hotair--2020-05-07--Fox: Schiff "in panic mode" over release of Russia-collusion transcripts

And when people are panicking , they make foolish mistakes .
Richard Grenell ’ s public threat to release the House Intelligence Committee transcripts has pushed committee chair Adam Schiff to desperation , Fox News reported overnight , apparently worried about having his remaining credibility stripped from him .
The testimony makes clear that Schiff and others knew that the Trump campaign never colluded with Russia , and the transcripts allegedly can easily show Schiff knowingly lied when he repeatedly claimed otherwise : Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election , senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday .
This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump , the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff ’ s past statements saying that there was “ direct evidence ” of collusion .
“ Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior administration official told Fox News .
Just how panicked has Schiff become ?
According to Fox , Schiff tried shaping the public-relations battlefield for a Grenell release by linking Grenell directly to the redactions made within the transcripts .
The idea was apparently to make it look like Grenell was acting on Donald Trump ’ s orders to manipulate the transcripts for Trump ’ s political aims and to make Schiff look bad .
There was just one small problem with that narrative : Schiff has had his subcommittee staff director reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking how Grenell was involved and what role Grenell — a known Trump ally — may have played in the declassification and redaction process .
Fox News is told , however , that the redactions were completed before Grenell took the helm as acting director this past February .
The process , according to an intelligence community official , took place under both former directors Dan Coates and Joseph Maguire , and was conducted by career intelligence officials .
D ’ oh !
Grenell had already noted in his letter to Schiff that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43 of the 53 transcripts before his arrival as acting DNI .
The other ten were also in the pipeline well before his arrival after Coats ’ retirement and Maguire ’ s time ran out .
All Schiff accomplished was strengthening the credibility of the review before the release of the transcripts .
The Daily Wire ’ s Ryan Saavedra hears from his own source that this isn ’ t the last of Schiff ’ s panic-driven mistakes , either : A source close to the White House told The Daily Wire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of panic , Schiff has been making sloppy mistakes .
It was a colossally stupid mistake on his part to send his staff out to find out what role Grenell had in the process , it gave Grenell ’ s allies in the Intelligence Community the perfect opportunity to disclose that the redactions took place before Grenell got there .
Some of Schiff ’ s other mistakes will play out over the next couple of days.
” Won ’ t that be fun !
Of course , we still don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in those transcripts .
If it was that bad , one has to wonder how Democrats joined Republicans on the committee to unanimously vote to release them in 2018 ; by that time , Schiff had already and repeatedly promised that he had direct evidence of collusion .
They must have known that the transcripts would come out before the election , which could make their case against Trump worse by undermining their credibility on their Orange Man Bad approach .
Or perhaps they relied on the intel community ’ s distaste of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Democrats kept their own political skirts clean — and could characterize them in absentia any way they pleased .
If so , that was a serious miscalculation .
And that also isn ’ t the only one Schiff has made , or will make , when it comes to the Russia-collusion hoax .

And when people are panicking, they make foolish mistakes. Richard Grenell’s public threat to release the House Intelligence Committee transcripts has pushed committee chair Adam Schiff to desperation, Fox News reported overnight, apparently worried about having his remaining credibility stripped from him. The testimony makes clear that Schiff and others knew that the Trump campaign never colluded with Russia, and the transcripts allegedly can easily show Schiff knowingly lied when he repeatedly claimed otherwise:
Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday. This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” of collusion. “Schiff is in panic mode,” a senior administration official told Fox News.
Just how panicked has Schiff become? According to Fox, Schiff tried shaping the public-relations battlefield for a Grenell release by linking Grenell directly to the redactions made within the transcripts. The idea was apparently to make it look like Grenell was acting on Donald Trump’s orders to manipulate the transcripts for Trump’s political aims and to make Schiff look bad.
There was just one small problem with that narrative:
Schiff has had his subcommittee staff director reaching out to heads of intelligence community agencies asking how Grenell was involved and what role Grenell — a known Trump ally — may have played in the declassification and redaction process. Fox News is told, however, that the redactions were completed before Grenell took the helm as acting director this past February. The process, according to an intelligence community official, took place under both former directors Dan Coates and Joseph Maguire, and was conducted by career intelligence officials.
D’oh! Grenell had already noted in his letter to Schiff that review and redaction had been completed on 43 of the 53 transcripts before his arrival as acting DNI. The other ten were also in the pipeline well before his arrival after Coats’ retirement and Maguire’s time ran out. All Schiff accomplished was strengthening the credibility of the review before the release of the transcripts.
The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra hears from his own source that this isn’t the last of Schiff’s panic-driven mistakes, either:
A source close to the White House told The Daily Wire, “Schiff really is panicking In a state of panic, Schiff has been making sloppy mistakes. It was a colossally stupid mistake on his part to send his staff out to find out what role Grenell had in the process, it gave Grenell’s allies in the Intelligence Community the perfect opportunity to disclose that the redactions took place before Grenell got there. Some of Schiff’s other mistakes will play out over the next couple of days.”
Won’t that be fun! Of course, we still don’t know for sure exactly what was said in those transcripts. If it was that bad, one has to wonder how Democrats joined Republicans on the committee to unanimously vote to release them in 2018; by that time, Schiff had already and repeatedly promised that he had direct evidence of collusion. They must have known that the transcripts would come out before the election, which could make their case against Trump worse by undermining their credibility on their Orange Man Bad approach. Or perhaps they relied on the intel community’s distaste of Trump to keep the transcripts bottled up while Democrats kept their own political skirts clean — and could characterize them in absentia any way they pleased.
If so, that was a serious miscalculation. And that also isn’t the only one Schiff has made, or will make, when it comes to the Russia-collusion hoax.


hotair--2020-05-07--Frontier on "More Room" seats: Never mind

When I wrote yesterday about Frontier Airlines ’ new plan to sell “ More Room ” seats , where the passenger would be assured of an empty seat next to them , suffice it to say that I was unimpressed with their “ generosity.
” As it turns out , I wasn ’ t the only one .
Complaints were coming in from all over the place , including from members of Congress .
Faced with a flurry of accusations , the airline turned around within 24 hours and said they would no longer be making the offer and suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make air travel safer in the pandemic era without charging travelers more for the privilege not being quite so exposed to the potentially deadly disease .
( Associated Press ) Frontier Airlines is dropping plans to charge passengers extra to sit next to an empty middle seat after congressional Democrats accused the airline of trying to profit from fear over the new coronavirus .
“ We recognize the concerns raised that we are profiting from safety and this was never our intent , ” Frontier CEO Barry Biffle said late Wednesday in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We simply wanted to provide our customers with an option for more space.
” Biffle said the airline will rescind the extra fee , which Frontier called More Room , and block the seats from being sold .
Their CEO is backpedaling faster than an Olympic bicyclist , but his explanation is completely at odds with the original statements put out by the company .
Biffle is now trying to claim that they simply wanted to offer “ an option for more space.
” But the original offer was clearly framed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they were offering “ extra peace of mind or simply additional comfort.
” This is the same Barry Biffle who only one day earlier had said , “ The bottom line is you don ’ t have to have anything more than that to be safe on Frontier.
” And the announcement was released along with their new guidelines for wearing facemasks and providing medical information .
The word “ safe ” is not synonymous with “ comfort.
” I should also take this opportunity to shower some rare praise on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeFazio who chairs the House Transportation Committee and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota .
DeFazio blasted Frontier , calling this scheme an “ opportunity to make a buck … capitalizing on fear and passengers ’ well-founded concerns for their health and safety.
” Klobuchar was similarly incensed , saying , “ I don ’ t think it ’ s appropriate for some passengers who can ’ t afford to pay an additional charge for a seat to be less safe than other travelers.
” As I pointed out yesterday , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ width of one seat isn ’ t enough space to constitute social distancing .
But since that was clearly what the airline was trying to imply with their announcement , her objections are still valid .
And not for nothing , but it would have been nice to see some of the Republicans chiming in on this .
So what does Frontier plan to do now ?
They won ’ t be charging for the empty middle seats , but they will “ try ” to seat passengers that way at no additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from full these days , they should have been doing that already , while allowing family groups the option of sitting together .
But what happens when they have a full flight ?
It sounds like all of these heartfelt concerns will just go out the window and the passengers will be packed in like sardines as usual .
If they were truly concerned , they should add a second flight and split the travelers up between them .

