hours to collect an urn, then the ashes. The Hankou Funeral Parlor’s crematorium was operating 19 hours a day, with male staff enlisted to help carry bodies. In just two days, the home received 5,000 urns, the respected magazine Caixin reported. Using photos posted online, social media sleuths have estimated that Wuhan funeral homes had returned 3,500 urns a day since March 23. That would imply a death toll in Wuhan of about 42,000 — or 16 times the official number. Another widely shared calculation, based on Wuhan’s 84 furnaces running nonstop and each cremation taking an hour, put the death toll at 46,800.
John noted the guesstimates circulating online yesterday too. I wonder what Beijing thinks of those numbers migrating from online speculation to the pages of the Washington Post.
An interesting detail in the Post’s story and this new one from the Times is that Chinese authorities seem nervous about “Tomb-Sweeping Day,” an upcoming annual holiday at which families traditionally visit the graves of ancestors to pay their respects. The government plans to hold a three-minute national moment of silence to honor those who died from COVID-19 but they’re discouraging mourners from congregating at cemeteries. Rituals have been banned; some people with reservations will be allowed into graveyards in cities like Beijing but the practice is strictly forbidden in Wuhan until May. Which could mean one of two things, not mutually exclusive. One: The virus is still circulating widely enough that the government fears a major new outbreak if people assemble. Two: Public discontent with how the original outbreak was handled is also circulating widely enough that the government fears a major outbreak of popular dissent if people assemble and begin sharing their grievances with each other. From the NYT:
As China tries to control the narrative, the police in Wuhan, where the pandemic began, have been dispatched to break up groups on WeChat, a popular messaging app, set up by the relatives of coronavirus victims. Government censors have scrubbed images circulating on social media showing relatives in the city lining up at funeral homes to collect ashes. Officials have assigned minders to relatives like Mr. Liu, to follow them as they pick burial plots, claim their loved ones’ remains and bury them, grieving family members say. “Where is the dignity after death?” Mr. Liu asked. “Where is the humanity?” The ruling Communist Party says it is trying to prevent large gatherings from causing a new outbreak. But its tight controls appear to be part of a concerted attempt to avoid an outpouring of anguish and anger that could be a visceral reminder of its early missteps and efforts to conceal the outbreak. Those same public displays or discussions of loss could also feed skepticism over how China has counted the dead.
Liu’s father died of coronavirus in Wuhan. Chinese officials insisted on accompanying him to the burial, presumably to make sure he didn’t share his complaints about dignity and humanity with anyone there, in case they’re of a like mind.
Which many of them are, no doubt. Another Wuhan resident quoted in the Times piece “wants to know why it took officials weeks to inform the public that the virus could spread among humans.” Good question. Lots of New Yorkers want to know too.
I want to believe that we’ll eventually get the real death toll from Wuhan, that someone will leak, but then I remember that we still don’t know how many people were murdered at Tiananmen Square. When the Chinese government wants to keep a secret, it keeps a secret. On that note, via NPR, I’ll leave you with this (occasionally profane) video uploaded a few weeks ago by Detroit bus driver Jason Hargrove. Hargrove was annoyed that a passenger boarded his bus just as the COVID-19 epidemic was taking off in America and coughed four or five times without covering her mouth. People need to take this seriously, he pleaded. News came yesterday that he’s since died of coronavirus, one of thousands of American victims of China’s cover-up.


hotair--2020-04-03--Wisconsin Gov. Evers calls for election to be postponed

You can ’ t spell REVERSE without Evers .
Gov .
Evers of Wisconsin has reversed himself at the last minute and is now calling for a delay of the state ’ s primary election , which is scheduled for next Tuesday : In a reversal , Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers announced he wants to postpone his state ’ s Tuesday election .
The Democrat called the state legislature into a special session on Saturday to take up legislation that would avoid in-person voting and create an all-mail election with a deadline of May 26 to return ballots .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in election , but not for the election to be postponed .
Republicans rejected Evers ’ earlier push for ballots to be mailed to every registered voter .
As recently as yesterday Evers ’ office was saying he would not call for a delay of the election .
“ Our democracy is essential , it must go on , ” Evers ’ spokesperson told Politico Thursday .
Meanwhile , Democrats in Wisconsin are furious that Evers hasn ’ t done more to deal with this before now : In interviews with POLITICO , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state expressed frustration that Evers didn ’ t act sooner .
They argue that he hasn ’ t tapped the full range of his powers , such as calling for a special legislative session or announcing an election delay and forcing someone to stop him .
That ’ s essentially what Ohio Gov .
Mike DeWine did last month , even in the face of an adverse court ruling… “ It ’ s been a cataclysmic failure , ” said one Wisconsin-based Democratic strategist who supported Evers ’ 2018 campaign .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do not believe that he ’ s shown leadership or good judgment during this crisis.
” It ’ s not clear why Gov .
Evers had a sudden change of heart today , however it was increasingly clear that going ahead with the election would be a potential health disaster .
Last week there were reports that , because of a severe shortage of poll workers , the number of polling places in Milwaukee would drop from the normal 180 to perhaps 10 or 12 .
The city ’ s mayor called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances , “ irresponsible.
” Today the city announced the number of polling locations was being reduced to just five : The population of Milwaukee is nearly 600,000 people .
Some estimate that up to 140,000 could vote in this election .
Many of them will be using mail-in ballots , but with only five polling locations there ’ s a real possibility you could have crowds of hundreds of people gathering throughout the day in the midst of a pandemic .
That ’ s obviously not a very good idea .

You can’t spell REVERSE without Evers. Gov. Evers of Wisconsin has reversed himself at the last minute and is now calling for a delay of the state’s primary election, which is scheduled for next Tuesday:
In a reversal, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers announced he wants to postpone his state’s Tuesday election. The Democrat called the state legislature into a special session on Saturday to take up legislation that would avoid in-person voting and create an all-mail election with a deadline of May 26 to return ballots. Evers had previously called for a predominantly mail-in election, but not for the election to be postponed. Republicans rejected Evers’ earlier push for ballots to be mailed to every registered voter.
As recently as yesterday Evers’ office was saying he would not call for a delay of the election. “Our democracy is essential, it must go on,” Evers’ spokesperson told Politico Thursday. Meanwhile, Democrats in Wisconsin are furious that Evers hasn’t done more to deal with this before now:
In interviews with POLITICO, more than a dozen Democratic officials in the state expressed frustration that Evers didn’t act sooner. They argue that he hasn’t tapped the full range of his powers, such as calling for a special legislative session or announcing an election delay and forcing someone to stop him. That’s essentially what Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine did last month, even in the face of an adverse court ruling… “It’s been a cataclysmic failure,” said one Wisconsin-based Democratic strategist who supported Evers’ 2018 campaign. “It has been disappointment after disappointment. I do not believe that he’s shown leadership or good judgment during this crisis.”
It’s not clear why Gov. Evers had a sudden change of heart today, however it was increasingly clear that going ahead with the election would be a potential health disaster. Last week there were reports that, because of a severe shortage of poll workers, the number of polling places in Milwaukee would drop from the normal 180 to perhaps 10 or 12. The city’s mayor called going ahead with the election under those circumstances, “irresponsible.” Today the city announced the number of polling locations was being reduced to just five:
The City of Milwaukee has named five centers available for in-person voting on Election Day, April 7. Three aldermanic districts will be assigned to each voting center. Due to insufficient staffing levels, the City’s usual 180 neighborhood-based voting sites will not be open.
The population of Milwaukee is nearly 600,000 people. Some estimate that up to 140,000 could vote in this election. Many of them will be using mail-in ballots, but with only five polling locations there’s a real possibility you could have crowds of hundreds of people gathering throughout the day in the midst of a pandemic. That’s obviously not a very good idea.


