hotair--2020-04-17--Why don't Fauci and Birx quit at this point?

They ’ re doing more harm than good by continuing to legitimize this character , who can ’ t stick to a message for more than four minutes at a time and is throwing tantrums on Twitter like a child because his dumb plan to reopen everywhere on May 1 didn ’ t fly even with his own staff .
I don ’ t know where to begin .
Let ’ s begin , I guess , with the cowardly vagueness of the term “ liberate.
” That ’ s intentional , so that Trump can say later when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant protest .
People should protest in those states until the stay-at-home orders are lifted .
But if he all he meant was protest , he could have said “ protest.
” Ingraham knows what he means : The Republican House would have moved to impeach Obama if he had winked at the idea of a violent response to Republican governors who weren ’ t complying with him on policy .
But there ’ s deeper cowardice .
Trump threw in the towel yesterday on the question of whether he or the governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for business .
“ You ’ re going to call your own shots , ” he told them .
He could have gone to court over that if he wanted .
The reason he didn ’ t is because he realized that there ’ s a nonzero chance that reopening soon will trigger a second wave of the epidemic .
If he gives the order to reopen , that ’ s on him .
If governors give the order , it ’ s on them .
Forced to choose between taking personal responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covering his own ass , he knew what to do .
Leadership 101 : In White House meetings with officials , advisers say , Mr. Trump has been bothered over how much blame he might get for the administration ’ s slow early response to the crisis , and pondered how to position himself and the administration to receive as much credit as possible in efforts to revive the economy .
He has asked White House aides for economic response plans that would allow him to take credit for successes while offering enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to others .
“ People have made clear to him that ’ s an impossible goal , just two completely contradictory goals , ” said one person in contact with the president .
“ But I ’ m not sure he ’ s convinced.
” If he wants governors to call the shots , he should get out of the way .
Let them handle everything : Reopening for business , figuring out how to improve testing capacity , building a bureau of contact tracers , and so on .
Go play golf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by encouraging unrest from the sidelines while they grope their way forward in a historic crisis , with minimal federal leadership , is one of the most repulsive things he ’ s done as president .
It ’ s almost self-parody given his reputation for adding chaos needlessly to any situation , no matter how chaotic it was already .
How can we make a nightmare worse in which thousands are dead , the economy is in ruins , and the president has largely washed his hands of the whole matter ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperate people to “ liberate ” their states because his ass is chapped that the governors won ’ t do what he wants .
Not just any states either .
Conveniently , Michigan and Minnesota are midwestern states where he either won or came very close to winning in 2016 .
He ’ s trying to galvanize his fans there for the fall by treating the Democratic governors as political foils .
The cynical electoral targeting of his “ liberation ” call makes it even Trumpier : Instead of showing basic leadership by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unity in a trying moment , he sees some potential advantage to himself so instinctively he seizes on it .
Amash asks a good question .
Given that the president issued his own guidelines yesterday for reopening , which *specific* guidelines are Minnesota and Michigan violating that should properly require a “ liberation ” ?
Have they met the new federal benchmarks and are stubbornly dragging their feet on reopening for business ?
WaPo looked at the guidelines issued yesterday and found that neither Michigan , Minnesota , nor Virginia has hit all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged to hit to prove that the epidemic is slowing before reopening .
So what ’ s Trump complaining about ?
We ’ re still two weeks out from May 1 , for cripes sake .
He can ’ t go a day without contradicting himself on the coronavirus response , notes Eric Boehm : For weeks , the Trump administration ’ s official position was that the virus was not a serious threat .
Then , suddenly , it was .
When the outbreak started , Americans were told by the surgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not slow the spread of the disease .
Now , masks are recommended by the CDC and considered mandatory by many states and cities .
Trump repeatedly misled reporters and the public about the number of coronavirus tests that would be available .
He floated the idea of reopening the country on Easter , then backtracked .
It ’ s unreasonable to expect a president or any public official to have all the answers in the middle of an evolving crisis .
But the fact that the federal government—and the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a believable and consistent message for more than a single day is only adding to the sense of confusion and fear felt by many Americans .
Which brings us back to Fauci and Birx .
It ’ s one thing to try to serve the public even though the White House ’ s response is chaotic and contradictory .
It ’ s another to try to do it while the president insists on undermining the strategy you convinced him to adopt literally 24 hours ago .
You ’ re not serving anything in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fig leaf of scientific expertise for him while he runs around insisting on the one hand that everyone should go back to work ASAP and take measures to “ liberate ” their state if the governor refuses — and on the other hand that anyone who gets infected and dies if that plan succeeds should blame their governor , not him .
And here ’ s the best part : Fauci and Birx aren ’ t needed anymore .
They have no meaningful role going forward , at least in the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advise on , testing ?
The president says that ’ s a state responsibility : Contact tracing ?
States like Massachusetts are already building their own corps of people for that , expecting that they ’ ll get little help from the feds .
The only job Fauci and Birx really have at this point is trying to restrain Trump ’ s worst impulses and they ’ ve failed at that , as today ’ s tweets demonstrate .
Time to go .
If they don ’ t , their roles will end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispiriting interviews on Laura Ingraham ’ s show where they ’ re asked why we have to shut down our economy for this when Europe didn ’ t shut down during the Black Death .
But here ’ s the good news .
I ’ m sure any or all of the multistate coalitions that have formed in different regions would be thrilled to have them as consultants .
That ’ s where all the action is anyway now that the president ’ s washed his hands of responsibility for nuts-and-bolts stuff like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York or Ohio or whoever and provide advice there .
Cuomo ’ s not going to undermine your advice on Twitter five minutes after you ’ ve given it and two minutes after he appeared to accept it .

They’re doing more harm than good by continuing to legitimize this character, who can’t stick to a message for more than four minutes at a time and is throwing tantrums on Twitter like a child because his dumb plan to reopen everywhere on May 1 didn’t fly even with his own staff.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1251169217531056130
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1251168994066944003
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1251169987110330372
I don’t know where to begin. Let’s begin, I guess, with the cowardly vagueness of the term “liberate.” That’s intentional, so that Trump can say later when he’s asked about this that he meant protest. People should protest in those states until the stay-at-home orders are lifted. But if he all he meant was protest, he could have said “protest.” Ingraham knows what he means:
How many of those who urged our govt to help liberate the Iraqis, Syrians, Kurds, Afghanis, etc., are as committed now to liberating Virginia, Minnesota, California, etc? — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 17, 2020
The Republican House would have moved to impeach Obama if he had winked at the idea of a violent response to Republican governors who weren’t complying with him on policy.
But there’s deeper cowardice. Trump threw in the towel yesterday on the question of whether he or the governors had ultimate authority to reopen the country for business. “You’re going to call your own shots,” he told them. He could have gone to court over that if he wanted. The reason he didn’t is because he realized that there’s a nonzero chance that reopening soon will trigger a second wave of the epidemic. If he gives the order to reopen, that’s on him. If governors give the order, it’s on them. Forced to choose between taking personal responsibility for a policy he believed in and covering his own ass, he knew what to do. Leadership 101:
In White House meetings with officials, advisers say, Mr. Trump has been bothered over how much blame he might get for the administration’s slow early response to the crisis, and pondered how to position himself and the administration to receive as much credit as possible in efforts to revive the economy. He has asked White House aides for economic response plans that would allow him to take credit for successes while offering enough flexibility to assign fault for any failures to others. “People have made clear to him that’s an impossible goal, just two completely contradictory goals,” said one person in contact with the president. “But I’m not sure he’s convinced.”
If he wants governors to call the shots, he should get out of the way. Let them handle everything: Reopening for business, figuring out how to improve testing capacity, building a bureau of contact tracers, and so on. Go play golf. To try to actively undermine them by encouraging unrest from the sidelines while they grope their way forward in a historic crisis, with minimal federal leadership, is one of the most repulsive things he’s done as president. It’s almost self-parody given his reputation for adding chaos needlessly to any situation, no matter how chaotic it was already. How can we make a nightmare worse in which thousands are dead, the economy is in ruins, and the president has largely washed his hands of the whole matter? We could … have the president hooting at desperate people to “liberate” their states because his ass is chapped that the governors won’t do what he wants.
Not just any states either. Conveniently, Michigan and Minnesota are midwestern states where he either won or came very close to winning in 2016. He’s trying to galvanize his fans there for the fall by treating the Democratic governors as political foils. The cynical electoral targeting of his “liberation” call makes it even Trumpier: Instead of showing basic leadership by doing what he can to encourage national unity in a trying moment, he sees some potential advantage to himself so instinctively he seizes on it.
Amash asks a good question. Given that the president issued his own guidelines yesterday for reopening, which *specific* guidelines are Minnesota and Michigan violating that should properly require a “liberation”? Have they met the new federal benchmarks and are stubbornly dragging their feet on reopening for business?
The president uses vague calls to action so he can avoid responsibility and later claim he meant something else. Just yesterday, he was outlining a phased approach for “opening up America again.” He should be specific about his concerns. Which measures are okay and which are not? https://t.co/pnlUcsDQqf — Justin Amash (@justinamash) April 17, 2020
WaPo looked at the guidelines issued yesterday and found that neither Michigan, Minnesota, nor Virginia has hit all four of the marks they’re encouraged to hit to prove that the epidemic is slowing before reopening. So what’s Trump complaining about? We’re still two weeks out from May 1, for cripes sake.
He can’t go a day without contradicting himself on the coronavirus response, notes Eric Boehm:
For weeks, the Trump administration’s official position was that the virus was not a serious threat. Then, suddenly, it was. When the outbreak started, Americans were told by the surgeon general that wearing masks in public would not slow the spread of the disease. Now, masks are recommended by the CDC and considered mandatory by many states and cities. Trump repeatedly misled reporters and the public about the number of coronavirus tests that would be available. He floated the idea of reopening the country on Easter, then backtracked. It’s unreasonable to expect a president or any public official to have all the answers in the middle of an evolving crisis. But the fact that the federal government—and the White House, specifically—have demonstrated an apparent inability to deliver a believable and consistent message for more than a single day is only adding to the sense of confusion and fear felt by many Americans.
Which brings us back to Fauci and Birx. It’s one thing to try to serve the public even though the White House’s response is chaotic and contradictory. It’s another to try to do it while the president insists on undermining the strategy you convinced him to adopt literally 24 hours ago. You’re not serving anything in that situation. You’re just a fig leaf of scientific expertise for him while he runs around insisting on the one hand that everyone should go back to work ASAP and take measures to “liberate” their state if the governor refuses — and on the other hand that anyone who gets infected and dies if that plan succeeds should blame their governor, not him.
And here’s the best part: Fauci and Birx aren’t needed anymore. They have no meaningful role going forward, at least in the White House. What are they going to advise on, testing? The president says that’s a state responsibility:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1251186839983132673
Contact tracing? States like Massachusetts are already building their own corps of people for that, expecting that they’ll get little help from the feds. The only job Fauci and Birx really have at this point is trying to restrain Trump’s worst impulses and they’ve failed at that, as today’s tweets demonstrate. Time to go. If they don’t, their roles will end up consisting largely of having to do dispiriting interviews on Laura Ingraham’s show where they’re asked why we have to shut down our economy for this when Europe didn’t shut down during the Black Death.
But here’s the good news. I’m sure any or all of the multistate coalitions that have formed in different regions would be thrilled to have them as consultants. That’s where all the action is anyway now that the president’s washed his hands of responsibility for nuts-and-bolts stuff like testing. Go sign on with New York or Ohio or whoever and provide advice there. Cuomo’s not going to undermine your advice on Twitter five minutes after you’ve given it and two minutes after he appeared to accept it.
Update: Completely disgusting. Fauci and Birx should walk today.