When I wrote yesterday about Frontier Airlines’ new plan to sell “More Room” seats, where the passenger would be assured of an empty seat next to them, suffice it to say that I was unimpressed with their “generosity.” As it turns out, I wasn’t the only one. Complaints were coming in from all over the place, including from members of Congress. Faced with a flurry of accusations, the airline turned around within 24 hours and said they would no longer be making the offer and suggested that they’re working on ways to make air travel safer in the pandemic era without charging travelers more for the privilege not being quite so exposed to the potentially deadly disease. (Associated Press)
Frontier Airlines is dropping plans to charge passengers extra to sit next to an empty middle seat after congressional Democrats accused the airline of trying to profit from fear over the new coronavirus. “We recognize the concerns raised that we are profiting from safety and this was never our intent,” Frontier CEO Barry Biffle said late Wednesday in a letter to three lawmakers. “We simply wanted to provide our customers with an option for more space.” Biffle said the airline will rescind the extra fee, which Frontier called More Room, and block the seats from being sold.
Their CEO is backpedaling faster than an Olympic bicyclist, but his explanation is completely at odds with the original statements put out by the company. Biffle is now trying to claim that they simply wanted to offer “an option for more space.” But the original offer was clearly framed in the context of the novel coronavirus, saying that they were offering “extra peace of mind or simply additional comfort.”
This is the same Barry Biffle who only one day earlier had said, “The bottom line is you don’t have to have anything more than that to be safe on Frontier.” And the announcement was released along with their new guidelines for wearing facemasks and providing medical information. The word “safe” is not synonymous with “comfort.”
I should also take this opportunity to shower some rare praise on a couple of congressional Democrats, specifically Peter DeFazio who chairs the House Transportation Committee and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. DeFazio blasted Frontier, calling this scheme an “opportunity to make a buck … capitalizing on fear and passengers’ well-founded concerns for their health and safety.”
Klobuchar was similarly incensed, saying, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for some passengers who can’t afford to pay an additional charge for a seat to be less safe than other travelers.”
As I pointed out yesterday, that’s really not an accurate assessment because the width of one seat isn’t enough space to constitute social distancing. But since that was clearly what the airline was trying to imply with their announcement, her objections are still valid. And not for nothing, but it would have been nice to see some of the Republicans chiming in on this.
So what does Frontier plan to do now? They won’t be charging for the empty middle seats, but they will “try” to seat passengers that way at no additional cost. Given that many flights are far from full these days, they should have been doing that already, while allowing family groups the option of sitting together. But what happens when they have a full flight? It sounds like all of these heartfelt concerns will just go out the window and the passengers will be packed in like sardines as usual. If they were truly concerned, they should add a second flight and split the travelers up between them.


hotair--2020-05-07--Some good news: The rate of new positive cases is declining

Nate Silver has been grousing on his Twitter feed lately that graphs like this one are highly misleading , amounting to near malpractice by the media .
What ’ s wrong with the graph ?
The numbers there are accurate , aren ’ t they ?
Sure , says Silver , but the raw number of new cases in the U.S. doesn ’ t really tell us whether things are getting better or worse .
The other variable we need to know is how many tests are being done .
If you test 1,000 people and find 100 infections and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and find 100 infections , is the epidemic stable ?
Or has it actually diminished over those 30 days ?
To phrase that differently , how many more infections might we have found on day one if we had tested 5,000 people then instead of 1,000 ?
That ’ s been our problem all along , insufficient testing .
Maybe the average number of daily cases in the U.S. right now is much higher than it was on April 1 .
Or maybe it was much higher on April 1 and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we weren ’ t testing nearly as much then .
On April 1 , the U.S. conducted 107,000 coronavirus tests nationwide .
We ’ ve been over 200,000 daily for the past 10 days and lately at closer to 250,000 .
Comparing case counts from early April to now is apples and oranges .
In fact , says Silver , by harping on the raw number of new cases and ignoring the rate of positive cases relative to the total number of tests , the media is playing into Trump ’ s hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like hearing how high the number of new daily infections is , which incentivizes them not to pursue more testing .
The more tests we do , the more infections we ’ re going to find , right ?
Bad optics !
But finding more infections is a crucial part of containing the epidemic , along with contact tracing .
If the media paid more attention to rates of positive cases relative to testing instead of obsessing about the raw number , the incentive would go the other way .
More testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that the positivity rate is shrinking , notes an encouraged Scott Gottlieb .
A ray of light through the gloom : That ’ s real improvement .
But it ’ s just one metric .
Another metric , one which really is apples-to-apples over time , is deaths .
The numbers there are less encouraging : Today ’ s eye-popping number of 2,746 comes with an asterisk : It includes nearly 1,000 from New York that didn ’ t happen within the past day but were belatedly confirmed as COVID-related by health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , yesterday saw nearly 2,000 deaths recorded .
The day before that saw nearly 2,600 , thanks to some catch-up in weekend reporting .
These are big numbers .
And they ’ re not meaningfully improving .
The trend in deaths isn ’ t looking great compared to other countries either : Bear in mind that daily deaths have dropped dramatically in New York over the last few weeks .
The fact that deaths across the entire U.S. are holding roughly steady with NY in decline means that deaths are increasing elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the New Atlantis to get a sense of how hard some states have been hit relative to other leading causes of death .
In New York the number of deaths from COVID-19 is so enormous that for the moment it ’ s outstripped deaths from all other causes .
In 10 states ( plus D.C. ) , though , coronavirus deaths now outpace deaths from heart disease , normally the leading cause of fatalities in the U.S. Alzheimer ’ s disease kills twice as many people in the U.S. every year as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now COVID-19 is outpacing deaths from that illness in no fewer than 27 states .
It ’ d be nice if we had a plan to deal with that , but we don ’ t .
So here we are , clinging to glimmers of good news in the data .

Nate Silver has been grousing on his Twitter feed lately that graphs like this one are highly misleading, amounting to near malpractice by the media.
What’s wrong with the graph? The numbers there are accurate, aren’t they? Sure, says Silver, but the raw number of new cases in the U.S. doesn’t really tell us whether things are getting better or worse. The other variable we need to know is how many tests are being done. If you test 1,000 people and find 100 infections and then a month later you test 5,000 people and find 100 infections, is the epidemic stable? Or has it actually diminished over those 30 days?
To phrase that differently, how many more infections might we have found on day one if we had tested 5,000 people then instead of 1,000?
That’s been our problem all along, insufficient testing. Maybe the average number of daily cases in the U.S. right now is much higher than it was on April 1. Or maybe it was much higher on April 1 and we only think it’s lower because we weren’t testing nearly as much then. On April 1, the U.S. conducted 107,000 coronavirus tests nationwide. We’ve been over 200,000 daily for the past 10 days and lately at closer to 250,000. Comparing case counts from early April to now is apples and oranges.
In fact, says Silver, by harping on the raw number of new cases and ignoring the rate of positive cases relative to the total number of tests, the media is playing into Trump’s hands. Trump and his allies don’t like hearing how high the number of new daily infections is, which incentivizes them not to pursue more testing. The more tests we do, the more infections we’re going to find, right? Bad optics! But finding more infections is a crucial part of containing the epidemic, along with contact tracing. If the media paid more attention to rates of positive cases relative to testing instead of obsessing about the raw number, the incentive would go the other way. More testing means a lower rate.
It turns out that the positivity rate is shrinking, notes an encouraged Scott Gottlieb. A ray of light through the gloom:
Daily positive cases of covid19 as a percent of total daily tests continues to fall nationally, a very good sign as covid testing expands. Declining positivity could be a leading indicator of an epidemic starting to decline. 10% is still high but it's coming down at a steady pace pic.twitter.com/xVP56dxUmV — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) May 7, 2020
Another way of looking at falling covid19 positivity rate across the country. Daily tests are rising, positive cases remaining largely flat, and the positivity rate declining. We're testing more to find same number of cases, suggesting that density of epidemic may be declining. pic.twitter.com/maMYuiG2n8 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) May 7, 2020
That’s real improvement. But it’s just one metric. Another metric, one which really is apples-to-apples over time, is deaths. The numbers there are less encouraging:
US daily numbers via @COVID19Tracking: Newly reported deaths
Today: 2,746
Yesterday: 1,949
One week ago (4/30): 2,138 Newly reported cases:
T: 28K
Y: 25K
4/30: 29K Newly reported tests:
T: 319K
Y: 242K
4/30: 230K Positive test rate:
T: 9%
Y: 10%
4/30: 13% — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 7, 2020
Today’s eye-popping number of 2,746 comes with an asterisk: It includes nearly 1,000 from New York that didn’t happen within the past day but were belatedly confirmed as COVID-related by health authorities within the past day. Even so, yesterday saw nearly 2,000 deaths recorded. The day before that saw nearly 2,600, thanks to some catch-up in weekend reporting. These are big numbers. And they’re not meaningfully improving.
The trend in deaths isn’t looking great compared to other countries either:
It's possible! Lots of other countries are doing it! We're the only rich country facing death tolls this high, this consistently, for this long. Even the worst-hit EU countries have begun sustained decline; we haven't. Our govt is doing uniquely badly. https://t.co/GG21fEJ24U — Jeremy Konyndyk (@JeremyKonyndyk) May 6, 2020
Bear in mind that daily deaths have dropped dramatically in New York over the last few weeks. The fact that deaths across the entire U.S. are holding roughly steady with NY in decline means that deaths are increasing elsewhere.
Spend a minute with this visualization at the New Atlantis to get a sense of how hard some states have been hit relative to other leading causes of death. In New York the number of deaths from COVID-19 is so enormous that for the moment it’s outstripped deaths from all other causes. In 10 states (plus D.C.), though, coronavirus deaths now outpace deaths from heart disease, normally the leading cause of fatalities in the U.S. Alzheimer’s disease kills twice as many people in the U.S. every year as flu and pnuemonia combined — and right now COVID-19 is outpacing deaths from that illness in no fewer than 27 states.
It’d be nice if we had a plan to deal with that, but we don’t. So here we are, clinging to glimmers of good news in the data.


hotair--2020-05-07--The great COVID mystery: Where are the disinfectant wipes?