hotair--2020-04-03--Regulators authorize New York City crematoriums to operate 24/7 to cope with the number of dead

One month ago today , the story we were chattering about was whether Joe Biden would ride the momentum from his big win in South Carolina to a series of upsets on Super Tuesday .
One month later , I ’ m reading about crematorium operators in NYC asking families not to choose wooden caskets for their loved ones because there ’ s a backlog of corpses and wood takes too long to burn .
Choose cardboard , they say .
It really moves the process along .
New York City crematories are so overwhelmed with the death toll from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate 24 hours a day , seven days a week… The deaths are straining services that cater to grieving families and the dead .
Federal and local agencies have dispatched about 130 refrigerated trucks to serve as temporary morgues for hospitals around the state… All Souls Crematory , at St. Michael ’ s Cemetery in Queens , now schedules up to 24 cremations a day , compared with about eight a day just a couple of weeks ago… While burial requests have risen , too , some funeral and cemetery officials say there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests .
Cremation makes sense for some people at a time when funeral homes and cemeteries are strictly limiting wakes and burials and when some people can ’ t attend ceremonies because they have an underlying medical condition or are in quarantine , they say .
Even 24/7 operation isn ’ t enough to cope .
The furnaces can ’ t run constantly or they ’ ll break down .
Some bodies are being sent to Westchester to handle the demand , with one crematorium there processing 38 bodies a day this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish I could say that New York State is already at the peak of daily deaths it expects .
It isn ’ t , per the IHME projections .
That ’ s still seven days away : Note the number of deaths that were projected for yesterday , April 2 .
The actual number of COVID-19 deaths statewide per Andrew Cuomo was 562 .
The IHME model , which expects more than 93,000 American deaths in the next four months , is missing low on the death toll .
Which is just what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being passed : This account from a doctor at NewYork-Presbyterian captures what the daily grind is like now : Three days ago , the Intercept reported that prisoners on Rikers Island are being offered six dollars an hour — a big wage by prison standards — plus personal protective equipment for a new job the city might have for them soon on Hart Island .
The job : Digging mass graves , per a 2008 city plan for coping with with crush of bodies during a hypothetical pandemic .
At its peak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to see 800-1,000 dead per day , most of that from New York City .
Crematoriums can probably handle a few hundred .
If there aren ’ t enough refrigeration cars to hold the rest , they ’ ll have to go somewhere .
What will be talking about a month from now ?
I ’ ll leave you with this , a reminder of what a country that ’ s prepared to deal with an epidemic can do to hold down the human cost .

One month ago today, the story we were chattering about was whether Joe Biden would ride the momentum from his big win in South Carolina to a series of upsets on Super Tuesday.
One month later, I’m reading about crematorium operators in NYC asking families not to choose wooden caskets for their loved ones because there’s a backlog of corpses and wood takes too long to burn.
Choose cardboard, they say. It really moves the process along.
One month.
New York City crematories are so overwhelmed with the death toll from coronavirus cases that regulators are letting them operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week… The deaths are straining services that cater to grieving families and the dead. Federal and local agencies have dispatched about 130 refrigerated trucks to serve as temporary morgues for hospitals around the state… All Souls Crematory, at St. Michael’s Cemetery in Queens, now schedules up to 24 cremations a day, compared with about eight a day just a couple of weeks ago… While burial requests have risen, too, some funeral and cemetery officials say there has been a disproportionate increase in cremation requests. Cremation makes sense for some people at a time when funeral homes and cemeteries are strictly limiting wakes and burials and when some people can’t attend ceremonies because they have an underlying medical condition or are in quarantine, they say.
Even 24/7 operation isn’t enough to cope. The furnaces can’t run constantly or they’ll break down. Some bodies are being sent to Westchester to handle the demand, with one crematorium there processing 38 bodies a day this week instead of its usual 12.
I wish I could say that New York State is already at the peak of daily deaths it expects. It isn’t, per the IHME projections. That’s still seven days away:
Note the number of deaths that were projected for yesterday, April 2. The actual number of COVID-19 deaths statewide per Andrew Cuomo was 562. The IHME model, which expects more than 93,000 American deaths in the next four months, is missing low on the death toll. Which is just what many experts assumed.
Other dark milestones are being passed:
A frontline doctor at a major NYC hospital told me he lost his first patient this morning to rationing of care — not enough ventilators to go around. The lack of supplies and testing is real — and costing lives — no matter what the daily reality show tries to sell you. — Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) April 2, 2020
How bad are things in NYC? We all just got this. pic.twitter.com/JB9KJN1LYZ — Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) April 3, 2020
This account from a doctor at NewYork-Presbyterian captures what the daily grind is like now:
And it's not just the severity, back to back. We're all being asked to do things we've never done before. Run a code as your goggles fog & you can't decipher the vital signs on the monitor. Try to predict which COVID patient will crash if you send them home. And which won't. — Craig Spencer MD MPH (@Craig_A_Spencer) April 3, 2020
Your hands upon theirs. You think of their family. At home. Sobbing. Someone starts saying a prayer. You can't help but cry. This isn't what we do. You stand by. You wait. This isn't what we do. You stand by. You wait. Time of death: 7:19pm — Craig Spencer MD MPH (@Craig_A_Spencer) April 3, 2020
Three days ago, the Intercept reported that prisoners on Rikers Island are being offered six dollars an hour — a big wage by prison standards — plus personal protective equipment for a new job the city might have for them soon on Hart Island. The job: Digging mass graves, per a 2008 city plan for coping with with crush of bodies during a hypothetical pandemic. At its peak this month, New York State is expected to see 800-1,000 dead per day, most of that from New York City. Crematoriums can probably handle a few hundred. If there aren’t enough refrigeration cars to hold the rest, they’ll have to go somewhere.
What will be talking about a month from now?
I’ll leave you with this, a reminder of what a country that’s prepared to deal with an epidemic can do to hold down the human cost.