hotair--2020-04-17--Fox News follow-up: 'China went to great lengths to cover up after the virus was out'

Fox News reported Wednesday that multiple sources said the U.S. government had increasing confidence that the novel coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab from which it was accidentally released .
Today , Bret Baier has a follow-up report which adds some detail to the process intelligence agencies are following right now : The U.S. is conducting a full-scale investigation into whether the novel coronavirus , which went on to morph into a global pandemic that has brought the global economy to its knees , escaped from a lab in Wuhan , China , Fox News has learned .
Intelligence operatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the laboratory and the initial outbreak of the virus .
Intelligence analysts are piecing together a timeline of what the government knew and “ creating an accurate picture of what happened , ” the sources said .
Once that investigation is complete — something that is expected to happen in the near-term — the findings will be presented to the Trump administration .
Those are the opening graphs of the story and they really don ’ t add much to what Fox reported previously .
In fact , they almost sound like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on increasing confidence about the lab as the origin point , we ’ re now discussing how intel agencies are piecing together information to create an accurate picture .
But a few paragraphs later we do get some new information about the lab theory : Sources say the investigation of open source and classified data points to the work in the lab of Dr. Shi Zhengli , who was working on antivirals and immunizations for coronavirus , specifically with bats .
US officials are 100 percent confident China went to great lengths to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the sources said .
The claims of a cover-up also appeared in Fox ’ s story from Wednesday with one source saying it could be the “ costliest government coverup of all time.
” But what cover-up action was taken with regard to the lab and how do we know ?
The only open source evidence I ’ ve seen that involves Dr. Shi Zhengli is the Scientific American article I quoted here in which Dr. Shi said her first thought when hearing about the outbreak in Wuhan was “ could they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , in the same article Dr. Shi claims she later reviewed her research and found her lab had never studied the coronavirus which spread in Wuhan .
As for information from the lab in question , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talked about that on the Hugh Hewitt show today .
Asked about China ’ s denial of the lab release claim , Pompeo said “ We don ’ t know the answer to the question about the precise origination point.
” He added , “ they ’ ve not permitted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that laboratory to evaluate what took place there , what ’ s happening there , what ’ s happening there even as we speak.
” So whatever evidence the intel agencies have that indicates a cover-up apparently isn ’ t coming from inside the lab itself .
Or alternatively , we do have intel from covert sources that Pompeo can ’ t discuss on a radio show .
Here ’ s the Hugh Hewitt interview with Pompeo :

Fox News reported Wednesday that multiple sources said the U.S. government had increasing confidence that the novel coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab from which it was accidentally released. Today, Bret Baier has a follow-up report which adds some detail to the process intelligence agencies are following right now:
The U.S. is conducting a full-scale investigation into whether the novel coronavirus, which went on to morph into a global pandemic that has brought the global economy to its knees, escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China, Fox News has learned. Intelligence operatives are said to be gathering information about the laboratory and the initial outbreak of the virus. Intelligence analysts are piecing together a timeline of what the government knew and “creating an accurate picture of what happened,” the sources said. Once that investigation is complete — something that is expected to happen in the near-term — the findings will be presented to the Trump administration.
Those are the opening graphs of the story and they really don’t add much to what Fox reported previously. In fact, they almost sound like a half-step backwards. Instead of a focus on increasing confidence about the lab as the origin point, we’re now discussing how intel agencies are piecing together information to create an accurate picture. But a few paragraphs later we do get some new information about the lab theory:
Sources say the investigation of open source and classified data points to the work in the lab of Dr. Shi Zhengli, who was working on antivirals and immunizations for coronavirus, specifically with bats. US officials are 100 percent confident China went to great lengths to cover up after the virus was out, the sources said.
The claims of a cover-up also appeared in Fox’s story from Wednesday with one source saying it could be the “costliest government coverup of all time.” But what cover-up action was taken with regard to the lab and how do we know?
The only open source evidence I’ve seen that involves Dr. Shi Zhengli is the Scientific American article I quoted here in which Dr. Shi said her first thought when hearing about the outbreak in Wuhan was “could they have come from our lab?” However, in the same article Dr. Shi claims she later reviewed her research and found her lab had never studied the coronavirus which spread in Wuhan.
As for information from the lab in question, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talked about that on the Hugh Hewitt show today. Asked about China’s denial of the lab release claim, Pompeo said “We don’t know the answer to the question about the precise origination point.” He added, “they’ve not permitted the world’s scientists to go into that laboratory to evaluate what took place there, what’s happening there, what’s happening there even as we speak.”
So whatever evidence the intel agencies have that indicates a cover-up apparently isn’t coming from inside the lab itself. Or alternatively, we do have intel from covert sources that Pompeo can’t discuss on a radio show. Here’s the Hugh Hewitt interview with Pompeo:


hotair--2020-04-17--Study: Antibodies shows 50-85 times as many people in California county have had the disease than co

Study: Antibodies shows 50-85 times as many people in California county have had the disease than confirmed cases