The grocery stores are open , and reasonably well stocked .
A brief run on meat products appears ready for resolution now that meatpacking plants are coming back on line .
Most blessedly for the bidet-challenged , toilet paper has even made a bit of a comeback on store shelves , at least until the crowds see that as a must-hoard item in advance of the Murder Hornet Plague .
But where oh where are the products we need most in a pandemic — disinfectant wipes and sprays ?
The Wall Street Journal did a little sleuthing and discovered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The demand , however , still overwhelms the supply : Clorox Co. and Lysol maker Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC have seen sales of sanitizing wipes more than double in the past two months amid the coronavirus pandemic , according to Nielsen .
But while makers of other hard-to-find staples are catching up with demand , the producers of Clorox , Lysol and private-label wipes are as far behind as ever .
Clorox said it doesn ’ t expect to catch up until summer , while Reckitt Benckiser said it is unsure when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re shipping canisters of wipes every day to our customers , and within 30-45 minutes they ’ re gone from shelves , ” Clorox finance chief Kevin Jacobsen said in an interview .
“ Demand has outstripped what anybody could have imagined.
” Clorox has increased production of disinfectant products by 40 % , but sales have stretched to five times the normal level at times during the spread of Covid-19 , Mr. Jacobsen said .
U.S. sales of disinfectant wipes were up 146 % for the eight-week period ended March 25 compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nielsen .
What about alternatives , such as sprays ?
Same problem , the WSJ ’ s Sharon Terlep reports .
They ’ re being produced , and then they ’ re being swallowed up as soon as they arrive : In other words , this whodunit sounds a lot like Murder on the Orient Express .
If we want to find the culprit , we might need to look in the mirror .
Collectively speaking , that is ; inevitably , the consumers asking the question are the ones who miss out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the EPA might be another culprit : Well , maybe , but we do have those criteria in place already — and that ’ s the purpose of the demand , too .
It wouldn ’ t make much sense to produce wipes that don ’ t address that issue .
In fact , Clorox tells Terlep that they are stopping production on non-disinfectant wipes and shifted those lines to producing the core product .
This shortage still seems unusual now that we ’ re two months into the demand .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under normal circumstances , but the capacity to respond to the demand should be much greater .
Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs , which means that manpower is available to meet the demand .
Clorox says they will shortly expand into a new facility in Atlanta , as they expect demand to remain high even when shelves get fully restocked .
Lysol also says they ’ re working on ramping up production , but both companies say it might take a few more months before they can meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production facilities , this is an area in which governments can provide some assistance .
This falls within their pandemic response in any number of ways .
Better disinfecting protocols will help tamp down transmission , plus it should build more confidence in engaging in public .
It offers an opportunity t0 match sidelined workers up with essential jobs , and it would expand manufacturing within the US rather than having to establish more foreign-based supply chains .
It would also convert empty commercial space into productive use , requiring fewer law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find their former market equilibriums , but sanitizing products will remain in much greater demand after this for a long time to come .
This will become a cultural norm , one practically gift-wrapped for the cleaning industry , so the risk of over-production in response to this crisis is low .
Now ’ s the time to incentivize this investment .

The grocery stores are open, and reasonably well stocked. A brief run on meat products appears ready for resolution now that meatpacking plants are coming back on line. Most blessedly for the bidet-challenged, toilet paper has even made a bit of a comeback on store shelves, at least until the crowds see that as a must-hoard item in advance of the Murder Hornet Plague.
But where oh where are the products we need most in a pandemic — disinfectant wipes and sprays? The Wall Street Journal did a little sleuthing and discovered that producers are still making plenty of both. The demand, however, still overwhelms the supply:
Clorox Co. and Lysol maker Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC have seen sales of sanitizing wipes more than double in the past two months amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to Nielsen. But while makers of other hard-to-find staples are catching up with demand, the producers of Clorox, Lysol and private-label wipes are as far behind as ever. Clorox said it doesn’t expect to catch up until summer, while Reckitt Benckiser said it is unsure when supplies will replenish. “We’re shipping canisters of wipes every day to our customers, and within 30-45 minutes they’re gone from shelves,” Clorox finance chief Kevin Jacobsen said in an interview. “Demand has outstripped what anybody could have imagined.” Clorox has increased production of disinfectant products by 40%, but sales have stretched to five times the normal level at times during the spread of Covid-19, Mr. Jacobsen said. U.S. sales of disinfectant wipes were up 146% for the eight-week period ended March 25 compared with a year ago, according to Nielsen.
What about alternatives, such as sprays? Same problem, the WSJ’s Sharon Terlep reports. They’re being produced, and then they’re being swallowed up as soon as they arrive:
While wipes are in short supply, disinfectant sprays, surface cleaners and other coronavirus-fighting cleaning products are selling out as well. Many household and personal-care products, from paper towels to cold medicine to baby wipes, are also in high demand, though aren’t as tough to find as disinfectant wipes.
In other words, this whodunit sounds a lot like Murder on the Orient Express. If we want to find the culprit, we might need to look in the mirror. Collectively speaking, that is; inevitably, the consumers asking the question are the ones who miss out on the production underway.
Terlep hints that the EPA might be another culprit:
Disinfectant wipes can’t be made as readily as hand sanitizer. The process combines fabric wipes with the cleaning solution, and the Environmental Protection Agency has in place criteria for cleaners to be considered effective for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.
Well, maybe, but we do have those criteria in place already — and that’s the purpose of the demand, too. It wouldn’t make much sense to produce wipes that don’t address that issue. In fact, Clorox tells Terlep that they are stopping production on non-disinfectant wipes and shifted those lines to producing the core product.
This shortage still seems unusual now that we’re two months into the demand. A forty percent increase in production is impressive under normal circumstances, but the capacity to respond to the demand should be much greater. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs, which means that manpower is available to meet the demand. Clorox says they will shortly expand into a new facility in Atlanta, as they expect demand to remain high even when shelves get fully restocked. Lysol also says they’re working on ramping up production, but both companies say it might take a few more months before they can meet the demand pace.
If the issue is production facilities, this is an area in which governments can provide some assistance. This falls within their pandemic response in any number of ways. Better disinfecting protocols will help tamp down transmission, plus it should build more confidence in engaging in public. It offers an opportunity t0 match sidelined workers up with essential jobs, and it would expand manufacturing within the US rather than having to establish more foreign-based supply chains. It would also convert empty commercial space into productive use, requiring fewer law enforcement resources.
Toilet paper and meat will find their former market equilibriums, but sanitizing products will remain in much greater demand after this for a long time to come. This will become a cultural norm, one practically gift-wrapped for the cleaning industry, so the risk of over-production in response to this crisis is low. Now’s the time to incentivize this investment.


hotair--2020-05-08--Trump: I'll donate a rapid-test system to get Biden "out of the basement"

“ We ’ d have it to him today !
” Donald Trump declared , although his proposed largesse to Joe Biden has an ulterior motive .
The presumptive Democratic nominee has confined himself to quarters during the COVID-19 pandemic , but that means that Biden isn ’ t producing enough gaffes to keep the video-cutters at Team Trump employed .
If we ’ re gon na reopen America , then it has to start with getting Joe Biden out of his basement , Trump told Fox & Friends this morning : “ Yes , 100 percent , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox & Friends.
” “ I would love to see him get out of the basement so he can speak.
” Trump then suggested that Biden ’ s public appearances would help his own reelection campaign and claimed that Biden ’ s campaign did not want him to emerge from the basement studio where he has been conducting news interviews and staging other campaign appearances .
“ Every time he talks it ’ s like a good thing , ” the president said .
“ They don ’ t want him to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll give them the test immediately .
We would have it to them today.
” Are we sure that Biden needs Trump ’ s donation — or more to the point , that Biden ’ s not already supplying Team Trump with fresh material ?
His attempt at a virtual rally for Tampa voters went about as well as you ’ d imagine .
His “ am I on ?
” was only the start of the problems , and it wasn ’ t only conservatives who noticed , either : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable resource for rapid-response workers no matter where he ’ s at .
However , Trump ’ s correct that it ’ s easier to rebut what Biden says if one can hear it in the first place .
What ’ s most curious about this is how badly Team Biden has bungled connectivity even after several weeks of lockdown .
If they can ’ t get better throughput than this at Biden ’ s house , then they shouldn ’ t attempt to stage these kinds of events in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the cash to relocate to a temporary residence that does have sufficient bandwidth to conduct the COVID-19 equivalent of the old front-porch campaign .
These certainly don ’ t contribute to the idea that Biden will restore either competence or confidence to the White House .
There ’ s no word yet from Biden about whether he ’ ll accept Trump ’ s offer .
He ’ d better do something to get out that basement , though .
And fast .