hotair--2020-04-03--Additional evidence the coronavirus could have been accidentally released by a Chinese lab

Earlier this week Tucker Carlson did a segment on the origin of the coronavirus .
Carlson , who has been pretty aggressive in his coverage of the virus , pointed out a Chinese research paper ( since pulled by the author ) which claimed the virus could not have arisen at the Wuhan wet market because the horseshoe bats where the virus arose were not for sale at the market .
In fact , the bats are not naturally found anywhere within 900 miles of the market .
However , bats were being studied for viruses they carried in two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meters from the market .
Initially , discussion of this topic was treated as a conspiracy theory because some people suggested , absent any evidence , that the virus might be an escaped bio-weapon .
As I wrote here , experts strongly dispute that possibility .
However the possibility of an accidental release of the virus from a lab is starting to get a bit more attention .
Yesterday the Washington Post published a column by David Ignatius titled “ How did covid-19 begin ?
Its initial origin story is shaky.
” Ignatius @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carlson had mentioned and concludes that an accidental release of the virus is a genuine possibility : Less than 300 yards from the seafood market is the Wuhan branch of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention .
Researchers from that facility and the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology have posted articles about collecting bat coronaviruses from around China , for study to prevent future illness .
Did one of those samples leak , or was hazardous waste deposited in a place where it could spread ?
Richard Ebright , a Rutgers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an email that “ the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident , ” with the virus passing from bat to human , possibly through another animal .
But Ebright cautioned that it “ also could have occurred as a laboratory accident , with , for example , an accidental infection of a laboratory worker.
” He noted that bat coronaviruses were studied in Wuhan at Biosafety Level 2 , “ which provides only minimal protection , ” compared with the top BSL-4 .
Today , National Review ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece titled “ The Trail Leading Back to the Wuhan Labs.
” Geraghty directs his attention to a YouTube video released this week by a documentary filmmaker who has lived in China for 10 years .
The video points to several job listings which appeared on the website for the Wuhan Institute of Virology , a separate lab located a few miles from the market .
The job listings indicate the lab was researching bat viruses very similar to the coronavirus at the time it began to spread : On December 24 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted a second job posting .
The translation of that posting includes the declaration , “ long-term research on the pathogenic biology of bats carrying important viruses has confirmed the origin of bats of major new human and livestock infectious diseases such as SARS and SADS , and a large number of new bat and rodent new viruses have been discovered and identified.
” The video , which you can watch below , also discusses virologist Shi Zhengli who was called “ bat woman ” for her extensive research on viruses in bats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the virus began to spread and her first thought was that it might have been released from her lab [ emphasis added ] : Shi—a virologist who is often called China ’ s “ bat woman ” by her colleagues because of her virus-hunting expeditions in bat caves over the past 16 years—walked out of the conference she was attending in Shanghai and hopped on the next train back to Wuhan .
“ I wondered if [ the municipal health authority ] got it wrong , ” she says .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen in Wuhan , in central China.
” Her studies had shown that the southern , subtropical areas of Guangdong , Guangxi and Yunnan have the greatest risk of coronaviruses jumping to humans from animals—particularly bats , a known reservoir for many viruses .
If coronaviruses were the culprit , she remembers thinking , “ could they have come from our lab ?
” After reviewing her logs she says she was relieved to find that her lab had never studied the exact coronavirus spreading in Wuhan .
But the filmmaker notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed by some to have been patient zero .
Her photo and profile were removed from the lab ’ s website and the government posted a statement denouncing rumors that she had died .
But so far she has not been located .
Finally , here ’ s a bit of that retracted Chinese research paper on the likely origin of the virus : The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province , both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market .
Bats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trees .
But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan , a metropolitan [ area ] of ~15 million people .
The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market .
According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors , the bat was never a food source in the city , and no bat was traded in the market .
There was possible natural recombination or intermediate host of the coronavirus , yet little proof has been reported .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screened the area around the seafood market and identified two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus .
Within ~ 280 meters from the market , there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention .
WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purpose , one of which was specialized in pathogens collection and identification .
In one of their studies , 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province , and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province… In summary , somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-n @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originated from a labor None of this is conclusive but it ’ s also not a wide-eyed conspiracy theory .
In any case , we ’ d be crazy to take the CCP ’ s denials on it .
Having blamed the origin of the virus on the U.S. and Italy at various points , the Chinese government has no credibility on this topic .
That said , the conclusions drawn here are far from proven .
The wet market origin of the virus may still turn out to be the truth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studying bats may be just an amazing coincidence .