Lots of excitement about this result on social media today , although there are two ways to look at it .
One is the optimistic way , which I ’ ve highlighted in the headline .
If the number of Americans who ’ ve had COVID is 50 to 85 times the number of confirmed cases then we ’ re further along towards herd immunity than we thought .
Suddenly the Oxford model of the outbreak , which imagines many millions of undetected infections , is back in play .
The pessimistic way to look at it is the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prevalence of 50-85 times the number of confirmed cases would mean that … three percent or so of the population there has had the disease .
That ’ s right in line with experts ’ current estimations , including Scott Gottlieb ’ s , that something like one to five percent of Americans have had the virus so far .
The scientists who are encouraging lockdowns would expect a result like this .
As more antibody studies are done , my guess is that we ’ ll have that same reaction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lots more people than we thought have had coronavirus , annnnnnd … we ’ re still nowhere near the numbers we ’ d need across the population to meaningfully reduce transmission rates in the near term via herd immunity .
Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern .
To date , many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters .
We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County .
Methods On 4/3-4/4 , 2020 , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using a lateral flow immunoassay .
Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics .
We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people , adjusting for zip code , sex , and race/ethnicity .
We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates : ( i ) the test manufacturer ’ s data , ( ii ) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford , and ( iii ) a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5 % ( exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97 % ) , and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81 % ( 95CI 2.24-3.37 % ) .
Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics , the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49 % ( 95CI 1.80-3.17 % ) to 4.16 % ( 2.58-5.70 % ) .
These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April , 50-85-fold more than the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases .
Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections .
The unvarnished good news in every report of millions of hidden infections is that it means the fatality rate is much less than feared .
The case fatality rate right now in the U.S. is 4.6 percent , a number no one takes seriously .
If 50 times as many Americans are infected than we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases would swell to 33 million and the fatality rate would drop to flu levels , around 0.1 percent .
That ’ s the good news .
The bad news is that multiplying the known cases by 50 would mean that just 10 percent or so of the total population has been infected , and that 10 percent has cost us 30,000 deaths so far .
If we need to get to , say , 60 percent being infected in order to enjoy herd immunity , that would mean we should expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epidemic tails off .
Which happens to be right in the range of deaths predicted by the White House model .
The Santa Clara study isn ’ t the only news today about a huge number of hidden infections in a population .
Down in Guam , tests are being run on the crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt : I don ’ t want to confuse apples and oranges here .
The Santa Clara test was an antibody test , showing everyone who ’ s had the disease — even those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test is , I believe , a PCR test with the nasal and throat swab , showing who has the disease *right now .
* It ’ s possible that some sailors who had the disease and beat it are testing negative on the PCR but would test positive on the antibody test , meaning that the share of the crew that ’ s been infected is even larger than we think .
( On the other hand , there ’ s no way to know right now how many sailors without symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many won ’ t ever have any , the true asymptomatics . )
The key point in both studies is the same , though : There ’ s obviously a *large* number in any population where the virus has circulated that ’ s been infected but has remain hidden to scientists , whether because they haven ’ t had symptoms or because they couldn ’ t be tested for some reason .
The question is figuring out what that number is nationally .
And regionally .
Maybe the regional number is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of true infections in New York City exceeded the number of known infections by the same magnitude that it did in Santa Clara County — 50 to 85 times — then right now in NYC there would be , uh , 5.8 million to 9.9 million infected people .
Note : NYC only has 8.4 million people .
It ’ s a cinch that the share of the population in New York that ’ s infected is higher than it is in most/all other parts of the country , but it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already reached herd immunity .
( I think . )
Even if they had , it would mean that a huge chunk of the national population that ’ s survived COVID is located in one small geographic area .
For most of the country , it ’ ll still be a long road to herd immunity .
There are other reasons to doubt the Santa Clara study .
Note the bit in the excerpt about how people were recruited — through a Facebook ad , not through some sort of purely random sampling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in Santa Clara who had symptoms last month , desperately wanted a test at the time but couldn ’ t get it , and now raced to sign up for the antibody test to see if they ’ re immune .
If that ’ s so , then we might expect the Santa Clara sample to have more infected people in it than a true random slice of the population would have .
Likewise , the reason the number with antibodies was 50-85 times the number of confirmed cases may have less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than with the scarcity of testing .
Look at it this way : If you had a population of 100,000 people , and 1,000 of them were infected , but only 10 were *known* to be infected via PCR testing , an antibody test later might reveal those extra 990 “ hidden ” infections to you and give you a mind-boggling rate of 99 times as many unknown infections as confirmed ones .
But the rate doesn ’ t mean much there .
In reality , just one percent of the overall population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that gaudy “ 99 times !
” number is simply because you tested so few people via PCR that you only found 10 to begin with .
Do a crappy enough job of diagnostic testing , as we have in the U.S. , and sure , your rates of true infections will seem sky high .
There ’ s another reason to doubt the study .
Namely , if the accuracy of the tests they used is even a leeeetle bit worse than expected , their results could go up in smoke : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downer about it but Scott Gottlieb says he would have expected a *higher* prevalence than three percent in Santa Clara County because it was an early hot spot .
The bottom line is encouraging — many , many people out there have had COVID and beaten it , or are en route — but it ’ s not some vindication of the Oxford model .

Lots of excitement about this result on social media today, although there are two ways to look at it. One is the optimistic way, which I’ve highlighted in the headline. If the number of Americans who’ve had COVID is 50 to 85 times the number of confirmed cases then we’re further along towards herd immunity than we thought. Suddenly the Oxford model of the outbreak, which imagines many millions of undetected infections, is back in play.
The pessimistic way to look at it is the fact that, in Santa Clara County, a prevalence of 50-85 times the number of confirmed cases would mean that … three percent or so of the population there has had the disease. That’s right in line with experts’ current estimations, including Scott Gottlieb’s, that something like one to five percent of Americans have had the virus so far. The scientists who are encouraging lockdowns would expect a result like this.
As more antibody studies are done, my guess is that we’ll have that same reaction to many of them, if not all. Lots more people than we thought have had coronavirus, annnnnnd … we’re still nowhere near the numbers we’d need across the population to meaningfully reduce transmission rates in the near term via herd immunity.
Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County. Methods On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer’s data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both. Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
The unvarnished good news in every report of millions of hidden infections is that it means the fatality rate is much less than feared. The case fatality rate right now in the U.S. is 4.6 percent, a number no one takes seriously. If 50 times as many Americans are infected than we know right now, the true number of cases would swell to 33 million and the fatality rate would drop to flu levels, around 0.1 percent. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that multiplying the known cases by 50 would mean that just 10 percent or so of the total population has been infected, and that 10 percent has cost us 30,000 deaths so far. If we need to get to, say, 60 percent being infected in order to enjoy herd immunity, that would mean we should expect 180,000 dead before transmission rates decline and the epidemic tails off. Which happens to be right in the range of deaths predicted by the White House model.
The Santa Clara study isn’t the only news today about a huge number of hidden infections in a population. Down in Guam, tests are being run on the crew of the USS Theodore Roosevelt:
Roughly 60 percent of the over 600 sailors who tested positive so far have not shown symptoms of COVID-19, the potentially lethal respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus, the Navy says. The service did not speculate about how many might later develop symptoms or remain asymptomatic. “With regard to COVID-19, we’re learning that stealth in the form of asymptomatic transmission is this adversary’s secret power,” said Rear Admiral Bruce Gillingham, surgeon general of the Navy. The figure is higher than the 25% to 50% range offered on April 5 by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force.
I don’t want to confuse apples and oranges here. The Santa Clara test was an antibody test, showing everyone who’s had the disease — even those who’ve recovered. The Roosevelt test is, I believe, a PCR test with the nasal and throat swab, showing who has the disease *right now.* It’s possible that some sailors who had the disease and beat it are testing negative on the PCR but would test positive on the antibody test, meaning that the share of the crew that’s been infected is even larger than we think. (On the other hand, there’s no way to know right now how many sailors without symptoms will go on to develop some and how many won’t ever have any, the true asymptomatics.) The key point in both studies is the same, though: There’s obviously a *large* number in any population where the virus has circulated that’s been infected but has remain hidden to scientists, whether because they haven’t had symptoms or because they couldn’t be tested for some reason. The question is figuring out what that number is nationally.
And regionally. Maybe the regional number is more important, in fact. If the number of true infections in New York City exceeded the number of known infections by the same magnitude that it did in Santa Clara County — 50 to 85 times — then right now in NYC there would be, uh, 5.8 million to 9.9 million infected people. Note: NYC only has 8.4 million people. It’s a cinch that the share of the population in New York that’s infected is higher than it is in most/all other parts of the country, but it can’t be that they’ve already reached herd immunity. (I think.) Even if they had, it would mean that a huge chunk of the national population that’s survived COVID is located in one small geographic area. For most of the country, it’ll still be a long road to herd immunity.
There are other reasons to doubt the Santa Clara study. Note the bit in the excerpt about how people were recruited — through a Facebook ad, not through some sort of purely random sampling. It may be that there were people in Santa Clara who had symptoms last month, desperately wanted a test at the time but couldn’t get it, and now raced to sign up for the antibody test to see if they’re immune. If that’s so, then we might expect the Santa Clara sample to have more infected people in it than a true random slice of the population would have. Likewise, the reason the number with antibodies was 50-85 times the number of confirmed cases may have less to do with prevalence in the population than with the scarcity of testing. Look at it this way: If you had a population of 100,000 people, and 1,000 of them were infected, but only 10 were *known* to be infected via PCR testing, an antibody test later might reveal those extra 990 “hidden” infections to you and give you a mind-boggling rate of 99 times as many unknown infections as confirmed ones.
But the rate doesn’t mean much there. In reality, just one percent of the overall population is infected. The reason you got that gaudy “99 times!” number is simply because you tested so few people via PCR that you only found 10 to begin with. Do a crappy enough job of diagnostic testing, as we have in the U.S., and sure, your rates of true infections will seem sky high.
There’s another reason to doubt the study. Namely, if the accuracy of the tests they used is even a leeeetle bit worse than expected, their results could go up in smoke:
Here we go. They acknowledge this possibility, like good researchers. If test specificity <98%, the significance of the results goes away. pic.twitter.com/6Rr5IC9Zne — Non-essential Fred (@LesserFrederick) April 17, 2020
Not to be too much of a downer about it but Scott Gottlieb says he would have expected a *higher* prevalence than three percent in Santa Clara County because it was an early hot spot. The bottom line is encouraging — many, many people out there have had COVID and beaten it, or are en route — but it’s not some vindication of the Oxford model.