“We’d have it to him today!” Donald Trump declared, although his proposed largesse to Joe Biden has an ulterior motive. The presumptive Democratic nominee has confined himself to quarters during the COVID-19 pandemic, but that means that Biden isn’t producing enough gaffes to keep the video-cutters at Team Trump employed. If we’re gonna reopen America, then it has to start with getting Joe Biden out of his basement, Trump told Fox & Friends this morning:
“Yes, 100 percent,” Trump said during a phone interview on “Fox & Friends.” “I would love to see him get out of the basement so he can speak.” Trump then suggested that Biden’s public appearances would help his own reelection campaign and claimed that Biden’s campaign did not want him to emerge from the basement studio where he has been conducting news interviews and staging other campaign appearances. “Every time he talks it’s like a good thing,” the president said. “They don’t want him to come out,” Trump continued. “I’ll give them the test immediately. We would have it to them today.”
Are we sure that Biden needs Trump’s donation — or more to the point, that Biden’s not already supplying Team Trump with fresh material? His attempt at a virtual rally for Tampa voters went about as well as you’d imagine. His “am I on?” was only the start of the problems, and it wasn’t only conservatives who noticed, either:
Vibing out at Joe Biden’s virtual Tampa rally (unedited) pic.twitter.com/tJu9voz5nY — dumbfook (@dumbfook) May 7, 2020
https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1258519425189203969
After the video came back on, Charlie Crist looked a little different. pic.twitter.com/PpKZ0w3gKn — August Takala (@AugustTakala) May 7, 2020
Frankly, Biden’s an ongoing renewable resource for rapid-response workers no matter where he’s at. However, Trump’s correct that it’s easier to rebut what Biden says if one can hear it in the first place.
What’s most curious about this is how badly Team Biden has bungled connectivity even after several weeks of lockdown. If they can’t get better throughput than this at Biden’s house, then they shouldn’t attempt to stage these kinds of events in the first place. Either that or Biden should rustle up the cash to relocate to a temporary residence that does have sufficient bandwidth to conduct the COVID-19 equivalent of the old front-porch campaign. These certainly don’t contribute to the idea that Biden will restore either competence or confidence to the White House.
There’s no word yet from Biden about whether he’ll accept Trump’s offer. He’d better do something to get out that basement, though. And fast.


hotair--2020-05-08--The robots are here -- and they want you to socially distance

I ’ ve written umpteen posts about Boston Dynamics ’ menacing robots over the years .
I never foresaw that when our dystopian future finally arrived , their sinister role in it would be … nagging people about staying six feet away from each other .
They might get away with this in Singapore but they ’ d never get away with it here .
Young bros in MAGA hats would be punting this thing around the park .
If governors want to use robots to enforce compliance with social distancing , they ’ d better roll out the big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploying the ED-209 from “ Robocop.
” That movie took place in Michigan , didn ’ t it ?
Watch , then read on .
How ’ s the U.S. doing on social distancing now that states are beginning to reopen ?
Let ’ s look at three data visualizations to see .
This first one comes from a FiveThirtyEight piece reiterating a point that should be familiar to all of us by now : Social distancing began before the stay-at-home orders were issued .
Whether you support lockdowns or loathe them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think they ’ re driving Americans ’ behavior .
This image shows how people in 21 different states ( all except one of which went for Trump in 2016 ) have changed their habits of leaving home over the past three months .
Where the line in each is pink , that means fewer people were staying home than did so on the same day in 2019 ; where it ’ s blue , that means more people did so than in 2019 .
The vertical dashed line is the date that that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In literally every case , the number who were staying home surged massively *before* the lockdown began .
That ’ s good news for the “ reopen now ” contingent .
Lockdown orders didn ’ t do much .
No point in leaving them in place , then .
But there ’ s a corollary , per the Upshot .
If lockdowns didn ’ t cause Americans to hunker down , ending them doesn ’ t mean Americans will burst through the doors of their homes and race to the mall either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun that process , like Georgia , South Carolina , Oklahoma and Alaska , the same daily economic data shows only meager signs so far that businesses , workers and consumers have returned to their old routines .
Georgia , for example , began to reopen in waves starting April 24 , first with gyms , salons and tattoo parlors , and several days later with dine-in restaurants and movie theaters .
But the share of small businesses operating and the hours worked in them budged little through the following week , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manage business and track payrolls , or that aggregate credit card transactions .
The share of small businesses open remained down about 30 percent from January .
“ There ’ s just no evidence that this partial reopening in Georgia has significantly changed anything in the economy , ” said John Friedman , an economist at Brown University and a co-director of Opportunity Insights , a Harvard-based organization that is publicly tracking economic data on the crisis from a number of private companies .
Consumer spending data in Georgia has fluctuated up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metric have remained about the same .
Georgia did see an uptick in business from residents of other states , which stands to reason .
At the time it was the only state in its region to reopen “ dine-in restaurants , gyms , hair salons , barbershops and entertainment venues , such as bowling alleys and movie theaters.
” But that ’ s what people like Lindsey Graham from neighboring South Carolina were afraid of .
While SC was busy trying to tamp down the epidemic , some residents were across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected and then bringing the virus back home with them .
The Upshot flags this data from a recent Democracy Fund poll to show how people are prioritizing in weighing where they ’ ll go once their state reopens .
It ’ s pretty intuitive : “ Essential ” stuff is on the table .
People will take a calculated risk for basic grooming and hygiene ( haircuts and dentist ) , paying their respects to an acquaintance who ’ s passed away , and some limited small-scale socialization with friends .
Anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition .
In particular , the more an activity would involve a crowd the less likely people are to be willing to do it .
( I ’ m guessing that the numbers for restaurants would look even worse if we distinguished takeout/fast food , which is minimal risk , from dine-in . )
There is a partisan gap here , with Democrats less likely to do the activities listed above than Republicans are , but it ’ s minimal — just eight to 12 points according to the Upshot .
One more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows what percentage of their time people in every county across the country were spending at home as of April 30 as compared to March 1 , April 1 , and peak social distancing on April 7 .
( The map ’ s interactive so follow the link and play around with it . )
On March 1 most of the country was spending 65-70 percent of its at home .
( On the west coast it was a little higher . )
The weather has improved considerably since then yet nearly every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people spend 80 percent of their time or more at their own residence .
That ’ s come down since April 7 , when rates of 85-90 percent or better were common .
Americans are getting out of the house more as spring has sprung .
But they ’ re still doing it less than they were two months ago , and it ’ s anyone ’ s guess how much of their out-of-the-house time they ’ re spending at businesses versus just stretching their legs in parks and at beaches .
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to leave home more often or whether , as we saw above , people are practicing whatever level of social distancing they feel is optimal irrespective of what the government says is also unclear .
But ending the lockdowns obviously hasn ’ t ended social distancing .
Nor will it .

I’ve written umpteen posts about Boston Dynamics’ menacing robots over the years. I never foresaw that when our dystopian future finally arrived, their sinister role in it would be … nagging people about staying six feet away from each other.
They might get away with this in Singapore but they’d never get away with it here. Young bros in MAGA hats would be punting this thing around the park. If governors want to use robots to enforce compliance with social distancing, they’d better roll out the big boys.
Gretchen Whitmer will end up deploying the ED-209 from “Robocop.” That movie took place in Michigan, didn’t it? Watch, then read on.
A robot dog enlisted by Singapore authorities politely asks joggers and cyclists to stay apart https://t.co/QkDNr4Hoat pic.twitter.com/RmyE0sQv1q — Reuters (@Reuters) May 8, 2020
How’s the U.S. doing on social distancing now that states are beginning to reopen? Let’s look at three data visualizations to see. This first one comes from a FiveThirtyEight piece reiterating a point that should be familiar to all of us by now: Social distancing began before the stay-at-home orders were issued. Whether you support lockdowns or loathe them, you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re driving Americans’ behavior. This image shows how people in 21 different states (all except one of which went for Trump in 2016) have changed their habits of leaving home over the past three months. Where the line in each is pink, that means fewer people were staying home than did so on the same day in 2019; where it’s blue, that means more people did so than in 2019. The vertical dashed line is the date that that state’s stay-at-home order take effect. In literally every case, the number who were staying home surged massively *before* the lockdown began.
That’s good news for the “reopen now” contingent. Lockdown orders didn’t do much. No point in leaving them in place, then.
But there’s a corollary, per the Upshot. If lockdowns didn’t cause Americans to hunker down, ending them doesn’t mean Americans will burst through the doors of their homes and race to the mall either.
In some states that have already begun that process, like Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Alaska, the same daily economic data shows only meager signs so far that businesses, workers and consumers have returned to their old routines. Georgia, for example, began to reopen in waves starting April 24, first with gyms, salons and tattoo parlors, and several days later with dine-in restaurants and movie theaters. But the share of small businesses operating and the hours worked in them budged little through the following week, according to data from companies that help firms manage business and track payrolls, or that aggregate credit card transactions. The share of small businesses open remained down about 30 percent from January. “There’s just no evidence that this partial reopening in Georgia has significantly changed anything in the economy,” said John Friedman, an economist at Brown University and a co-director of Opportunity Insights, a Harvard-based organization that is publicly tracking economic data on the crisis from a number of private companies. Consumer spending data in Georgia has fluctuated up and down, but moving averages of the metric have remained about the same.
Georgia did see an uptick in business from residents of other states, which stands to reason. At the time it was the only state in its region to reopen “dine-in restaurants, gyms, hair salons, barbershops and entertainment venues, such as bowling alleys and movie theaters.” But that’s what people like Lindsey Graham from neighboring South Carolina were afraid of. While SC was busy trying to tamp down the epidemic, some residents were across the border in Georgia shopping, possibly getting infected and then bringing the virus back home with them.
The Upshot flags this data from a recent Democracy Fund poll to show how people are prioritizing in weighing where they’ll go once their state reopens. It’s pretty intuitive:
“Essential” stuff is on the table. People will take a calculated risk for basic grooming and hygiene (haircuts and dentist), paying their respects to an acquaintance who’s passed away, and some limited small-scale socialization with friends. Anything beyond that and the numbers shift towards opposition. In particular, the more an activity would involve a crowd the less likely people are to be willing to do it. (I’m guessing that the numbers for restaurants would look even worse if we distinguished takeout/fast food, which is minimal risk, from dine-in.) There is a partisan gap here, with Democrats less likely to do the activities listed above than Republicans are, but it’s minimal — just eight to 12 points according to the Upshot.
One more. This map comes from WaPo and shows what percentage of their time people in every county across the country were spending at home as of April 30 as compared to March 1, April 1, and peak social distancing on April 7. (The map’s interactive so follow the link and play around with it.)
On March 1 most of the country was spending 65-70 percent of its at home. (On the west coast it was a little higher.) The weather has improved considerably since then yet nearly every county in the U.S. is still seeing people spend 80 percent of their time or more at their own residence. That’s come down since April 7, when rates of 85-90 percent or better were common. Americans are getting out of the house more as spring has sprung. But they’re still doing it less than they were two months ago, and it’s anyone’s guess how much of their out-of-the-house time they’re spending at businesses versus just stretching their legs in parks and at beaches. Whether the relaxation of lockdown orders has encouraged people to leave home more often or whether, as we saw above, people are practicing whatever level of social distancing they feel is optimal irrespective of what the government says is also unclear. But ending the lockdowns obviously hasn’t ended social distancing. Nor will it.