Earlier this week Tucker Carlson did a segment on the origin of the coronavirus. Carlson, who has been pretty aggressive in his coverage of the virus, pointed out a Chinese research paper (since pulled by the author) which claimed the virus could not have arisen at the Wuhan wet market because the horseshoe bats where the virus arose were not for sale at the market. In fact, the bats are not naturally found anywhere within 900 miles of the market. However, bats were being studied for viruses they carried in two labs including one just a few hundred meters from the market.
Initially, discussion of this topic was treated as a conspiracy theory because some people suggested, absent any evidence, that the virus might be an escaped bio-weapon. As I wrote here, experts strongly dispute that possibility. However the possibility of an accidental release of the virus from a lab is starting to get a bit more attention.
Yesterday the Washington Post published a column by David Ignatius titled “How did covid-19 begin? Its initial origin story is shaky.” Ignatius reviews much of the same material that Carlson had mentioned and concludes that an accidental release of the virus is a genuine possibility:
Less than 300 yards from the seafood market is the Wuhan branch of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers from that facility and the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology have posted articles about collecting bat coronaviruses from around China, for study to prevent future illness. Did one of those samples leak, or was hazardous waste deposited in a place where it could spread? Richard Ebright, a Rutgers microbiologist and biosafety expert, told me in an email that “the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident,” with the virus passing from bat to human, possibly through another animal. But Ebright cautioned that it “also could have occurred as a laboratory accident, with, for example, an accidental infection of a laboratory worker.” He noted that bat coronaviruses were studied in Wuhan at Biosafety Level 2, “which provides only minimal protection,” compared with the top BSL-4. Ebright described a December video from the Wuhan CDC that shows staffers “collecting bat coronaviruses with inadequate [personal protective equipment] and unsafe operational practices.” Separately, I reviewed two Chinese articles, from 2017 and 2019, describing the heroics of Wuhan CDC researcher Tian Junhua, who while capturing bats in a cave “forgot to take protective measures” so that “bat urine dripped from the top of his head like raindrops.”
Today, National Review’s Jim Geraghty has more in a piece titled “The Trail Leading Back to the Wuhan Labs.” Geraghty directs his attention to a YouTube video released this week by a documentary filmmaker who has lived in China for 10 years. The video points to several job listings which appeared on the website for the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a separate lab located a few miles from the market. The job listings indicate the lab was researching bat viruses very similar to the coronavirus at the time it began to spread:
On December 24, 2019, the Wuhan Institute of Virology posted a second job posting. The translation of that posting includes the declaration, “long-term research on the pathogenic biology of bats carrying important viruses has confirmed the origin of bats of major new human and livestock infectious diseases such as SARS and SADS, and a large number of new bat and rodent new viruses have been discovered and identified.”
The video, which you can watch below, also discusses virologist Shi Zhengli who was called “bat woman” for her extensive research on viruses in bats. She was called in late December when the virus began to spread and her first thought was that it might have been released from her lab [emphasis added]:
Shi—a virologist who is often called China’s “bat woman” by her colleagues because of her virus-hunting expeditions in bat caves over the past 16 years—walked out of the conference she was attending in Shanghai and hopped on the next train back to Wuhan. “I wondered if [the municipal health authority] got it wrong,” she says. “I had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.” Her studies had shown that the southern, subtropical areas of Guangdong, Guangxi and Yunnan have the greatest risk of coronaviruses jumping to humans from animals—particularly bats, a known reservoir for many viruses. If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking, “could they have come from our lab?”
After reviewing her logs she says she was relieved to find that her lab had never studied the exact coronavirus spreading in Wuhan. But the filmmaker notes that another researcher at the lab is believed by some to have been patient zero. Her photo and profile were removed from the lab’s website and the government posted a statement denouncing rumors that she had died. But so far she has not been located.
Finally, here’s a bit of that retracted Chinese research paper on the likely origin of the virus:
The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan [area] of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market. There was possible natural recombination or intermediate host of the coronavirus, yet little proof has been reported. Was there any other possible pathway? We screened the area around the seafood market and identified two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus. Within ~ 280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention. WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purpose, one of which was specialized in pathogens collection and identification. In one of their studies, 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province, and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province… In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-n CoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.
None of this is conclusive but it’s also not a wide-eyed conspiracy theory. In any case, we’d be crazy to take the CCP’s denials on it. Having blamed the origin of the virus on the U.S. and Italy at various points, the Chinese government has no credibility on this topic. That said, the conclusions drawn here are far from proven. The wet market origin of the virus may still turn out to be the truth in which case its proximity to two labs studying bats may be just an amazing coincidence.


hotair--2020-04-03--Experts wonder: Where is the White House getting its estimate of 240,000 deaths?

My hot take is that Birx and other White House experts are being deliberately vague on their methodology because they know the “ reopen the economy !
” contingent will tear it apart if they reveal it .
Not because it ’ s wrong , necessarily , but because all models can be attacked as resting on faulty assumptions .
They ’ re models !
They ’ re forecasts of an unknowable future .
We go through this all the time with something as simple as polling when we obsess over whether a sample included too few Republicans to model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Imperial College model of the coronavirus outbreak versus the Oxford model .
The Imperial College model assumes that a relatively small percentage of the population is infected ; if that ’ s true then we can expect a long gory slog until a vaccine is available as the contagion spreads gradually and consumes more victims .
The Oxford model assumes that the virus has spread further and more quickly than any of us realize ; it ’ s deadly only in rare cases , and we ’ re already well on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic won ’ t last nearly as long as everyone fears .
Which model is right ?
Who the hell knows ?
They ’ re models !
We won ’ t have a good idea until random antibody testing can be done .
The point is , if the White House model were less opaque , critics of the “ shut it all down ” strategy would doubtless attack its assumptions as unrealistic , whatever its assumptions happened to be .
Normally that would be fine .
But since Trump trusts what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he hears from accomplished epidemiologists , all it would take is a few segments on Fox primetime featuring some skeptic of the model attacking its assumptions point by point for Trump to junk social distancing and start pushing everyone to get back to work .
Secrecy about methods is terrible for science — it ’ s why peer review exists — but Birx , Fauci , and the rest may be calculating that it ’ s preferable under the circumstances due to the president ’ s … unorthodox habits of consuming information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials have refused to explain how they generated the figure — a death toll bigger than the United States suffered in the Vietnam War or the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
They have not provided the underlying data so others can assess its reliability or provided long-term strategies to lower that death count… The estimate appeared to be a rushed affair , said Marc Lipsitch , a leading epidemiologist and director of Harvard University ’ s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics .
“ They contacted us , I think , on a Tuesday a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and feedback by Thursday , basically 24 hours , ” he said .
“ My initial response was we can ’ t do it that fast .
But we ended up providing them some numbers responding to very specific scenarios.
” Other experts noted that the White House didn ’ t even explain the time period the death estimate supposedly captures — just the coming few months , or the year-plus it will take to deploy a vaccine .
Almost the entirety of what the public knows about the death projection was presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday from the White House coronavirus task force .
A White House representative said the task force has not publicly released the models it drew from out of respect for the confidentiality of the modelers , many of whom approached the White House unsolicited and simply want to continue their work without publicity .
Birx has said that five or six different models influenced the White House ’ s model but the two most influential are clearly the Imperial College ’ s and the IHME ’ s , which is available online and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are a few wrinkles with that one , though .
For starters , it only projects the next four months , not what a second wave this fall might look like .
( In their defense , there are so many uncertainties over the next six months that a fall projection might be useless . )
For another , per WaPo , it uses the “ trending curve of deaths from China ” as a template for how the outbreak might peak and recede in U.S. cities .
Except that the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And needless to say , no American cities will be getting a draconian Wuhan-style lockdown in the name of containing the disease .
The IHME model also assumes that U.S. states will continue to enforce aggressive social distancing measures for the next several months , which is uncertain , to put it mildly .
Put all that together and it ’ s clear that their current projection of 93,000+ deaths before August is optimistic .
The White House model may have set an upper bound of 240,000 because that ’ s simply a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like given how Americans are likely to behave , especially as they begin to chafe against extended lockdowns .
The “ reopen the economy ” crowd wants to believe that the White House model is exaggerating the likely death toll to scare Trump into into shutting down but it ’ s just as likely that the model is deliberately optimistic because they don ’ t want the public to freak out about what this will look like in practice .
( The upper bound of the Imperial College model was 2.2 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s scary enough envisioning 240,000 dead .
Imagine a number twice that size .
In fact , one epidemiologist does imagine a number precisely double that size .
His estimate was 480,000 dead , a figure he thought was conservative .
Models are models , though .
“ I ’ ve looked at all the models .
I ’ ve spent a lot of time on the models .
They don ’ t tell you anything .
You can ’ t really rely upon models , ” said Anthony Fauci at a meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The X factors are too large for certainty , from how much distancing Americans will tolerate to whether and when therapeutic drugs will arrive to even something as basic as access to testing data .
“ I ’ m still missing 50 percent of the data from reporting , ” Birx said yesterday .
“ I have 660 [ thousand ] tests reported in .
We ’ ve done 1.3 million.
” How are we supposed to properly model a disease when we ’ re missing half the data from our best diagnostic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the other experts are trying to walk a fine line between making sure the population understands how serious this is and not wanting to clue them in just yet as to how long their lives will be disrupted for fear that people will despair and/or throw up their hands and give up on social distancing .
The hard reality is that until a therapeutic drug is available , it just won ’ t be safe to be out and about : “ The administration has consistently shown a desire to underplay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they ’ re constantly adjusting that — as it becomes harder to deny the reality will be worse than what they ’ ve conditioned people for , ” said Jeremy Konyndyk , a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development… “ If we want to be able to — as I think we need to — turn our economy back on in a safe way , we need to be able to do that sort of thing at scale , ” Konyndyk said .
“ And we do not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s needed to pull that off.
” … “ What the means is we have to be patient .
By the end of April shouldn ’ t be anyone ’ s consideration at this point , ” he said .
“ We have to assume at the very least this is going through May.
” Through May at the very least .
Two weeks from now it ’ ll be “ through June at the very least.
” Which , actually , would be in line with Trump ’ s own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days talking about reopening for Easter , he warned people at a White House press briefing that it might take until July or August for the virus to fully “ wash through ” the country .
We can ’ t spend the next three months barricaded in our homes , though .
People need to eat .
What do we do ?
Here ’ s Scott Gottlieb wishcasting for a therapeutic drug and a contact tracing system , sooner rather than later .
We should all try to enjoy the relative political quiet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scenes in New York are .
At the moment more or less everyone agrees on the strategy — stay home , hope that the epidemic peaks and begins to fade , then plot a way forward .
Next month , when the full extent of the economic wreckage is better known and people are restless that things don ’ t seem to be improving quickly enough , will come the reckoning .