hotair--2020-04-17--Under stay-at-home orders, Traffic is down but speeding is up (Update)

Nearly three weeks ago , as stay-at-home orders were put in place in about half of U.S. states , there were reports from around the country that as the amount of traffic on the roads declined , the number of people speeding was increasing .
That pattern has continued and yesterday the Governors Highway Safety Association ( GHSA ) put out a press release about a “ severe spike in speeding ” around the country .
CNN highlighted this local news report from Cedar Rapids , Iowa which was published yesterday : Over the last 30 days , the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going more than 100 miles per hour… “ Some people think we are not out there , and we are and we ’ re giving quite a few more tickets because of it , ” he said .
This March , the State Patrol issued 103 speeding citations for people going over 100 miles per hour compared to 64 last March .
April of last year , they issued 65 .
So far this April , they ’ re already at 64 – only halfway through the month .
And the same trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a report published yesterday by the NY Times , New York is starting to resemble a Fast & Furious movie : As traffic has disappeared from New York ’ s streets during the coronavirus pandemic , some drivers have responded by revving their engines and taking off .
The open streets have also brought out motorcycle gangs and daredevils on dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles doing wheelies and stunts in traffic lanes , residents said .
“ Now that the streets are empty , the Fast & Furious wannabes really think they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” tweeted City Councilman Justin Brannan , a Democrat who represents southwest Brooklyn , adding that the sounds of racing cars and motorcycles on the Belt Parkway in Bay Ridge “ have become a scary lullaby.
” Even with fewer cars on the streets , the city ’ s automated speeding cameras have issued almost twice as many speeding tickets daily .
CBS reports this is happening all around the country with traffic deaths up in some areas even though traffic on the roads is way down .
In Minnesota , traffic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state troopers caught a driver doing 111 mph on Interstate 95 , usually one of the most gridlocked roads in the country .
New York City saw speed camera tickets in March more than double .
In Memphis , a driver was seen in a video hitting 127 mph… “ We just recently had a speed over 150 mph , ” said CHP Officer John Fransen .
Fransen said in the Bay Area alone , coronavirus hasn ’ t stopped officers from writing 100 more tickets than usual for these extreme speeds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet .
This one involved someone doing 105 mph , nearly double the limit : In Georgia , someone on a motorcycle passed a speed trap at 172 mpg .
A sergeant with the Sandy Springs PD told a local news outlet , “ Because it was a motorcycle and traveling at those speeds , our officer couldn ’ t even attempt to go after it .
He didn ’ t have a chance.
” Here ’ s a local news report from southern California which says the worst offenders are from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Update : There are several more local reports like this about a surge of speeders .
Here ’ s one from Utah .
And here ’ s one from Colorado .
This is happening everywhere .

Nearly three weeks ago, as stay-at-home orders were put in place in about half of U.S. states, there were reports from around the country that as the amount of traffic on the roads declined, the number of people speeding was increasing. That pattern has continued and yesterday the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) put out a press release about a “severe spike in speeding” around the country.
Emptier streets may be encouraging some drivers to flout traffic safety laws, including speed limits. Despite there being far fewer vehicles on the road due to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, state highway safety officials across the country are seeing a severe spike in speeding. Many states have reported alarming speed increases, with some noting a significant surge in vehicles clocked at 100 mph or more.
CNN highlighted this local news report from Cedar Rapids, Iowa which was published yesterday:
Over the last 30 days, the state patrol says it has clocked 167 drivers going more than 100 miles per hour… “Some people think we are not out there, and we are and we’re giving quite a few more tickets because of it,” he said. This March, the State Patrol issued 103 speeding citations for people going over 100 miles per hour compared to 64 last March. April of last year, they issued 65. So far this April, they’re already at 64 – only halfway through the month.
And the same trend is happening in Oklahoma:
DANGEROUS TREND: The Oklahoma Highway Patrol says while there’s less drivers on the roads, more people are breaking the law. Troopers say they’ve clocked more drivers speeding during the pandemic. A trooper recently caught this driver on I-35 in Stillwater.@KTULNews pic.twitter.com/d8iEuHhqVM — Haley Hughey (@haleyhughey) April 17, 2020
And in Orange County, CA:
In just four hours, 102 tickets were issued by officers in Orange County along the 5 Freeway with a top speed of 103 miles per hour. https://t.co/jJ0rMQVU6X — CBS Los Angeles (@CBSLA) April 16, 2020
And according to a report published yesterday by the NY Times, New York is starting to resemble a Fast & Furious movie:
As traffic has disappeared from New York’s streets during the coronavirus pandemic, some drivers have responded by revving their engines and taking off. The open streets have also brought out motorcycle gangs and daredevils on dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles doing wheelies and stunts in traffic lanes, residents said. “Now that the streets are empty, the Fast & Furious wannabes really think they’re living in a video game,” tweeted City Councilman Justin Brannan, a Democrat who represents southwest Brooklyn, adding that the sounds of racing cars and motorcycles on the Belt Parkway in Bay Ridge “have become a scary lullaby.” Even with fewer cars on the streets, the city’s automated speeding cameras have issued almost twice as many speeding tickets daily.
CBS reports this is happening all around the country with traffic deaths up in some areas even though traffic on the roads is way down.
In Minnesota, traffic deaths have more than doubled. Virginia state troopers caught a driver doing 111 mph on Interstate 95, usually one of the most gridlocked roads in the country. New York City saw speed camera tickets in March more than double. In Memphis, a driver was seen in a video hitting 127 mph… “We just recently had a speed over 150 mph,” said CHP Officer John Fransen. Fransen said in the Bay Area alone, coronavirus hasn’t stopped officers from writing 100 more tickets than usual for these extreme speeds.
Police departments are posting speeding citations on the internet. This one involved someone doing 105 mph, nearly double the limit:
Our west side deputy caught a driver going 105 in a 55 on Hwy. 30 on 4/5. Our patrol lieutenant clocked drivers at 92, 95 and 97 on I-84 E. at Fairview in a 20 minute period around 10am this morning. #SLOWDOWNSAVELIVES pic.twitter.com/gbv48AkIVw — Multnomah Co. Sheriff’s Office (@MultCoSO) April 10, 2020
In Georgia, someone on a motorcycle passed a speed trap at 172 mpg. A sergeant with the Sandy Springs PD told a local news outlet, “Because it was a motorcycle and traveling at those speeds, our officer couldn’t even attempt to go after it. He didn’t have a chance.”
With less traffic on our roads, some are using it as an opportunity to drive recklessly. This picture illustrates someone w/no regard for his own life or the life of others. Our officers will continue to enforce speed limit laws to prevent crashes with serious injuries or death. pic.twitter.com/l7UuIJHrFk — Sandy Springs Police (@SandySprings_PD) April 16, 2020
Here’s a local news report from southern California which says the worst offenders are from where I live in Orange County.
Update: There are several more local reports like this about a surge of speeders. Here’s one from Utah.
And here’s one from Colorado.
And Kansas City:
And Oregon:
And North Carolina:
This is happening everywhere.


hotair--2020-04-17--Americans wondering: Why haven't we seen our COVID-19 relief stimulus payments yet?

Because it ’ s a massive government operation conceived in haste and crafted by a Congress more interested in leaving town than overseeing it ?
Given all of that , we should note that the Treasury Department pulled off a minor miracle by just getting the process started on Wednesday .
That ’ s no joke , either ; some had guesstimated that it might take several months to get the payments out in the fashion determined by Congress .
Steve Mnuchin deserves some kudos for getting it teed up as quickly as we see .
However , with tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that $ 1200 would come in mighty handy right now , plus the additional stimulus cash for dependent children .
The cash hasn ’ t shown up yet for a lot of Americans in either checks or direct deposit form , and some are beginning to wonder why .
The short answer , from the Washington Post , is … “ glitches ” : Many Americans woke up Wednesday expecting to find a payment of $ 1,200 or more from the U.S. government in their bank account , but instead they realized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong amount was deposited .
Parents of young children complained they did not receive the promised $ 500 check for their dependent children .
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has instructed the Internal Revenue Service to get payments out as fast as possible to help offset the pain of losing jobs and shutting down businesses , but numerous glitches — affecting filers who used tax preparers , parents of dependent children and people with 2019 tax returns still to be processed — are delaying payments and causing confusion .
Several million people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Block , TurboTax and other services were unable to get their payments because the IRS did not have their direct deposit information on file , according to the Treasury , companies and experts .
The tax-preparer glitch supposedly is limited to those filers who enrolled in early-payment loan programs , not all such filers .
It ’ s tough to say just how limited that may be , however .
Based on my own experience ( and with the caveat that I qualify for stimulus but am fortunate enough not to be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem appears a little more broad than that .
I filed my 2018 taxes through H & R Block and used direct-deposit to pay taxes and receive refunds , which is what I have done for several years , and my accounts haven ’ t changed at all .
Thus far , however , I have not seen any cash yet .
Checking the IRS ’ “ Get My Payment ” portal hasn ’ t done much to clarify things , either .
The system gets updated overnight every day , and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get the same message that many others are seeing : CNN lists a few reasons why some Americans may not see a quick direct deposit beyond “ glitches , ” one of which answers my situation : Even if you filed your 2018 or 2019 taxes electronically , that doesn ’ t mean the IRS can direct-deposit the money into your bank account .
You must have also received a refund in those years via direct deposit to get the money delivered automatically .
The IRS is not using bank account information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your account if you owed money .
Aha !
I owed money in 2018 , and haven ’ t yet filed for 2019 .
That might be a point of confusion for other Americans too , who might assume ( as I did ) that the IRS would use the direct deposit information regardless of which direction the money flowed with it previously .
It could also explain why the portal doesn ’ t provide a status , too .
The IRS does allow for non-filers or those who had to pay last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system .
It ’ s unclear from the site whether this is a good process to use for those who will eventually file a tax return — the CARES Act extended the deadline to July 15 — but it ’ s not possible to do it any other way from the Get My Payment portal thus far .
Otherwise , you ’ ll have to wait for the check to come in the mail .
If you didn ’ t use electronic submission for your taxes this year or last , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long time : Will that disadvantage tend more toward lower-income earners , who might not have the resources to file electronically ?
Maybe , and that would be unfortunate , but it also seems unavoidable .
The money will get there eventually .
Hopefully it will be in time to make a difference to those who need it most .
One thing we do know is that putting Trump ’ s signature on massively printed material isn ’ t going to be part of that delay .
Come on , folks …