hotair--2020-05-08--Socializing in the age of 'rona: Who's up for outdoor dining in tiny enclosed glass cabins?

To cleanse the palate .
These people are trying , God love ’ em .
It ’ ll take creativity by the service industry to provide enough protection for patrons in 2020 that they feel comfortable enjoying a night out in the general vicinity of strangers .
And this is nothing if not creative .
Let me ask you a possibly stupid question about the clip below , though .
Wouldn ’ t they be better off … without the cabin ?
Just put the tables outdoors , several feet apart , and let sunshine and open-air ventilation take care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( hopefully ) keep you safe from germs spread by diners at the next table .
But if your dining companion turns out to have COVID-19 , that small enclosed space is basically going to funnel the virus right into your airway .
Watch , then read on .
Patrons would be safe so long as they dined only with members of their own household , people whom they ’ re already in quarantine with .
Which , I suppose , is baked in the cake until we have a vaccine .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to disinfect the entire cabin after every meal to ensure that an infected couple doesn ’ t pass the virus along to the next couple to dine there .
How long would it take waiters to clean every surface inside *and* properly ventilate the cabin ?
Imagine arriving for dinner for the second evening seating at this place and passing a guy on his way out who has a dry cough .
Bon appetit .
There ’ s only one safe , effective alternative that I can imagine : Personal feedbags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an attached pouch from the restaurant upon arrival ; when the food is ready you lift off the mask/bag , they scoop the food in , then you put it on and eat like a dirty animal .
Am I kidding ?
Am I not ?
Even I don ’ t know .
All I know is that socializing in the age of the plague will require sacrificing a certain amount of dignity .
President Donald Trump is thirsting to hold campaign rallies again .
And among his campaign and White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed that could allow for such MAGA gatherings even in the midst of a global pandemic : the mostly defunct , rural tradition of the drive-in movie theater… Under such a scenario , Trump-loving attendees would roll up in their cars and be required to mostly remain in their respective vehicles as the president addressed them in-person from the outdoor stage .
One of the three sources , a senior administration official , said they were planning on pitching it directly to President Trump as early as next week .
It is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no secret about his love of packed arenas , has privately weighed in on the drive-in theater idea yet .
But he ’ s indicated that he wants to get back on the road as soon as possible .
That ’ s creative too , and the drive-in concept is fun , but how many people realistically could attend a drive-in rally without turning it into a total logistical/traffic nightmare ?
A few hundred ?
Would there even be crowd noise discernible during Trump ’ s remarks ?
He feeds off the cheers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only do so much for him .
Maybe put live mics on attendees instead ?
That could produce some … interesting soundbites .
Prediction : Trump ’ s going to start kicking around the idea of organizing traditional rallies with live crowds by invitation only for fans who can prove they have COVID antibodies .
That would be highly risky considering that science still hasn ’ t proved yet that people who ’ ve recovered from the disease now enjoy immunity , but maybe we ’ re not far away from that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who beat coronavirus .
Make America immune again !

To cleanse the palate. These people are trying, God love ’em. It’ll take creativity by the service industry to provide enough protection for patrons in 2020 that they feel comfortable enjoying a night out in the general vicinity of strangers. And this is nothing if not creative.
Let me ask you a possibly stupid question about the clip below, though.
Wouldn’t they be better off … without the cabin? Just put the tables outdoors, several feet apart, and let sunshine and open-air ventilation take care of the rest. The cabin will (hopefully) keep you safe from germs spread by diners at the next table. But if your dining companion turns out to have COVID-19, that small enclosed space is basically going to funnel the virus right into your airway. Watch, then read on.
Patrons would be safe so long as they dined only with members of their own household, people whom they’re already in quarantine with. Which, I suppose, is baked in the cake until we have a vaccine.
But there’s another problem. Staff will have to disinfect the entire cabin after every meal to ensure that an infected couple doesn’t pass the virus along to the next couple to dine there. How long would it take waiters to clean every surface inside *and* properly ventilate the cabin?
Imagine arriving for dinner for the second evening seating at this place and passing a guy on his way out who has a dry cough. Bon appetit.
There’s only one safe, effective alternative that I can imagine: Personal feedbags. Everyone is issued a face covering with an attached pouch from the restaurant upon arrival; when the food is ready you lift off the mask/bag, they scoop the food in, then you put it on and eat like a dirty animal.
Am I kidding? Am I not? Even I don’t know. All I know is that socializing in the age of the plague will require sacrificing a certain amount of dignity.
Speaking of which:
President Donald Trump is thirsting to hold campaign rallies again. And among his campaign and White House advisers, a possible solution has been discussed that could allow for such MAGA gatherings even in the midst of a global pandemic: the mostly defunct, rural tradition of the drive-in movie theater… Under such a scenario, Trump-loving attendees would roll up in their cars and be required to mostly remain in their respective vehicles as the president addressed them in-person from the outdoor stage. One of the three sources, a senior administration official, said they were planning on pitching it directly to President Trump as early as next week. It is not clear if Trump, who has made no secret about his love of packed arenas, has privately weighed in on the drive-in theater idea yet. But he’s indicated that he wants to get back on the road as soon as possible.
That’s creative too, and the drive-in concept is fun, but how many people realistically could attend a drive-in rally without turning it into a total logistical/traffic nightmare? A few hundred? Would there even be crowd noise discernible during Trump’s remarks? He feeds off the cheers, but a few hundred people can only do so much for him.
Maybe put live mics on attendees instead? That could produce some … interesting soundbites.
Prediction: Trump’s going to start kicking around the idea of organizing traditional rallies with live crowds by invitation only for fans who can prove they have COVID antibodies. That would be highly risky considering that science still hasn’t proved yet that people who’ve recovered from the disease now enjoy immunity, but maybe we’re not far away from that. Imagine a MAGA rally composed entirely of people who beat coronavirus. Make America immune again!


hotair--2020-05-08--WHO: Let's not be too hasty closing those wet markets over a few hundred thousand deaths