My hot take is that Birx and other White House experts are being deliberately vague on their methodology because they know the “reopen the economy!” contingent will tear it apart if they reveal it. Not because it’s wrong, necessarily, but because all models can be attacked as resting on faulty assumptions. They’re models! They’re forecasts of an unknowable future. We go through this all the time with something as simple as polling when we obsess over whether a sample included too few Republicans to model the electorate accurately.
Consider the case of the Imperial College model of the coronavirus outbreak versus the Oxford model. The Imperial College model assumes that a relatively small percentage of the population is infected; if that’s true then we can expect a long gory slog until a vaccine is available as the contagion spreads gradually and consumes more victims. The Oxford model assumes that the virus has spread further and more quickly than any of us realize; it’s deadly only in rare cases, and we’re already well on our way towards herd immunity. The epidemic won’t last nearly as long as everyone fears.
Which model is right? Who the hell knows? They’re models! We won’t have a good idea until random antibody testing can be done.
The point is, if the White House model were less opaque, critics of the “shut it all down” strategy would doubtless attack its assumptions as unrealistic, whatever its assumptions happened to be. Normally that would be fine. But since Trump trusts what he sees on “Hannity” more than what he hears from accomplished epidemiologists, all it would take is a few segments on Fox primetime featuring some skeptic of the model attacking its assumptions point by point for Trump to junk social distancing and start pushing everyone to get back to work. Secrecy about methods is terrible for science — it’s why peer review exists — but Birx, Fauci, and the rest may be calculating that it’s preferable under the circumstances due to the president’s … unorthodox habits of consuming information, shall we say.
White House officials have refused to explain how they generated the figure — a death toll bigger than the United States suffered in the Vietnam War or the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They have not provided the underlying data so others can assess its reliability or provided long-term strategies to lower that death count… The estimate appeared to be a rushed affair, said Marc Lipsitch, a leading epidemiologist and director of Harvard University’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics. “They contacted us, I think, on a Tuesday a week ago, and asked for answers and feedback by Thursday, basically 24 hours,” he said. “My initial response was we can’t do it that fast. But we ended up providing them some numbers responding to very specific scenarios.” Other experts noted that the White House didn’t even explain the time period the death estimate supposedly captures — just the coming few months, or the year-plus it will take to deploy a vaccine. Almost the entirety of what the public knows about the death projection was presented on a single slide at a briefing Tuesday from the White House coronavirus task force. A White House representative said the task force has not publicly released the models it drew from out of respect for the confidentiality of the modelers, many of whom approached the White House unsolicited and simply want to continue their work without publicity.
Birx has said that five or six different models influenced the White House’s model but the two most influential are clearly the Imperial College’s and the IHME’s, which is available online and which I’ve linked before. There are a few wrinkles with that one, though. For starters, it only projects the next four months, not what a second wave this fall might look like. (In their defense, there are so many uncertainties over the next six months that a fall projection might be useless.) For another, per WaPo, it uses the “trending curve of deaths from China” as a template for how the outbreak might peak and recede in U.S. cities. Except that the data from China isn’t reliable. And needless to say, no American cities will be getting a draconian Wuhan-style lockdown in the name of containing the disease.
The IHME model also assumes that U.S. states will continue to enforce aggressive social distancing measures for the next several months, which is uncertain, to put it mildly. Put all that together and it’s clear that their current projection of 93,000+ deaths before August is optimistic. The White House model may have set an upper bound of 240,000 because that’s simply a more realistic estimate of what this will look like given how Americans are likely to behave, especially as they begin to chafe against extended lockdowns. The “reopen the economy” crowd wants to believe that the White House model is exaggerating the likely death toll to scare Trump into into shutting down but it’s just as likely that the model is deliberately optimistic because they don’t want the public to freak out about what this will look like in practice. (The upper bound of the Imperial College model was 2.2 million dead, remember.) It’s scary enough envisioning 240,000 dead. Imagine a number twice that size.
In fact, one epidemiologist does imagine a number precisely double that size. His estimate was 480,000 dead, a figure he thought was conservative.
Models are models, though. “I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models,” said Anthony Fauci at a meeting last week, according to WaPo. The X factors are too large for certainty, from how much distancing Americans will tolerate to whether and when therapeutic drugs will arrive to even something as basic as access to testing data. “I’m still missing 50 percent of the data from reporting,” Birx said yesterday. “I have 660 [thousand] tests reported in. We’ve done 1.3 million.” How are we supposed to properly model a disease when we’re missing half the data from our best diagnostic tool?
I think Birx, Fauci, and the other experts are trying to walk a fine line between making sure the population understands how serious this is and not wanting to clue them in just yet as to how long their lives will be disrupted for fear that people will despair and/or throw up their hands and give up on social distancing. The hard reality is that until a therapeutic drug is available, it just won’t be safe to be out and about:
“The administration has consistently shown a desire to underplay the severity of whatever is coming. And they’re constantly adjusting that — as it becomes harder to deny the reality will be worse than what they’ve conditioned people for,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development… “If we want to be able to — as I think we need to — turn our economy back on in a safe way, we need to be able to do that sort of thing at scale,” Konyndyk said. “And we do not have anywhere close to the public health infrastructure that’s needed to pull that off.”… “What the means is we have to be patient. By the end of April shouldn’t be anyone’s consideration at this point,” he said. “We have to assume at the very least this is going through May.”
Through May at the very least. Two weeks from now it’ll be “through June at the very least.” Which, actually, would be in line with Trump’s own timeline: Before he spent a few days talking about reopening for Easter, he warned people at a White House press briefing that it might take until July or August for the virus to fully “wash through” the country. We can’t spend the next three months barricaded in our homes, though. People need to eat. What do we do?
Here’s Scott Gottlieb wishcasting for a therapeutic drug and a contact tracing system, sooner rather than later. We should all try to enjoy the relative political quiet of this month, as grim as the scenes in New York are. At the moment more or less everyone agrees on the strategy — stay home, hope that the epidemic peaks and begins to fade, then plot a way forward. Next month, when the full extent of the economic wreckage is better known and people are restless that things don’t seem to be improving quickly enough, will come the reckoning.