Because it’s a massive government operation conceived in haste and crafted by a Congress more interested in leaving town than overseeing it? Given all of that, we should note that the Treasury Department pulled off a minor miracle by just getting the process started on Wednesday. That’s no joke, either; some had guesstimated that it might take several months to get the payments out in the fashion determined by Congress. Steve Mnuchin deserves some kudos for getting it teed up as quickly as we see.
However, with tens of millions of American workers now sidelined, that $1200 would come in mighty handy right now, plus the additional stimulus cash for dependent children. The cash hasn’t shown up yet for a lot of Americans in either checks or direct deposit form, and some are beginning to wonder why. The short answer, from the Washington Post, is … “glitches”:
Many Americans woke up Wednesday expecting to find a payment of $1,200 or more from the U.S. government in their bank account, but instead they realized nothing had arrived yet — or the wrong amount was deposited. Parents of young children complained they did not receive the promised $500 check for their dependent children. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has instructed the Internal Revenue Service to get payments out as fast as possible to help offset the pain of losing jobs and shutting down businesses, but numerous glitches — affecting filers who used tax preparers, parents of dependent children and people with 2019 tax returns still to be processed — are delaying payments and causing confusion. Several million people who filed their taxes via H&R Block, TurboTax and other services were unable to get their payments because the IRS did not have their direct deposit information on file, according to the Treasury, companies and experts.
The tax-preparer glitch supposedly is limited to those filers who enrolled in early-payment loan programs, not all such filers. It’s tough to say just how limited that may be, however. Based on my own experience (and with the caveat that I qualify for stimulus but am fortunate enough not to be in desperate need of it), the problem appears a little more broad than that. I filed my 2018 taxes through H&R Block and used direct-deposit to pay taxes and receive refunds, which is what I have done for several years, and my accounts haven’t changed at all. Thus far, however, I have not seen any cash yet.
Checking the IRS’ “Get My Payment” portal hasn’t done much to clarify things, either. The system gets updated overnight every day, and for the third day in a row, I get the same message that many others are seeing:
The IRS launched a “Get My Payment” tool Wednesday for people to track the status of their payment and enter direct deposit information, but many who used it said they received a message saying “Payment Status Not Available,” a frustration that left them without answers.
CNN lists a few reasons why some Americans may not see a quick direct deposit beyond “glitches,” one of which answers my situation:
Even if you filed your 2018 or 2019 taxes electronically, that doesn’t mean the IRS can direct-deposit the money into your bank account. You must have also received a refund in those years via direct deposit to get the money delivered automatically. The IRS is not using bank account information it may have used to withdraw from your account if you owed money.
Aha! I owed money in 2018, and haven’t yet filed for 2019. That might be a point of confusion for other Americans too, who might assume (as I did) that the IRS would use the direct deposit information regardless of which direction the money flowed with it previously. It could also explain why the portal doesn’t provide a status, too.
The IRS does allow for non-filers or those who had to pay last year to enroll their direct-deposit information into the system. It’s unclear from the site whether this is a good process to use for those who will eventually file a tax return — the CARES Act extended the deadline to July 15 — but it’s not possible to do it any other way from the Get My Payment portal thus far. Otherwise, you’ll have to wait for the check to come in the mail.
If you didn’t use electronic submission for your taxes this year or last, though, you may be waiting a very long time:
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, the IRS has many employees working remotely and has stopped processing paper returns until its centers are able to reopen. If you didn’t get a refund directly deposited in 2018 and filed a paper return for 2019, you may be waiting for a paper check with your stimulus money.
Will that disadvantage tend more toward lower-income earners, who might not have the resources to file electronically? Maybe, and that would be unfortunate, but it also seems unavoidable.
The money will get there eventually. Hopefully it will be in time to make a difference to those who need it most. One thing we do know is that putting Trump’s signature on massively printed material isn’t going to be part of that delay. Come on, folks …


hotair--2020-04-17--Dr. Phil: We don't shut down the country because 360,000 people a year drown in pools, do we?

Second time in four days that a pseudo-expert has made a point on Fox in support of the “ reopen now ” agenda that ’ s so blatantly false that it can ’ t have been made in good faith .
Four days ago Bill Bennett compared the annual flu death toll to the projected coronavirus death toll in wondering why we don ’ t shut down the country every year to stop the flu .
The answer , apparent to anyone with a second-grade education : Because we have none of the other weapons against coronavirus that we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no antiviral treatments , no vaccine .
Social distancing is the only way to slow it down at the moment .
Carry on as normal and there ’ s every reason to believe the death toll between this disease and the flu would diverge spectacularly .
Comparing deaths from one highly contagious disease during a lockdown to deaths from another without a lockdown is idiotic , and willfully so .
Now here ’ s Phil McGraw , who ’ s no more a virologist than I am ( or Bennett is ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s show anyway last night as a sort of rebuttal witness after she interviewed Anthony Fauci earlier in the program .
What grade of education would one need to recognize ( a ) the annual death toll from drownings is much , much lower than 360,000 , ( b ) the fact that COVID-19 is contagious whereas swimming deaths aren ’ t requires a different mitigation strategy , and ( c ) there are way less disruptive means to reduce deaths from drowning , car crashes , and smoking than ordering a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there really aren ’ t ?
There are around 3,500 unintentional drownings ( unrelated to boating ) in the U.S. every year , per the CDC , but the particular number isn ’ t important .
The important part is the apples-to-oranges dishonesty of implying that there ’ s some alternative right now between letting the virus run free and imposing a degree of social distancing that ’ s going to have brutal economic consequences .
I don ’ t mean lockdowns ; those can and will be lifted soon .
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population will remain wary of public spaces like retail stores and restaurants for many months , until it has reason to believe the risk of illness and death has fallen .
We have lots of alternatives with everything else McGraw mentions .
We can tax cigarettes to reduce consumption and we can treat cancer patients with chemotherapy .
We can pass laws for public pools requiring a lifeguard to be on duty at all times .
We can set speed limits and require seatbelts and air bags to make car crashes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact .
We do .
We took action to limit deaths from each of those causes .
Just like we ’ re doing with coronavirus now .
The problem with COVID-19 , for now , is that staying away from each other is the only course of action available to us to limit fatalities .
It ’ s our only defense .
Ingraham did a little better in her interview with Fauci earlier in the program , wanting to know why we didn ’ t shut down the country to contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least comparing two different types of apples instead of apples to oranges .
But the answer to each question boils down to this : Look at the number of infections in the U.S. in the span of just six weeks — 660,000 known , with 30,000 dead , and doubtless many more still unknown — and ask why we *wouldn ’ t* react differently to COVID than to HIV or SARS .
It may be only through luck and aggressive containment in Asia that we were spared a similar epidemic in 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t recur this time .
Ingraham ’ s attitude seems to be “ If we didn ’ t shut down for HIV then we can ’ t properly shut down now , ” regardless of whether it ’ s necessary or not to avoid a freakish death toll .