Well , this certainly isn ’ t going to help WHO ’ s image as an organization that does whatever China tells them to do .
Today the World Health Oranization said that despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have died from a pandemic that apparently arose in a Wuhan wet market , we shouldn ’ t push to shut down such markets : In a press briefing , WHO food safety and animal diseases expert Peter Ben Embarek said live animal markets are critical to providing food and livelihoods for millions of people globally and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than outlawing them — even though they can sometimes spark epidemics in humans .
“ Food safety in these environments is rather difficult and therefore it ’ s not surprising that sometimes we also have these events happening within markets , ” Ben Embarek said .
Saying this is no big surprise in the midst of the worst pandemic in 100 years is an interesting approach .
And in a sense , he ’ s right .
The SARS virus which arose in a Chinese wet market 18 years ago proves that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shock .
The Chinese government lied about that outbreak too .
So I guess you could say the entire process , from the origin , to the spread , to the lying about it , shouldn ’ t be a surprise .
The next part of this is really interesting .
I ’ ve highlighted one sentence below : He said reducing the risk of disease transmission from animals to humans in these often overcrowded markets could be addressed in many cases by improving hygiene and food safety standards , including separating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is still unclear whether the market in Wuhan linked to the first several dozens of coronavirus cases in China was the actual source of the virus or merely played a role in spreading the disease further .
On the one hand , China has been pushing propaganda for weeks that the source of the virus is unknown .
That ’ s true but often that was followed by a conspiracy theory that it originated in the United States .
On the other hand , while the US origin of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that about a third of the first cohort of cases were not connected to the market .
So it ’ s fair to say the origin might not be the market but that is the story China has asked the world to believe ( or one of them ) .
The market was just down at the beginning of the year and has not been reopened , though other similar markets in Wuhan have re-opened , now supposedly free of wildlife animals .
Is this true ?
We probably don ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed a ban on the trade in live wild animals , it remains unclear whether this ban is being fully enforced .
( Some of China ’ s wet markets have offered live wild animals to customers as food .
After sale , the animals are slaughtered on premise .
The list of animals offered by such markets , including the market in Wuhan , has included wolf cubs , civet cats , snakes , bats , pangolins , turtles , and many other species . )
China ’ s government has refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , it has reopened them , now ostensibly without wild animals for sale , while promoting their cleanliness .
This refusal constitutes irresponsible and dangerous behaviour by the current leadership of the government of China .
This is not the first time in this crisis that the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) ignored the broader good of its own people – and the global community – in favour of protecting its own power .
On the other hand , you have arguments like this one published in Slate today that criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism : If there ’ s a reason why it ’ s widely believed that the novel coronavirus emerged in a Chinese “ wet market ” in Wuhan , it ’ s because many of the earliest reports treated this origin theory as fact .
While the possibility of COVID-19 emerging from these so-called “ wet markets ” hasn ’ t been eliminated , it is not at all certain that the virus emerged from these markets .
When CNN ( 4/6/20 ) interviewed several virus experts for a report on the various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them acknowledged that anyone who claims to know the origins of the outbreak with certainty is “ guessing , ” with the experts reportedly “ at odds ” over the “ once widely accepted theory that the virus originated at a wet market.
” That CNN story the author mentioned included all kinds of theories including the accidental lab release .
The Slate author never mentions that as a possibility .
He just doesn ’ t like the idea of this being pinned on the market .
And who knows maybe he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know the answer , shouldn ’ t we be awfully concerned about things returning to normal in the place where it might have originated ?
WHO doesn ’ t seem terribly concerned about that .

Well, this certainly isn’t going to help WHO’s image as an organization that does whatever China tells them to do. Today the World Health Oranization said that despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have died from a pandemic that apparently arose in a Wuhan wet market, we shouldn’t push to shut down such markets:
In a press briefing, WHO food safety and animal diseases expert Peter Ben Embarek said live animal markets are critical to providing food and livelihoods for millions of people globally and that authorities should focus on improving them rather than outlawing them — even though they can sometimes spark epidemics in humans. “Food safety in these environments is rather difficult and therefore it’s not surprising that sometimes we also have these events happening within markets,” Ben Embarek said.
Saying this is no big surprise in the midst of the worst pandemic in 100 years is an interesting approach. And in a sense, he’s right. The SARS virus which arose in a Chinese wet market 18 years ago proves that this probably shouldn’t come as a shock. The Chinese government lied about that outbreak too. So I guess you could say the entire process, from the origin, to the spread, to the lying about it, shouldn’t be a surprise.
The next part of this is really interesting. I’ve highlighted one sentence below:
He said reducing the risk of disease transmission from animals to humans in these often overcrowded markets could be addressed in many cases by improving hygiene and food safety standards, including separating live animals from humans. He added that it is still unclear whether the market in Wuhan linked to the first several dozens of coronavirus cases in China was the actual source of the virus or merely played a role in spreading the disease further.
On the one hand, China has been pushing propaganda for weeks that the source of the virus is unknown. That’s true but often that was followed by a conspiracy theory that it originated in the United States. On the other hand, while the US origin of the virus is false, it’s true that about a third of the first cohort of cases were not connected to the market. So it’s fair to say the origin might not be the market but that is the story China has asked the world to believe (or one of them). The market was just down at the beginning of the year and has not been reopened, though other similar markets in Wuhan have re-opened, now supposedly free of wildlife animals. Is this true? We probably don’t really know:
Although China in February 2020 imposed a ban on the trade in live wild animals, it remains unclear whether this ban is being fully enforced. (Some of China’s wet markets have offered live wild animals to customers as food. After sale, the animals are slaughtered on premise. The list of animals offered by such markets, including the market in Wuhan, has included wolf cubs, civet cats, snakes, bats, pangolins, turtles, and many other species.) China’s government has refused to shutter its wet markets permanently. Rather, it has reopened them, now ostensibly without wild animals for sale, while promoting their cleanliness. This refusal constitutes irresponsible and dangerous behaviour by the current leadership of the government of China. This is not the first time in this crisis that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) ignored the broader good of its own people – and the global community – in favour of protecting its own power.
On the other hand, you have arguments like this one published in Slate today that criticism of the markets is really just western racism:
If there’s a reason why it’s widely believed that the novel coronavirus emerged in a Chinese “wet market” in Wuhan, it’s because many of the earliest reports treated this origin theory as fact. While the possibility of COVID-19 emerging from these so-called “wet markets” hasn’t been eliminated, it is not at all certain that the virus emerged from these markets. When CNN (4/6/20) interviewed several virus experts for a report on the various origin theories of COVID-19, all of them acknowledged that anyone who claims to know the origins of the outbreak with certainty is “guessing,” with the experts reportedly “at odds” over the “once widely accepted theory that the virus originated at a wet market.”
That CNN story the author mentioned included all kinds of theories including the accidental lab release. The Slate author never mentions that as a possibility. He just doesn’t like the idea of this being pinned on the market. And who knows maybe he has a point. But given that we don’t know the answer, shouldn’t we be awfully concerned about things returning to normal in the place where it might have originated? WHO doesn’t seem terribly concerned about that.


hotair--2020-05-08--AOC slams JetBlue for tribute to first responders

Climate change alarmists were not at all impressed by JetBlue ’ s flyover tribute to honor first responders in New York City Thursday .
The lawmaker responsible for the Green New Deal , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , posted a tweet conflating the airline ’ s gesture of gratitude to that of a big corporation callously polluting air quality and endangering the lives of local residents .
JetBlue did a nice thing so the corporation must be punished .
AOC did so verbally via Twitter , attacking the flyover as a corporate publicity stunt that polluted the air .
She said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the respiratory virus and this just added to their suffering .
JetBlue aircraft were painted with FDNY , NYPD , and “ I Love New York ” designs .
While AOC went after them from the climate change activist ’ s viewpoint , other residents expressed a more legit reaction , in my opinion , if some criticism was to be expressed .
The jets flew low over the Hudson River and around lower Manhattan , the former site of the Twin Towers .
Frankly , it freaked some people out who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s understandable .
Other people , though , appreciated the show .
New York Police Department Special Ops posted a video and thanks for the show of support .
Sure , JetBlue gets some good publicity here but it is also making other gestures in appreciation of health care workers .
It is giving away 100,000 free roundtrips to health care workers .
JetBlue ’ s headquarters are in the Brewster Building in Long Island City , New York , so it is not surprising that they choose to honor local workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
“ JetBlue ’ s mission of inspiring humanity is stronger now more than ever , ” the president and chief operating officer of JetBlue , Joanna Geraghty , said in a statement provided to T+L .
“ We applaud the healthcare workers who are helping us get through this challenging time and inspiring humanity along the way .
This is an opportunity for us to fly it forward and show our appreciation for the heroic efforts of medical professionals , first responders and public servants – not just here in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country as well.
” With their ‘ Healthcare Hero ’ initiative announced on Wednesday , the airline will provide 100,000 healthcare workers with roundtrip flight certificates for two to anywhere JetBlue flies — with at least 10,000 pairs of tickets being given to workers at the Mount Sinai Health system and NYC Health + Hospitals , the city ’ s public health system .
The remainder of the tickets — 90,000 — will be awarded through nominations .
By May 15 , the airline is asking its customers to nominate a medical worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare hero on the contest ’ s website .
The flyover Thursday came one week after the Navy ’ s Blue Angels and Air Force Thunderbirds hosted their salute to healthcare workers in New York City and several other cities on the east coast .
After a quick scan of AOC ’ s Twitter timeline , I didn ’ t find any tweets criticizing them .
The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds have been doing flyovers to express gratitude to first responders and health care workers in different cities .
Yesterday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was able to see them outside a window in my home .
It was great .
Sunday , some World War II planes will fly over Houston in honor of the 75th anniversary of VE Day .
They are normally housed at the Lone Star Flight Museum in Galveston .
Their flyover is named “ Fight to the Finish ” .