hotair--2020-04-03--The study that prompted the first county-wide shutdown in the U.S. (plus California's testing backlo

The study that prompted the first county-wide shutdown in the U.S. (plus California's testing backlog)

It was a bit surprising when a group of six counties in the Bay Area announced a “ shelter in place ” order back on March 16 .
Santa Clara county in particular was the first to do so in the nation .
Today the San Francisco Chronicle describes the small study of just a couple hundred people that prompted the Santa Clara order : The county identified its first likely community-acquired case — meaning that the source of the individual ’ s infection could not be determined — on Feb. 27 .
More community cases were reported over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , state and federal public health officials to start a study help define how widespread the virus was… The Santa Clara County surveillance study was small and took place over a few days , from March 5 to March 14 , due to the lack of testing supplies .
Overall , 226 patients were included in the study , all of them Santa Clara County residents from four urgent care centers where they had reported respiratory symptoms .
Of those patients , 23 % tested positive for the flu .
A representative sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the coronavirus , and 11 % of them — nine people — tested positive .
Nine people who had gone to urgent care with breathing problems and tested positive showed the virus was spreading and prompted a shutdown that impacted millions of people just two days after the study ended .
The entire state of California followed three days later , becoming the first state to do so .
California has one of the highest number of cases of any state ( 11,277 as of today ) , but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surpassed 100,000 cases today .
However , all is not well with the testing system in California .
Nearly two-thirds of all tests , almost 60,000 of them , are still waiting to be processed by a lab : About 92,500 tests had been conducted in California as of Wednesday , according to the state Department of Public Health .
Roughly 33,000 results have been received and 59,500 are pending — 64 % .
Although only four other states report their backlogs — Florida , New Hampshire , Hawaii and Nebraska — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has only 1,280 pending results , or 1.6 % of tests conducted… Part of the backlog appears to be tied to one major commercial lab , Quest Diagnostics , which is struggling to process an influx of tests quickly .
The company said Wednesday it has 12 labs with 115,000 tests pending — including tests from around the country .
Quest declined to say how many of those are California tests .
CNN reported yesterday that the backlog at Quest is actually down from a high of 160,000 which existed late last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 160,000 coronavirus test orders waiting to be processed on March 25 , which amounted to about half of the 320,000 total orders for the tests the company had received up to that date , according to Quest internal materials obtained by CNN… A spokesperson for Quest , Wendy Bost , told CNN the backlog for coronavirus tests has begun to shrink in recent days as the company has expanded its capacity , which now amounts to more than 30,000 tests a day and an average turnaround time of four to five days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to huge demand in the early days of testing when we were primarily offering a lab-developed test we developed at a single laboratory , ” Bost said .
“ In recent days , our capacity has exceeded our demand , allowing us to reduce the backlog.
” Gov .
Newsom announced a new task force on testing Thursday which he promised would deliver “ best in class ” testing in the state .
But for now , California is stuck waiting for the backlog to shrink .

It was a bit surprising when a group of six counties in the Bay Area announced a “shelter in place” order back on March 16. Santa Clara county in particular was the first to do so in the nation. Today the San Francisco Chronicle describes the small study of just a couple hundred people that prompted the Santa Clara order:
The county identified its first likely community-acquired case — meaning that the source of the individual’s infection could not be determined — on Feb. 27. More community cases were reported over the next few days, which prompted local, state and federal public health officials to start a study help define how widespread the virus was… The Santa Clara County surveillance study was small and took place over a few days, from March 5 to March 14, due to the lack of testing supplies. Overall, 226 patients were included in the study, all of them Santa Clara County residents from four urgent care centers where they had reported respiratory symptoms. Of those patients, 23% tested positive for the flu. A representative sample of the remaining patients were then tested for the coronavirus, and 11% of them — nine people — tested positive.
Nine people who had gone to urgent care with breathing problems and tested positive showed the virus was spreading and prompted a shutdown that impacted millions of people just two days after the study ended. The entire state of California followed three days later, becoming the first state to do so.
California has one of the highest number of cases of any state (11,277 as of today), but that’s still substantially lower than New York which surpassed 100,000 cases today. However, all is not well with the testing system in California. Nearly two-thirds of all tests, almost 60,000 of them, are still waiting to be processed by a lab:
About 92,500 tests had been conducted in California as of Wednesday, according to the state Department of Public Health. Roughly 33,000 results have been received and 59,500 are pending — 64%. Although only four other states report their backlogs — Florida, New Hampshire, Hawaii and Nebraska — the next worst on the list, Florida, has only 1,280 pending results, or 1.6% of tests conducted… Part of the backlog appears to be tied to one major commercial lab, Quest Diagnostics, which is struggling to process an influx of tests quickly. The company said Wednesday it has 12 labs with 115,000 tests pending — including tests from around the country. Quest declined to say how many of those are California tests.
CNN reported yesterday that the backlog at Quest is actually down from a high of 160,000 which existed late last month.
New Jersey-based Quest Diagnostics had about 160,000 coronavirus test orders waiting to be processed on March 25, which amounted to about half of the 320,000 total orders for the tests the company had received up to that date, according to Quest internal materials obtained by CNN… A spokesperson for Quest, Wendy Bost, told CNN the backlog for coronavirus tests has begun to shrink in recent days as the company has expanded its capacity, which now amounts to more than 30,000 tests a day and an average turnaround time of four to five days. “Much of the backlog was due to huge demand in the early days of testing when we were primarily offering a lab-developed test we developed at a single laboratory,” Bost said. “In recent days, our capacity has exceeded our demand, allowing us to reduce the backlog.”
Gov. Newsom announced a new task force on testing Thursday which he promised would deliver “best in class” testing in the state. But for now, California is stuck waiting for the backlog to shrink.