Second time in four days that a pseudo-expert has made a point on Fox in support of the “reopen now” agenda that’s so blatantly false that it can’t have been made in good faith. Four days ago Bill Bennett compared the annual flu death toll to the projected coronavirus death toll in wondering why we don’t shut down the country every year to stop the flu.
The answer, apparent to anyone with a second-grade education: Because we have none of the other weapons against coronavirus that we have against the flu. No natural immunity, no antiviral treatments, no vaccine. Social distancing is the only way to slow it down at the moment. Carry on as normal and there’s every reason to believe the death toll between this disease and the flu would diverge spectacularly. Comparing deaths from one highly contagious disease during a lockdown to deaths from another without a lockdown is idiotic, and willfully so.
Now here’s Phil McGraw, who’s no more a virologist than I am (or Bennett is) but who was invited onto Laura Ingraham’s show anyway last night as a sort of rebuttal witness after she interviewed Anthony Fauci earlier in the program. What grade of education would one need to recognize (a) the annual death toll from drownings is much, much lower than 360,000, (b) the fact that COVID-19 is contagious whereas swimming deaths aren’t requires a different mitigation strategy, and (c) there are way less disruptive means to reduce deaths from drowning, car crashes, and smoking than ordering a national shutdown whereas, with coronavirus, there really aren’t?
Dr. Phil appears on Laura Ingraham and says we don’t shut the country down for automobile deaths, cigarette related deaths, and swimming pool deaths pic.twitter.com/q8KCgLLClY — Acyn (@Acyn) April 17, 2020
There are around 3,500 unintentional drownings (unrelated to boating) in the U.S. every year, per the CDC, but the particular number isn’t important. The important part is the apples-to-oranges dishonesty of implying that there’s some alternative right now between letting the virus run free and imposing a degree of social distancing that’s going to have brutal economic consequences. I don’t mean lockdowns; those can and will be lifted soon. I mean the hard reality that a sizable chunk of the population will remain wary of public spaces like retail stores and restaurants for many months, until it has reason to believe the risk of illness and death has fallen. We have lots of alternatives with everything else McGraw mentions. We can tax cigarettes to reduce consumption and we can treat cancer patients with chemotherapy. We can pass laws for public pools requiring a lifeguard to be on duty at all times. We can set speed limits and require seatbelts and air bags to make car crashes less fatal.
Not only can we, in fact. We do. We took action to limit deaths from each of those causes. Just like we’re doing with coronavirus now.
The problem with COVID-19, for now, is that staying away from each other is the only course of action available to us to limit fatalities. It’s our only defense.
Ingraham did a little better in her interview with Fauci earlier in the program, wanting to know why we didn’t shut down the country to contain HIV or SARS. That’s at least comparing two different types of apples instead of apples to oranges. But the answer to each question boils down to this: Look at the number of infections in the U.S. in the span of just six weeks — 660,000 known, with 30,000 dead, and doubtless many more still unknown — and ask why we *wouldn’t* react differently to COVID than to HIV or SARS. It may be only through luck and aggressive containment in Asia that we were spared a similar epidemic in 2003 with SARS but that luck didn’t recur this time. Ingraham’s attitude seems to be “If we didn’t shut down for HIV then we can’t properly shut down now,” regardless of whether it’s necessary or not to avoid a freakish death toll.


hotair--2020-04-17--China revises Wuhan death toll upward by 50 percent

Earlier this week President Trump was asked why the death toll from the coronavirus in the United States is so high relative to our percentage of the world population .
Trump responded by casting doubt on the official numbers released by some other countries .
“ Does anybody really believe the numbers of some of these countries ?
” he said .
It ’ s not the first time he has suggested China ’ s death toll is “ a little bit on the light side.
” Today , China revised the death toll in Wuhan upward by 50 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus was first reported late last year , on Friday added 1,290 coronavirus deaths to the city ’ s toll .
They also added 325 confirmed cases to the city tally .
The total number of cases recorded in the city now stands at 50,333 , with 3,869 deaths .
The previous reported death toll for Wuhan was 2,579 — so the revised figure marks a 50 % increase in the number of deaths in the city from coronavirus .
The updated figures came in a press release which offered a lengthy explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this much in the first place : The data discrepancies are due to the following reasons : First , a surging number of patients at the early stage of the epidemic overwhelmed medical resources and the admission capacity of medical institutions .
Some patients died at home without having been treated in hospitals .
Second , during the height of their treating efforts , hospitals were operating beyond their capacities and medical staff were preoccupied with saving and treating patients , resulting in belated , missed and mistaken reporting .
Third , due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for treating COVID-19 patients , including those administered by ministries , Hubei Province , Wuhan city and its districts , those affiliated to companies , as well as private hospitals and makeshift hospitals , a few medical institutions were not linked to the epidemic information network and failed to report their data in time .
Fourth , the registered information of some of the deceased patients was incomplete , and there were repetitions and mistakes in the reporting .
None of these problems can possibly be new to the government .
More than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths outside of hospitals were being under-counted in places like Italy .
Why did it take until mid-April to get around to correcting these problems ?
Probably because China is reacting to a growing global consensus that they have not been very honest about their numbers : “ They are on the defensive , clearly , ” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan , a political science professor at Hong Kong Baptist University and an expert on Chinese politics .
“ It ’ s an uphill battle now for China to improve its image.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news agency , an unidentified official from Wuhan ’ s epidemic command center said that revising the figures was important for protecting the “ credibility of the government ” and “ maintaining respect for each individual life.
” Meanwhile , the new revisions may still be below the actual numbers which some recent estimates have suggested are much higher .
Experts say the revisions are not unusual .
Many countries are probably underreporting their official tallies of infections and deaths , in part because of problems with testing and the speed with which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems .
Still , the changes to the official figures are small enough that they are unlikely to quash lingering doubts about their veracity .
Researchers at the University of Hong Kong recently estimated there were probably around 232,000 confirmed cases in China by late February , more than four times the number of reported cases at the time .
As of Friday , China had reported more than 82,000 officially confirmed cases and over 4,500 deaths from the coronavirus , including the revised tallies in Wuhan… .
The C.I.A .
has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s official figures are vastly understated , though it does not know the exact numbers , current and former American intelligence officials say .
That University of Hong Kong study is worth a look .
It ’ s based upon the changing case definitions of the virus that were used by China in the early days : From January through to early March 2020 , seven versions of the case definition for COVID-19 were issued by the National Health Commission in China .
As of February 20 , there were 55,508 confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when the case definitions were changed from version 1 to 2 , version 2 to 4 and version 4 to 5 , the proportion of infections being detected as cases were increased by 7.1-fold ( 95 % credible interval ( CI ) : 4.8 , 10.9 ) , 2.8-fold ( 95 % CI : 1.9 , 4.2 ) and 4.2-fold ( 95 % CI : 2.6 , 7.3 ) respectively .
If the fifth version of the case definition had been applied throughout the outbreak , we estimated that by February 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % CI : 161,000 , 359,000 ) confirmed cases .
The study goes on to explain that the fifth version of the case definition allowed for diagnoses based on radiological evidence , i.e .
by looking at scans of patient ’ s lungs .
But that definition was quickly retracted : The introduction of “ clinically confirmed ” cases in the fifth edition of the case definitions allowed a large number of highly suspected cases who could not receive a virologic test to be isolated and treated in time and reallocation of laboratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then isolating cases in the community as part of the containment efforts .
This category was removed within a week , in the sixth edition of case definitions ( Table 1 ) as explained by health officials that laboratory testing was sufficient to confirm all cases and the “ clinically confirmed ” category was unnecessary [ 13 ] .
However confirmation of viral pneumonia with radiological evidence could be an important alternative for diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19 in locations with limited laboratory testing capacity , and would also be a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 consultations exceeds local laboratory capacity .
So it sounds as if China ’ s numbers could still be off quite significantly based upon how they limited the definition of cases to those who had received a test .