Climate change alarmists were not at all impressed by JetBlue’s flyover tribute to honor first responders in New York City Thursday. The lawmaker responsible for the Green New Deal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, posted a tweet conflating the airline’s gesture of gratitude to that of a big corporation callously polluting air quality and endangering the lives of local residents.
JetBlue did a nice thing so the corporation must be punished. AOC did so verbally via Twitter, attacking the flyover as a corporate publicity stunt that polluted the air. She said that vulnerable New Yorkers were dying from the respiratory virus and this just added to their suffering.
Nothing like a corporate PR campaign that burns jet fuel at low altitudes over vulnerable communities dying from a respiratory virus that compounds on our preexisting and disproportionate exposure to air pollution to show healthcare workers we care https://t.co/xyCr3tojgn — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 7, 2020
JetBlue aircraft were painted with FDNY, NYPD, and “I Love New York” designs. While AOC went after them from the climate change activist’s viewpoint, other residents expressed a more legit reaction, in my opinion, if some criticism was to be expressed. The jets flew low over the Hudson River and around lower Manhattan, the former site of the Twin Towers. Frankly, it freaked some people out who were unaware of what was happening. That’s understandable. Other people, though, appreciated the show.
The terror attacks still live in the minds of New Yorkers and many are now battling 9/11-related illnesses, driving some to ask why the airline would fly passenger jets so low around the five boroughs.
Blue Bravest, the FDNY-themed plane, took part in tonight's @JetBlue flyover salute to NYC's healthcare workers and first responders, circling the city with the #NYPD and I Love NY planes #ClapBecauseWeCare pic.twitter.com/hGfPdBua5z — FDNY (@FDNY) May 7, 2020
New York Police Department Special Ops posted a video and thanks for the show of support.
Sure, JetBlue gets some good publicity here but it is also making other gestures in appreciation of health care workers. It is giving away 100,000 free roundtrips to health care workers. JetBlue’s headquarters are in the Brewster Building in Long Island City, New York, so it is not surprising that they choose to honor local workers on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.
“JetBlue’s mission of inspiring humanity is stronger now more than ever,” the president and chief operating officer of JetBlue, Joanna Geraghty, said in a statement provided to T+L. “We applaud the healthcare workers who are helping us get through this challenging time and inspiring humanity along the way. This is an opportunity for us to fly it forward and show our appreciation for the heroic efforts of medical professionals, first responders and public servants – not just here in our home of New York but around the country as well.” With their ‘Healthcare Hero’ initiative announced on Wednesday, the airline will provide 100,000 healthcare workers with roundtrip flight certificates for two to anywhere JetBlue flies — with at least 10,000 pairs of tickets being given to workers at the Mount Sinai Health system and NYC Health + Hospitals, the city’s public health system. The remainder of the tickets — 90,000 — will be awarded through nominations. By May 15, the airline is asking its customers to nominate a medical worker by submitting a brief description of their healthcare hero on the contest’s website.
The flyover Thursday came one week after the Navy’s Blue Angels and Air Force Thunderbirds hosted their salute to healthcare workers in New York City and several other cities on the east coast. After a quick scan of AOC’s Twitter timeline, I didn’t find any tweets criticizing them. The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds have been doing flyovers to express gratitude to first responders and health care workers in different cities. Yesterday, the Blue Angels flew over Houston and I was able to see them outside a window in my home. It was great. Sunday, some World War II planes will fly over Houston in honor of the 75th anniversary of VE Day. They are normally housed at the Lone Star Flight Museum in Galveston. Their flyover is named “Fight to the Finish”.


hotair--2020-05-08--Trump: "This is going to go away without a vaccine"

Lefties keep accusing him and his “ reopen at all costs ” supporters of pursuing a de facto herd immunity strategy .
Are they right ?
I don ’ t think they ’ re right .
The White House is working on a vaccine “ Manhattan Project , ” remember .
But then he says something like this and I don ’ t know .
He sounds here like he did at the start of the epidemic , and not for the first time recently .
A few days ago he complained to reporters that doing more testing is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more infections .
Detecting infections is good news to sane people who want to control the spread but not so good to people who worry first and foremost about the electoral ramifications of bad “ numbers.
” This new soundbite about the disease mysteriously going away without a vaccine also has some old-school resonance .
In late February , not long before the epidemic exploded in the U.S. , Trump said this : Now here he is today musing again about the virus vanishing eventually .
As his desire for the country to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he seems to revert more to the sort of magical thinking he displayed in the early days of the pandemic .
I think he believes he can talk Americans , or at least Republicans , into going shopping by reassuring them that a lot of things egghead doctors think are necessary , like tests and vaccines , really aren ’ t .
Just go shop .
It ’ ll be all good .
Either that or he ’ s just chattering idly in the clip , as he ’ s wont to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or maybe even later today .
Third possibility : He really is thinking of encouraging herd immunity .
That would be the worst of our three options , for obvious reasons .
Two epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins published this piece recently encouraging anyone who ’ s “ herd immunity curious , ” shall we say , to reconsider .
We have listened with concern to voices erroneously suggesting that herd immunity may “ soon slow the spread ” 1 of COVID-19 .
For example , Rush Limbaugh recently claimed that “ herd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infectious disease epidemiologists , we wish to state clearly that herd immunity against COVID-19 will not be achieved at a population level in 2020 , barring a public health catastrophe .
Although more than 2.5 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide , studies suggest that ( as of early April 2020 ) no more than 2-4 % of any country ’ s population has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ( the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 ) … To reach herd immunity for COVID-19 , likely 70 % or more of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without a vaccine , over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before we reach this threshold .
Put another way , even if the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 confirmed cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity .
If current daily death rates continue , over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time .
Half a million dead “ if current daily death rates continue.
” The current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy-destroying degree of social distancing .
The whole point of the “ reopen now ” push is to reduce that degree of social distancing , realizing that that ’ s going to mean a higher transmission rate .
We wouldn ’ t expect the current daily death rate to continue , then .
We ’ d expect it to rise .
Jim Geraghty looked at the case of Sweden , which has been cited by “ reopen now ” fans as a model for the U.S. because of its experimentation with a herd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really what Sweden ’ s doing ; they ’ re practicing social distancing , just without the same degree of formal lockdown orders that we ’ ve had .
In any case , says Geraghty , Sweden ’ s a bad example for the U.S. : When you compare populations , other key differences become clearer .
Sweden has about 4 million citizens over the age of 60 ; the United States has about 150 million .
With 7.6 million people living in urban areas , Sweden ranks 57th in the world in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost 240 million .
Neither of our population densities is particularly high by world standards , but ours is a little higher .
A Goldman Sachs assessment noted that the Swedish approach wouldn ’ t work for many other European countries : “ Its population density is about half that of Italy , and Sweden has a high proportion of single-occupancy households , and a relatively low proportion of multi-generational households.
” Perhaps most importantly , Sweden is literally the least-obese country in the world , just 12 percent .
We rank 16th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being obese .
( Some put the percentage of obese Americans closer to 40 percent . )
I don ’ t think Trump ’ s seriously suggesting herd immunity as a strategy , just more of an “ if it happens , it happens ” byproduct of his get-back-to-work push .
But that ’ s not going to play well with senior citizens , the demographic group that has the most to fear from COVID-19 and the least to fear from a weak economy .
And this isn ’ t going to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — of voters and business owners : That ’ s as bad an idea politically as the idea of disbanding the coronavirus task force was .
Trump backed off that one quickly after there was an uproar and he ’ ll back off this one too .
The worst thing Republicans could do for themselves electorally right now is cut off the federal financial lifeline for Americans who are listening to doctor after doctor say that it ’ s too soon to reopen and staying home as a result .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the labor force when conditions look good ; we can ’ t give everyone a free lunch forever .
Force people to decide between infection and starvation , though , and see what happens at the polls .
Here ’ s another clip from today ’ s presser , in which Trump notes that one of Mike Pence ’ s aides has been infected and cites it as evidence of a problem with testing because one day you test negative and the next day you test positive , and therefore… ?