hotair--2020-04-03--University of Pittsburgh: We might already have a vaccine -- and a safer delivery method, too

Take this with a small grain of salt at least for the moment , or perhaps a grain of sugar in this case .
Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine believe that they have found an effective vaccine against COVID-19 and want expedited FDA approval for Phase 1 testing .
The school ’ s extensive work on the previous SARS and MERS outbreaks left a roadmap for defeating this coronavirus , they claim in a new peer-reviewed paper — and they have also developed a safer method for delivering it : Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve found a potential vaccine for the new coronavirus .
The researchers announced their findings Thursday and believe the vaccine could be rolled out quickly enough to “ significantly impact the spread of disease , ” according to their study published in EBioMedicine .
… The scientists say they were able to act fast because they had already done research on the similar coronaviruses SARS and MERS .
“ These two viruses , which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2 , teach us that a particular protein , called a spike protein , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” read a statement from co-senior author Andrea Gambotto , M.D.
, associate professor of surgery at the Pitt School of Medicine .
Fox News picked up the news this morning after word started to spread last night : With funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Cancer Institute , university scientists developed a candidate vaccine to fight against SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 .
The team ’ s findings were reported Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Lancet .
The study is the first “ to be published after critique from fellow scientists at outside institutions that describes a candidate vaccine for COVID-19 , ” according to a news release , which added : “ The researchers were able to act quickly because they had already laid the groundwork during earlier coronavirus epidemics.
” The grain of salt comes from the stage for this research .
At the moment , all they have done with the vaccine candidate is to test it on mice , and it has performed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spike protein , ” an important step .
However , it does not appear that they have yet demonstrated that this will stop the COVID-19 virus specifically , either in mice or in humans : The scientists produced a vaccine that will be administered via a patch the size of a fingertip .
The patch contains 400 “ microneedles ” made of sugar and protein pieces .
The patch is applied much like a stick-on bandage with the needles dissolving into the skin .
The vaccine they produced was tested on mice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will successfully reverse the novel coronavirus .
This is actually two developments in one story , but it ’ s not yet clear that either has been firmly established .
The idea behind the microneedle patch is that it introduces the vaccine just below the surface of the skin , where the body ’ s immune response has great sensitivity , without involving any blood transfer .
That transfer system worked on the mice and generated a significant immune response , which is what most of their paper discusses .
Local CBS affiliate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than the vaccine itself : That would truly be a revolutionary method of vaccination … if it proves effective .
It would be safer for everyone , patients and providers alike , and it could be easily transported without too much worry over spoilage .
Manufacturing might be a challenge , however , given how innovative the microneedle patch is , so it might be better suited for a later vaccine than an initial treatment .
The next stage of testing would be to determine whether that method also works on humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the body to defeat COVID-19 specifically .
If the UPSM can demonstrate both at the same time , we may be onto something huge — but we ’ re not quite there yet .
Yet .

Take this with a small grain of salt at least for the moment, or perhaps a grain of sugar in this case. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine believe that they have found an effective vaccine against COVID-19 and want expedited FDA approval for Phase 1 testing. The school’s extensive work on the previous SARS and MERS outbreaks left a roadmap for defeating this coronavirus, they claim in a new peer-reviewed paper — and they have also developed a safer method for delivering it:
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine believe that they’ve found a potential vaccine for the new coronavirus. The researchers announced their findings Thursday and believe the vaccine could be rolled out quickly enough to “significantly impact the spread of disease,” according to their study published in EBioMedicine. … The scientists say they were able to act fast because they had already done research on the similar coronaviruses SARS and MERS. “These two viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, teach us that a particular protein, called a spike protein, is important for inducing immunity against the virus,” read a statement from co-senior author Andrea Gambotto, M.D., associate professor of surgery at the Pitt School of Medicine.
Fox News picked up the news this morning after word started to spread last night:
With funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Cancer Institute, university scientists developed a candidate vaccine to fight against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The team’s findings were reported Thursday in eBioMedicine, which is published by The Lancet. The study is the first “to be published after critique from fellow scientists at outside institutions that describes a candidate vaccine for COVID-19,” according to a news release, which added: “The researchers were able to act quickly because they had already laid the groundwork during earlier coronavirus epidemics.”
The grain of salt comes from the stage for this research. At the moment, all they have done with the vaccine candidate is to test it on mice, and it has performed as expected in regard to the “spike protein,” an important step. However, it does not appear that they have yet demonstrated that this will stop the COVID-19 virus specifically, either in mice or in humans:
The scientists produced a vaccine that will be administered via a patch the size of a fingertip. The patch contains 400 “microneedles” made of sugar and protein pieces. The patch is applied much like a stick-on bandage with the needles dissolving into the skin. The vaccine they produced was tested on mice and it contained enough antibodies the scientists feel will successfully reverse the novel coronavirus.
This is actually two developments in one story, but it’s not yet clear that either has been firmly established. The idea behind the microneedle patch is that it introduces the vaccine just below the surface of the skin, where the body’s immune response has great sensitivity, without involving any blood transfer. That transfer system worked on the mice and generated a significant immune response, which is what most of their paper discusses.
Local CBS affiliate KDKA focused mainly on the delivery method rather than the vaccine itself:
That would truly be a revolutionary method of vaccination … if it proves effective. It would be safer for everyone, patients and providers alike, and it could be easily transported without too much worry over spoilage. Manufacturing might be a challenge, however, given how innovative the microneedle patch is, so it might be better suited for a later vaccine than an initial treatment.
The next stage of testing would be to determine whether that method also works on humans, and whether the spike protein teaches the body to defeat COVID-19 specifically. If the UPSM can demonstrate both at the same time, we may be onto something huge — but we’re not quite there yet. Yet.