Earlier this week President Trump was asked why the death toll from the coronavirus in the United States is so high relative to our percentage of the world population. Trump responded by casting doubt on the official numbers released by some other countries. “Does anybody really believe the numbers of some of these countries?” he said. It’s not the first time he has suggested China’s death toll is “a little bit on the light side.” Today, China revised the death toll in Wuhan upward by 50 percent.
Officials in Wuhan, where the virus was first reported late last year, on Friday added 1,290 coronavirus deaths to the city’s toll. They also added 325 confirmed cases to the city tally. The total number of cases recorded in the city now stands at 50,333, with 3,869 deaths. The previous reported death toll for Wuhan was 2,579 — so the revised figure marks a 50% increase in the number of deaths in the city from coronavirus.
The updated figures came in a press release which offered a lengthy explanation for why the numbers were off by this much in the first place:
The data discrepancies are due to the following reasons: First, a surging number of patients at the early stage of the epidemic overwhelmed medical resources and the admission capacity of medical institutions. Some patients died at home without having been treated in hospitals. Second, during the height of their treating efforts, hospitals were operating beyond their capacities and medical staff were preoccupied with saving and treating patients, resulting in belated, missed and mistaken reporting. Third, due to a rapid increase of designated hospitals for treating COVID-19 patients, including those administered by ministries, Hubei Province, Wuhan city and its districts, those affiliated to companies, as well as private hospitals and makeshift hospitals, a few medical institutions were not linked to the epidemic information network and failed to report their data in time. Fourth, the registered information of some of the deceased patients was incomplete, and there were repetitions and mistakes in the reporting.
None of these problems can possibly be new to the government. More than two weeks ago there were reports that deaths outside of hospitals were being under-counted in places like Italy. Why did it take until mid-April to get around to correcting these problems? Probably because China is reacting to a growing global consensus that they have not been very honest about their numbers:
“They are on the defensive, clearly,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a political science professor at Hong Kong Baptist University and an expert on Chinese politics. “It’s an uphill battle now for China to improve its image.” In an interview Friday with the official Xinhua news agency, an unidentified official from Wuhan’s epidemic command center said that revising the figures was important for protecting the “credibility of the government” and “maintaining respect for each individual life.”
Meanwhile, the new revisions may still be below the actual numbers which some recent estimates have suggested are much higher.
Experts say the revisions are not unusual. Many countries are probably underreporting their official tallies of infections and deaths, in part because of problems with testing and the speed with which the virus has overwhelmed public health care systems. Still, the changes to the official figures are small enough that they are unlikely to quash lingering doubts about their veracity. Researchers at the University of Hong Kong recently estimated there were probably around 232,000 confirmed cases in China by late February, more than four times the number of reported cases at the time. As of Friday, China had reported more than 82,000 officially confirmed cases and over 4,500 deaths from the coronavirus, including the revised tallies in Wuhan…. The C.I.A. has also told the White House that China’s official figures are vastly understated, though it does not know the exact numbers, current and former American intelligence officials say.
That University of Hong Kong study is worth a look. It’s based upon the changing case definitions of the virus that were used by China in the early days:
From January through to early March 2020, seven versions of the case definition for COVID-19 were issued by the National Health Commission in China. As of February 20, there were 55,508 confirmed cases reported in mainland China. We estimated that when the case definitions were changed from version 1 to 2, version 2 to 4 and version 4 to 5, the proportion of infections being detected as cases were increased by 7.1-fold (95% credible interval (CI): 4.8, 10.9), 2.8-fold (95% CI: 1.9, 4.2) and 4.2-fold (95% CI: 2.6, 7.3) respectively. If the fifth version of the case definition had been applied throughout the outbreak, we estimated that by February 20 there would have been 232,000 (95% CI: 161,000, 359,000) confirmed cases.
The study goes on to explain that the fifth version of the case definition allowed for diagnoses based on radiological evidence, i.e. by looking at scans of patient’s lungs. But that definition was quickly retracted:
The introduction of “clinically confirmed” cases in the fifth edition of the case definitions allowed a large number of highly suspected cases who could not receive a virologic test to be isolated and treated in time and reallocation of laboratory testing resources to be used for identifying and then isolating cases in the community as part of the containment efforts. This category was removed within a week, in the sixth edition of case definitions (Table 1) as explained by health officials that laboratory testing was sufficient to confirm all cases and the “clinically confirmed” category was unnecessary [13]. However confirmation of viral pneumonia with radiological evidence could be an important alternative for diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19 in locations with limited laboratory testing capacity, and would also be a good option if or when a surge in COVID-19 consultations exceeds local laboratory capacity.
So it sounds as if China’s numbers could still be off quite significantly based upon how they limited the definition of cases to those who had received a test.


hotair--2020-04-17--'Racist' image removed from butter label, called stereotypical

The story sounds too silly to be true .
This is 2020 , however , and that means a butter label is under fire for a “ stereotypical ” image .
Sorry , Mia , you ’ re out of here .
Land O ’ Lakes decided it is time for a makeover for its butter packaging .
The image of the Native American woman , named Mia , that adorns the label in native attire is a stereotypical image that is no longer acceptable .
Mia is the company ’ s butter maiden .
She has been a symbol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since it was founded in Minnesota in 1921 .
I buy the brand and after reading about this decision , I went to check the package that is in my refrigerator right now .
My Land O ’ Lakes package looks like it always does with Mia on it .
I will now be more observant and notice how long it takes for the new label to be in circulation .
Frankly , before today I had no idea the young woman was named .
The Native American maiden , named Mia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packaging in 1928 , seven years after the Minnesota Cooperative Creameries Association was founded by 320 farmers in St. Paul .
Arthur C. Hanson , who was the first illustrator for the ad firm Brown and Bigelow , came up with the original design evoking rural Minnesota with a blue lake , green pine trees and a Native woman in a buckskin dress and feather headdress .
Since then , the packaging changed twice , once in 1939 and a second time in the 1950s when Patrick DesJarlait , an Ojibwe artist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a student-run blog of Villanova University ’ s History Graduate Program .
Land O ’ Lakes is a farmer-owned dairy cooperative that produces butter , cheese , and other milk products .
The new packaging will reflect the “ farmer-owned ” aspect .
The new front of package design includes the words “ Farmer-Owned ” above the brand name and will include pictures of farmers and co-op members on the label .
“ Since 1921 ” will appear under the brand name .
Land O ’ Lakes was founded by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and as it approaches its 100th anniversary in 2021 , the co-op has reflected on its treasured history and made the decision to showcase its greatest strength—its farmers .
“ As Land O ’ Lakes looks toward our 100th anniversary , we ’ ve recognized we need packaging that reflects the foundation and heart of our company culture—and nothing does that better than our farmer-owners whose milk is used to produce Land O ’ Lakes ’ dairy products , ” said Beth Ford , President and CEO , Land O ’ Lakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we strongly feel the need to better connect the men and women who grow our food with those who consume it , ” Ford said .
“ Our farmer-to-fork structure gives us a unique ability to bridge this divide.
” Over the past few years , Land O ’ Lakes has launched a number of marketing initiatives to better tell its farmer-owned story .
Specific to the Dairy Foods business , the company partnered with country music star Maggie Rose in a remake of the classic song “ Old MacDonald Had a Farm.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” featured Land O ’ Lakes member farms in Rose ’ s music video .
Member farms and farmers have starred in several other videos highlighting the strength of the cooperative model and centered around the Land O ’ Lakes ’ tagline , All Together Better™ .
“ SHE-I-O ” ?
Do only female farmers produce the butter now ?
Or , like in some romantic languages , does butter have a gender identification now ?
It all seems a bit much , but I ’ m not in marketing .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolled out by the end of the year .
Stick butter packages will reflect the new packaging this spring and summer .
The Native American woman in the picture above is North Dakota Rep. Ruth Buffalo .
She has long criticized the label as being racist and stereotypical .
She goes even further and links the image to going “ hand-in-hand with human and sex trafficking of our women and girls.… by depicting Native women as sex objects.
” Ms. Buffalo is a registered member of the Mandan , Hidatsa Arikara Nation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s quite a leap .
And , you can see , it ’ s still not enough .
There is always more on the agenda of the politically aggrieved .
2018 annual sales are reported to be $ 15 billion for the company .
Changing the label will likely not matter to most consumers .
The change was quietly made in February , with the press release not even mentioning the “ butter maiden ” .
Seems like that should have been mentioned in the official remarks from the company as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , if a company is going to cave to silly political correctness shouldn ’ t they at least officially own that decision for the reason of the new look ?

The story sounds too silly to be true. This is 2020, however, and that means a butter label is under fire for a “stereotypical” image. Sorry, Mia, you’re out of here.
Land O’ Lakes decided it is time for a makeover for its butter packaging. The image of the Native American woman, named Mia, that adorns the label in native attire is a stereotypical image that is no longer acceptable. Mia is the company’s butter maiden. She has been a symbol of the company for almost 100 years since it was founded in Minnesota in 1921.
I buy the brand and after reading about this decision, I went to check the package that is in my refrigerator right now. My Land O’ Lakes package looks like it always does with Mia on it. I will now be more observant and notice how long it takes for the new label to be in circulation. Frankly, before today I had no idea the young woman was named.
The Native American maiden, named Mia, first appeared on Land O’Lakes packaging in 1928, seven years after the Minnesota Cooperative Creameries Association was founded by 320 farmers in St. Paul. Arthur C. Hanson, who was the first illustrator for the ad firm Brown and Bigelow, came up with the original design evoking rural Minnesota with a blue lake, green pine trees and a Native woman in a buckskin dress and feather headdress. Since then, the packaging changed twice, once in 1939 and a second time in the 1950s when Patrick DesJarlait, an Ojibwe artist, was hired to revamp the depiction, according to a student-run blog of Villanova University’s History Graduate Program.
Land O’ Lakes is a farmer-owned dairy cooperative that produces butter, cheese, and other milk products. The new packaging will reflect the “farmer-owned” aspect. The new front of package design includes the words “Farmer-Owned” above the brand name and will include pictures of farmers and co-op members on the label. “Since 1921” will appear under the brand name.
From the company’s press release:
Land O’Lakes was founded by a group of Minnesota dairy farmers in 1921, and as it approaches its 100th anniversary in 2021, the co-op has reflected on its treasured history and made the decision to showcase its greatest strength—its farmers. “As Land O’Lakes looks toward our 100th anniversary, we’ve recognized we need packaging that reflects the foundation and heart of our company culture—and nothing does that better than our farmer-owners whose milk is used to produce Land O’Lakes’ dairy products,” said Beth Ford, President and CEO, Land O’Lakes. “As a farmer-owned co-op, we strongly feel the need to better connect the men and women who grow our food with those who consume it,” Ford said. “Our farmer-to-fork structure gives us a unique ability to bridge this divide.” Over the past few years, Land O’Lakes has launched a number of marketing initiatives to better tell its farmer-owned story. Specific to the Dairy Foods business, the company partnered with country music star Maggie Rose in a remake of the classic song “Old MacDonald Had a Farm.” The remake, called “SHE-I-O,” featured Land O’Lakes member farms in Rose’s music video. Member farms and farmers have starred in several other videos highlighting the strength of the cooperative model and centered around the Land O’Lakes’ tagline, All Together Better™.
“SHE-I-O”? Do only female farmers produce the butter now? Or, like in some romantic languages, does butter have a gender identification now? It all seems a bit much, but I’m not in marketing. The new packaging is expected to be fully rolled out by the end of the year. Stick butter packages will reflect the new packaging this spring and summer.
The Native American woman in the picture above is North Dakota Rep. Ruth Buffalo. She has long criticized the label as being racist and stereotypical. She goes even further and links the image to going “hand-in-hand with human and sex trafficking of our women and girls.… by depicting Native women as sex objects.” Ms. Buffalo is a registered member of the Mandan, Hidatsa Arikara Nation, and is from Fort Berthold Reservation.
“Yes, it’s a good thing for the company to remove the image. It’s kinda like with land acknowledgments, it’s a good gesture and a step forward. But we can’t stop there. We as a whole need to keep pushing forward to address the underlying issues that directly impact an entire population that survived genocide,” Buffalo said.
That’s quite a leap. And, you can see, it’s still not enough. There is always more on the agenda of the politically aggrieved.
2018 annual sales are reported to be $15 billion for the company. Changing the label will likely not matter to most consumers. The change was quietly made in February, with the press release not even mentioning the “butter maiden”. Seems like that should have been mentioned in the official remarks from the company as a part of the decision-making process. I mean, if a company is going to cave to silly political correctness shouldn’t they at least officially own that decision for the reason of the new look?