Lefties keep accusing him and his “reopen at all costs” supporters of pursuing a de facto herd immunity strategy.
Are they right? I don’t think they’re right. The White House is working on a vaccine “Manhattan Project,” remember.
But then he says something like this and I don’t know.
President Trump: "This is going to go away without a vaccine." pic.twitter.com/EKcZENl4rS — CSPAN (@cspan) May 8, 2020
He sounds here like he did at the start of the epidemic, and not for the first time recently. A few days ago he complained to reporters that doing more testing is a bad look insofar as it means detecting more infections. Detecting infections is good news to sane people who want to control the spread but not so good to people who worry first and foremost about the electoral ramifications of bad “numbers.” This new soundbite about the disease mysteriously going away without a vaccine also has some old-school resonance. In late February, not long before the epidemic exploded in the U.S., Trump said this:
If we were doing a bad job, we should also be criticized. But we have done an incredible job. We’re going to continue. It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.
Now here he is today musing again about the virus vanishing eventually. As his desire for the country to reopen for business grows more urgent, he seems to revert more to the sort of magical thinking he displayed in the early days of the pandemic. I think he believes he can talk Americans, or at least Republicans, into going shopping by reassuring them that a lot of things egghead doctors think are necessary, like tests and vaccines, really aren’t. Just go shop. It’ll be all good.
Either that or he’s just chattering idly in the clip, as he’s wont to do. He’ll contradict himself tomorrow, or maybe even later today.
Third possibility: He really is thinking of encouraging herd immunity. That would be the worst of our three options, for obvious reasons. Two epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins published this piece recently encouraging anyone who’s “herd immunity curious,” shall we say, to reconsider.
We have listened with concern to voices erroneously suggesting that herd immunity may “soon slow the spread”1 of COVID-19. For example, Rush Limbaugh recently claimed that “herd immunity has occurred in California.” As infectious disease epidemiologists, we wish to state clearly that herd immunity against COVID-19 will not be achieved at a population level in 2020, barring a public health catastrophe. Although more than 2.5 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide, studies suggest that (as of early April 2020) no more than 2-4% of any country’s population has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19)… To reach herd immunity for COVID-19, likely 70% or more of the population would need to be immune. Without a vaccine, over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before we reach this threshold. Put another way, even if the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 confirmed cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity. If current daily death rates continue, over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time.
Half a million dead “if current daily death rates continue.” The current daily death rates are based on an economy-destroying degree of social distancing. The whole point of the “reopen now” push is to reduce that degree of social distancing, realizing that that’s going to mean a higher transmission rate.
We wouldn’t expect the current daily death rate to continue, then. We’d expect it to rise.
Jim Geraghty looked at the case of Sweden, which has been cited by “reopen now” fans as a model for the U.S. because of its experimentation with a herd immunity strategy. That’s not really what Sweden’s doing; they’re practicing social distancing, just without the same degree of formal lockdown orders that we’ve had. In any case, says Geraghty, Sweden’s a bad example for the U.S.:
When you compare populations, other key differences become clearer. Sweden has about 4 million citizens over the age of 60; the United States has about 150 million. With 7.6 million people living in urban areas, Sweden ranks 57th in the world in that metric. We rank third with almost 240 million. Neither of our population densities is particularly high by world standards, but ours is a little higher. A Goldman Sachs assessment noted that the Swedish approach wouldn’t work for many other European countries: “Its population density is about half that of Italy, and Sweden has a high proportion of single-occupancy households, and a relatively low proportion of multi-generational households.” Perhaps most importantly, Sweden is literally the least-obese country in the world, just 12 percent. We rank 16th, with 33 percent of our population being obese. (Some put the percentage of obese Americans closer to 40 percent.)
I don’t think Trump’s seriously suggesting herd immunity as a strategy, just more of an “if it happens, it happens” byproduct of his get-back-to-work push. But that’s not going to play well with senior citizens, the demographic group that has the most to fear from COVID-19 and the least to fear from a weak economy. And this isn’t going to play well with a lot — a lot — of voters and business owners:
If I am a Trump supporter i am apoplectic that Kudlow and Hassett are doing this. This is political suicide. Trump should fire anyone who is advising him to do this and replace them with some fake populist like Hawley who doesn't have a death wish https://t.co/vJaVC8TBuS — Tim Miller (@Timodc) May 8, 2020
That’s as bad an idea politically as the idea of disbanding the coronavirus task force was. Trump backed off that one quickly after there was an uproar and he’ll back off this one too. The worst thing Republicans could do for themselves electorally right now is cut off the federal financial lifeline for Americans who are listening to doctor after doctor say that it’s too soon to reopen and staying home as a result. It’s one thing to push someone back into the labor force when conditions look good; we can’t give everyone a free lunch forever. Force people to decide between infection and starvation, though, and see what happens at the polls.
Here’s another clip from today’s presser, in which Trump notes that one of Mike Pence’s aides has been infected and cites it as evidence of a problem with testing because one day you test negative and the next day you test positive, and therefore…?


hotair--2020-05-08--Scientists guiding UK and Sweden response to coronavirus are battling online over who was right

You ’ ve probably heard it a thousand times by now .
Everyone is saying that coronavirus responses should be guided by science .
What this overlooks is that the scientists don ’ t all agree with one another .
In fact , leading scientists from the UK and Sweden have been calling each other out online over the very different approaches taken by those two countries .
You may remember that initially the UK seemed to be going for a herd immunity strategy .
And then researcher Neil Ferguson presented his model which suggested hundreds of thousands of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
And after seeing those numbers , Boris Johnson changed course and ordered a lockdown .
Meanwhile , Sweden has stuck with a looser version of the lock down where social distancing is encouraged but bars and restaurants remain open .
The former chief epidemiologist for Sweden , Johan Giesecke , an internationally recognized expert who advises the World Health Organization , has been blasting away at the British government ’ s abrupt decision to reverse itself and mandate a complete lockdown on March 23… Giesecke has been unusually blunt in calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ overly pessimistic.
” He noted it was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal and said in a webinar briefing conducted by Chatham House , the London-based think tank , that he thought someone should write a book about “ how a not very scientific paper changed the policy of an entire country.
” In an interview with The Washington Post , Giesecke said the Imperial College forecasts were almost hysterical and the Ferguson paper so fundamentally flawed by debatable assumptions — for example , the percentage of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ it loses all value ” as a predictive tool… Ferguson countered that the Swedish government made “ a decision most other countries would not tolerate , ” meaning to let the virus run more free .
He said of Giesecke , “ He ’ s basically saying we should allow all these old people to die — because he doesn ’ t believe we can keep these measures in place.
” But the truth is that so far , both countries have had high deaths among elderly patients in care homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their neighbors : Neil Ferguson is no longer part of the advisory team guiding the British response .
Earlier this week he resigned his position as the leading scientist in the group after the Telegraph reported he ’ d allowed his girlfriend to visit him twice during the lockdown .
Ferguson had become known in the UK as “ Professor Lockdown ” so his willingness to break the rules he had championed was pretty surprising to a lot of people who are basically stuck at home because of his advice .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States because we ’ re facing the same dilemma .
President Trump has cited the figures ( 2.2 million deaths ) in the Ferguson report as a worst case scenario .
But he is now pushing to reopen the country more along the lines of what Sweden is doing , i.e .
businesses can open but masks and social distancing remain in place .
So we remain somewhere in between the advice given by separate groups of scientists who very much disagree about what the best course was , is and will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is we still don ’ t know who is right because we don ’ t know a lot of things including a ) if we ’ ll get a working vaccine this year and b ) if there is a second wave that is as bad or worse than the first coming this winter , and c ) how badly Sweden ’ s economy will suffer despite the looser rules .
On that last point , the best current guess is that it will be very bad but not quite as bad as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told to follow the science but the truth is the science isn ’ t completely clear yet and by the time it is completely clear , we may be too far along the path we ’ re on to benefit from it .

You’ve probably heard it a thousand times by now. Everyone is saying that coronavirus responses should be guided by science. What this overlooks is that the scientists don’t all agree with one another. In fact, leading scientists from the UK and Sweden have been calling each other out online over the very different approaches taken by those two countries.
You may remember that initially the UK seemed to be going for a herd immunity strategy. And then researcher Neil Ferguson presented his model which suggested hundreds of thousands of people would die if the UK stuck to that. And after seeing those numbers, Boris Johnson changed course and ordered a lockdown. Meanwhile, Sweden has stuck with a looser version of the lock down where social distancing is encouraged but bars and restaurants remain open.
The former chief epidemiologist for Sweden, Johan Giesecke, an internationally recognized expert who advises the World Health Organization, has been blasting away at the British government’s abrupt decision to reverse itself and mandate a complete lockdown on March 23… Giesecke has been unusually blunt in calling the Ferguson model “not very good” and “overly pessimistic.” He noted it was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal and said in a webinar briefing conducted by Chatham House, the London-based think tank, that he thought someone should write a book about “how a not very scientific paper changed the policy of an entire country.” In an interview with The Washington Post, Giesecke said the Imperial College forecasts were almost hysterical and the Ferguson paper so fundamentally flawed by debatable assumptions — for example, the percentage of people who were asymptomatic but still infectious — that “it loses all value” as a predictive tool… Ferguson countered that the Swedish government made “a decision most other countries would not tolerate,” meaning to let the virus run more free. He said of Giesecke, “He’s basically saying we should allow all these old people to die — because he doesn’t believe we can keep these measures in place.”
But the truth is that so far, both countries have had high deaths among elderly patients in care homes and both look bad compared to some of their neighbors:
At this moment, Britain’s death toll of more than 30,000 is the highest in Europe. Meanwhile, deaths in Sweden are the highest in Scandinavia, with 3,000 killed by the virus so far. Britain’s population is 66 million, and Sweden’s is 10 million. Comparing the two countries, Britain is reporting 451 deaths per million people. Sweden is at 314.
Neil Ferguson is no longer part of the advisory team guiding the British response. Earlier this week he resigned his position as the leading scientist in the group after the Telegraph reported he’d allowed his girlfriend to visit him twice during the lockdown. Ferguson had become known in the UK as “Professor Lockdown” so his willingness to break the rules he had championed was pretty surprising to a lot of people who are basically stuck at home because of his advice.
All of this is relevant in the United States because we’re facing the same dilemma. President Trump has cited the figures (2.2 million deaths) in the Ferguson report as a worst case scenario. But he is now pushing to reopen the country more along the lines of what Sweden is doing, i.e. businesses can open but masks and social distancing remain in place.
So we remain somewhere in between the advice given by separate groups of scientists who very much disagree about what the best course was, is and will be in the future. And the truth is we still don’t know who is right because we don’t know a lot of things including a) if we’ll get a working vaccine this year and b) if there is a second wave that is as bad or worse than the first coming this winter, and c) how badly Sweden’s economy will suffer despite the looser rules. On that last point, the best current guess is that it will be very bad but not quite as bad as other countries:
All of that is contributing to what Sweden’s government estimates will be a 6% contraction in domestic consumption this year. Combined with a forecast 10% drop in exports, Swedish authorities predict, the result will be a 7% decline in overall 2020 economic output. The eurozone economy as a whole is projected to contract by about 8% this year, according to a European Commission estimate.
We’re all told to follow the science but the truth is the science isn’t completely clear yet and by the time it is completely clear, we may be too far along the path we’re on to benefit from it.