hotair--2020-04-03--Video: Sailors cheer wildly for captain fired over letter pleading for help with coronavirus outbrea

Video: Sailors cheer wildly for captain fired over letter pleading for help with coronavirus outbreak

As I said yesterday , this was a perfectly foreseeable PR catastrophe for the Navy .
It ’ s one thing to reprimand Capt .
Brett Crozier for circulating his letter to the Navy begging for help to quarantine sick sailors onshore .
It ’ s another to humiliate him by relieving him of command .
Yesterday the acting Secretary of the Navy complained that the letter created “ a little bit of a panic on the ship.
” Is that right ?
I ’ m not getting a strong vibe from these clips of Crozier ’ s send-off yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the panic-monger go .
To the extent there was panic among the crew and their families , what was the cause ?
Crozier ’ s letter , or the fear that Navy commanders would ignore the letter ?
“ The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don ’ t think the families didn ’ t already know what was going on on that ship ?
You don ’ t think the sailors weren ’ t already telling their families what was happening on the ship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said David Lapan , retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon , Joint Chiefs of Staff , and the Marine Corps .
“ It ’ s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn ’ t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.
” … “ What signal does this send to the fleet ?
” he said .
“ Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation .
It makes it appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.
” Precisely .
The message received by other officers won ’ t be “ make sure you don ’ t cc too many people in your letter about a plague spreading on your ship.
” The message will be “ don ’ t make trouble for us , no matter how urgent the problem is.
” John Kirby , a retired admiral , also sees relieving Crozier of command as a strange overreaction : Even stranger is the fact that Mark Esper , the Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for how he ’ s handled the spread of coronavirus within the military , “ punting tough choices over how to slow the virus to local commanders.
” Well , with Crozier we have a case of a local commander who acted aggressively to protect his sailors .
His prize for doing so was being fired .
The House Armed Services Committee has noticed : Even among PR catastrophes , it ’ s a special kind of catastrophe that leads to public statements of no confidence in the CEO by key constituents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve read is this thoughtful thread by Bryan McGrath , who used to command a Navy ship himself .
Crozier did the right thing in protecting his sailors , he allows — but the Navy did the right thing too by firing him , for the simple reason that officers can ’ t be encouraged to wage PR battles in the media in the name of making sure that the leadership is attentive to their particular concerns .
The Navy has a global problem right now in assuring readiness amid a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was probably designed to leak , forced them to prioritize his .
That point is well taken , but ( a ) as McGrath notes , we don ’ t know right now if the Navy was as attentive to the problem onboard the Theodore Roosevelt as they claim to have been , and ( b ) per Lapan and Kirby , it seems punitive to take the extreme step of relieving Crozier of command .
Surely there was some lesser form discipline that might have been imposed on him for acting extraordinarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not losing his rank or being drummed out of the service , by the way .
The Navy has taken enough of a PR beating already over this episode .
It doesn ’ t want to invite a worse one .

As I said yesterday, this was a perfectly foreseeable PR catastrophe for the Navy. It’s one thing to reprimand Capt. Brett Crozier for circulating his letter to the Navy begging for help to quarantine sick sailors onshore.
It’s another to humiliate him by relieving him of command.
Yesterday the acting Secretary of the Navy complained that the letter created “a little bit of a panic on the ship.” Is that right? I’m not getting a strong vibe from these clips of Crozier’s send-off yesterday that his crew is relieved to see the panic-monger go.
Watch this video of the send off of Captain Crozier, commander of the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt who was fired yesterday for sounding the alarm to protect his sailors. Tells you everything you need to know about the type of #leader he is. pic.twitter.com/z9q3pTJpgZ — Amber Smith (@AmberSmithUSA) April 3, 2020
The send off for Captain Brett Crozier who was relieved from duty for TRYING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF HIS CREW pic.twitter.com/EEDG1U3rYE — Albert MacGloan ➐ (@AlbertMacGloan) April 3, 2020
To the extent there was panic among the crew and their families, what was the cause? Crozier’s letter, or the fear that Navy commanders would ignore the letter?
“The idea that it got out there and it created panic among families — you don’t think the families didn’t already know what was going on on that ship? You don’t think the sailors weren’t already telling their families what was happening on the ship? That’s ridiculous,” said David Lapan, retired Marine Corps colonel who served as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Marine Corps. “It’s more believable that the letter would cause the families to be upset that the Navy wasn’t taking the right steps to protect their loved ones.”… “What signal does this send to the fleet?” he said. “Relieving that commander under these conditions makes it appear to be retaliation. It makes it appear the Navy is more interesting in not being embarrassed rather than taking care of sailors.”
Precisely. The message received by other officers won’t be “make sure you don’t cc too many people in your letter about a plague spreading on your ship.” The message will be “don’t make trouble for us, no matter how urgent the problem is.” John Kirby, a retired admiral, also sees relieving Crozier of command as a strange overreaction:
I understand the “trust & confidence” argument. It’s sacrosanct in the Navy. But based on justification put forth by acting SECNAV for why he lost trust & confidence in the TR CO, hard to see it as anything other than an over-reaction & unwarranted at a vital time for the ship. — John Kirby (@johnfkirby63) April 2, 2020
Even stranger is the fact that Mark Esper, the Secretary of Defense, is taking heat lately for how he’s handled the spread of coronavirus within the military, “punting tough choices over how to slow the virus to local commanders.” Well, with Crozier we have a case of a local commander who acted aggressively to protect his sailors. His prize for doing so was being fired. The House Armed Services Committee has noticed:
Even among PR catastrophes, it’s a special kind of catastrophe that leads to public statements of no confidence in the CEO by key constituents.
The best defense of the Navy I’ve read is this thoughtful thread by Bryan McGrath, who used to command a Navy ship himself. Crozier did the right thing in protecting his sailors, he allows — but the Navy did the right thing too by firing him, for the simple reason that officers can’t be encouraged to wage PR battles in the media in the name of making sure that the leadership is attentive to their particular concerns. The Navy has a global problem right now in assuring readiness amid a pandemic. Crozier’s letter, which was probably designed to leak, forced them to prioritize his. That point is well taken, but (a) as McGrath notes, we don’t know right now if the Navy was as attentive to the problem onboard the Theodore Roosevelt as they claim to have been, and (b) per Lapan and Kirby, it seems punitive to take the extreme step of relieving Crozier of command. Surely there was some lesser form discipline that might have been imposed on him for acting extraordinarily in an extraordinary situation.
He’s not losing his rank or being drummed out of the service, by the way. The Navy has taken enough of a PR beating already over this episode. It doesn’t want to invite a worse one.