hotair--2020-04-17--Trump to Pelosi: "End your ENDLESS VACATION" and get Congress back to work on funding PPP

What ?
And leave the safety of her twin $ 12,000 freezers ?
Donald Trump has signaled over the last twenty-four hours that if Nancy Pelosi wants to play hardball over an issue of replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program from afar , he ’ s willing to play hardball , too .
For the second day in a row , Trump demanded that Pelosi and Chuck Schumer bring Congress back into session and start dealing with the COVID-19 crisis in person .
The “ ENDLESS VACATION ” is a nice touch , but I still prefer the Brave Sir Robin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot on , but slightly less so on Schumer .
It would take Mitch McConnell to order the Senate back into full session , not Schumer , and thus far McConnell hasn ’ t done so .
In large part that ’ s because Pelosi hasn ’ t acted either , but it ’ s still a fair criticism of both Pelosi and McConnell .
In a national emergency — two of them , actually , public health and economic — Congress should be in session to act as quickly as possible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate even if the House refuses to return .
In fact , it ’ s a little puzzling that McConnell hasn ’ t recalled the Senate to demonstrate Pelosi ’ s fecklessness .
Pelosi ’ s weird demonstration of her ice-cream-hoarding prowess isn ’ t her only optics problem , either .
When asked to explain why more money can ’ t get to the PPP right now , Pelosi offered a confused explanation comparing it to aid for hospitals — which hasn ’ t yet run out : The solution to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation in Phase 4 , but in the meantime , small businesses need access to the PPP right now to keep people on the payroll until they can begin operating again .
Rather than focus on that acute need in a program Congress has already created , Democrats want to start larding it up with identity-politics pork while they believe they have some leverage to use : In a joint statement Monday , Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for “ further changes ” to the Paycheck Protection Program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for disaster grants and loans , plus “ additional support ” for the food-stamp program , plus “ adequate funding ” for nationwide virus testing and personal protective equipment , plus “ the collection and publication of demographic data ” so that “ we can accurately determine the level of impact on under-served communities and communities of color.
” Identity politics and the social pork barrel trump jobs and business solvency .
Democrats can make all this part of their election campaign , but the Paycheck Protection Program is out of funds today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small business may go bust or lay off staff .
Mrs. Pelosi has been saying far and wide that President Trump is responsible for the Covid-19 death toll because he didn ’ t act quickly enough to stop it .
The longer Democrats refuse to provide financing for small businesses after government cut off their revenue , the more Americans will have every right to conclude that Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are responsible for the worsening economic destruction .
But do they have the leverage ?
Late yesterday Pelosi got criticized by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her delaying tactics on PPP .
Senate Democrat Kyrsten Sinema publicly called for a clean replenishment of PPP too , and this morning Michigan Democrat Rep. Haley Stevens echoed the call : The more that small-business owners demand action from their elected representatives — especially Democrats — the more that Pelosi ’ s perceived leverage dissipates .
The more that Trump makes an issue of their lack of commitment to their jobs , the more rapidly the ground will dissolve under Pelosi ’ s feet , too .
It ’ s tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPP as is , as seen above , but it ’ s impossible to explain why Congress is on its “ ENDLESS VACATION ” while grocery workers , truck drivers , nurses , restaurant workers , and all sorts of Americans in “ essential businesses ” are showing up and doing their jobs .
Pelosi ’ s attempt to use unanimous consent as a club in negotiations deserves to backfire spectacularly on her whole caucus — and hopefully will .

What? And leave the safety of her twin $12,000 freezers? Donald Trump has signaled over the last twenty-four hours that if Nancy Pelosi wants to play hardball over an issue of replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program from afar, he’s willing to play hardball, too. For the second day in a row, Trump demanded that Pelosi and Chuck Schumer bring Congress back into session and start dealing with the COVID-19 crisis in person.
The “ENDLESS VACATION” is a nice touch, but I still prefer the Brave Sir Robin Congress:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1251146022665048064
The criticism of Pelosi is spot on, but slightly less so on Schumer. It would take Mitch McConnell to order the Senate back into full session, not Schumer, and thus far McConnell hasn’t done so. In large part that’s because Pelosi hasn’t acted either, but it’s still a fair criticism of both Pelosi and McConnell. In a national emergency — two of them, actually, public health and economic — Congress should be in session to act as quickly as possible to deal with the responses. That includes the Senate even if the House refuses to return. In fact, it’s a little puzzling that McConnell hasn’t recalled the Senate to demonstrate Pelosi’s fecklessness.
Pelosi’s weird demonstration of her ice-cream-hoarding prowess isn’t her only optics problem, either. When asked to explain why more money can’t get to the PPP right now, Pelosi offered a confused explanation comparing it to aid for hospitals — which hasn’t yet run out:
Nancy Pelosi struggles, near speechless when asked to “explain to those small businesses” why she is blocking more funding for the #PaycheckProtectionProgram pic.twitter.com/akrAbf43PT — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 16, 2020
The solution to that should be a fresh look at the situation in Phase 4, but in the meantime, small businesses need access to the PPP right now to keep people on the payroll until they can begin operating again. Rather than focus on that acute need in a program Congress has already created, Democrats want to start larding it up with identity-politics pork while they believe they have some leverage to use:
In a joint statement Monday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for “further changes” to the Paycheck Protection Program, plus “significantly increased” funding for disaster grants and loans, plus “additional support” for the food-stamp program, plus “adequate funding” for nationwide virus testing and personal protective equipment, plus “the collection and publication of demographic data” so that “we can accurately determine the level of impact on under-served communities and communities of color.” Identity politics and the social pork barrel trump jobs and business solvency. Democrats can make all this part of their election campaign, but the Paycheck Protection Program is out of funds today. Every minute that passes, another small business may go bust or lay off staff. Mrs. Pelosi has been saying far and wide that President Trump is responsible for the Covid-19 death toll because he didn’t act quickly enough to stop it. The longer Democrats refuse to provide financing for small businesses after government cut off their revenue, the more Americans will have every right to conclude that Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are responsible for the worsening economic destruction.
But do they have the leverage? Late yesterday Pelosi got criticized by former Obama administration SBA chief Karen Mills for her delaying tactics on PPP. Senate Democrat Kyrsten Sinema publicly called for a clean replenishment of PPP too, and this morning Michigan Democrat Rep. Haley Stevens echoed the call:
We need to do whatever we can to plus-up the PPP program, to help Main Street businesses and to help those who have been handed an economic hardship through no fault of their own. Arguably this program should have had more money to begin with.https://t.co/Z4BpfSbp0M — Haley Stevens (@HaleyLive) April 17, 2020
The more that small-business owners demand action from their elected representatives — especially Democrats — the more that Pelosi’s perceived leverage dissipates. The more that Trump makes an issue of their lack of commitment to their jobs, the more rapidly the ground will dissolve under Pelosi’s feet, too. It’s tough to explain away the intransigence over replenishing PPP as is, as seen above, but it’s impossible to explain why Congress is on its “ENDLESS VACATION” while grocery workers, truck drivers, nurses, restaurant workers, and all sorts of Americans in “essential businesses” are showing up and doing their jobs. Pelosi’s attempt to use unanimous consent as a club in negotiations deserves to backfire spectacularly on her whole caucus — and hopefully will.