hotair--2020-05-05--Report: White House weighing whether to wind down coronavirus task force? <span class='red'>Update:

Report: White House weighing whether to wind down coronavirus task force? Update: Blindsided?

A Twitter pal looks on the bright side of the news : “ really this is just transitioning from a group of people accomplishing nothing to no group of people accomplishing nothing.
” I ’ ve made that point before .
What does the coronavirus task force do at this point ?
They ’ ve already organized the manufacture of ventilators .
They developed a model projecting up to 240,000 deaths from the epidemic .
They produced federal guidelines for reopening states that are being mostly ignored .
They used to hold a daily briefing but that ’ s on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to the extent America needs to massively increase testing and contact tracing , that ’ s the states ’ job , not his .
He has more important things to do with his time , like tweeting about the Lincoln Project .
The federal government , particularly the president , appears to have decided that its role in managing a once-in-a-century pandemic is largely over .
So why keep up a pretense to the contrary ?
Let Fauci and Birx go advise state coalitions on the messy , tedious work of saving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t disband the task force .
My guess is they ’ ll just downsize it to the “ doctors ’ group ” that already exists within the broader task force , with occasional briefings from them .
Dissolving it at the very moment the country ’ s watching anxiously to see if deaths begin to spike as states open back up would be so heinous a PR debacle that it might cost Trump the presidency if a second wave of the disease materialized , like the captain leaving the bridge just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feast on it for months .
Trump may be too psychologically detached from the concerns of ordinary people to grasp that , but his advisors aren ’ t .
It is not clear whether any other group might replace the task force .
But its gradual demise , which officials said might never be formally announced , would only intensify the questions about whether the administration is adequately organized to address the complex , life-and-death decisions related to the virus and giving adequate voice to scientists and public health experts in making policy… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence who has helped oversee the task force , Olivia Troye , has told senior officials involved in the task force to expect the group to wind down within weeks , a notice echoed by other top White House officials .
While the task force met Tuesday at the White House , Monday ’ s meeting was canceled , and a Saturday session , a staple of recent months , was never held… A senior administration official , speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House moves toward Phase One of Mr. Trump ’ s plan to “ open up ” the country .
The focus now will be on therapeutics , vaccine development and testing , the official said .
Says Amanda Carpenter , “ If Trump is a wartime President against the virus , this is surrender.
” That ’ s exactly how it would be perceived .
I ’ m keen to know how the idea of dissolving the task force got rolling within the White House , even at the pure suggestion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond well to the prospect of Fauci and Birx being sidelined as lockdowns are easing and Americans are being asked to take a leap of faith back into something approximating business as usual ?
Most of us grasp that the two tracks of the federal response , public health and economic revival , need to operate in parallel .
Scrapping the task force as the economic track gets rolling would seem to confirm the suspicions of Trump critics that the economy is a much , much higher priority for him than saving lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prioritize .
Biden will use that perception of callousness to destroy him .
I can ’ t believe Team Trump would make it that easy for him .
If they really do disband the task force , all that ’ ll be left is Jared ’ s task force of corporate volunteers/college buddies .
They ’ re doing their best , but guess what happens when you enlist unexperienced people to manage an unprecedented mobilization of a specialized industry like public health .
The document alleges that the team responsible for PPE had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such equipment , in part because none of the team ’ s members had significant experience in health care , procurement or supply-chain operations .
In addition , none of the volunteers had existing relationships with manufacturers or a clear understanding of customs requirements or Food and Drug Administration rules , according to the complaint and two senior administration officials… Supply-chain volunteers were instructed to fast-track protective equipment leads from “ VIPs , ” including conservative journalists friendly to the White House , according to the complaint and one senior administration official… The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble developing manufacturer relationships and making inroads with brokers , in part because they were using personal email accounts , rather than official government email addresses , the House Oversight Committee complaint states .
Three senior administration officials confirmed the volunteers ’ use of personal email addresses .
Why is the president ’ s son-in-law , whose background is in real estate , managing the White House ’ s procurement of PPE for doctors and nurses ?
We could spitball answers to that question .
Trump doesn ’ t trust anyone outside his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populist , believes talented amateurs can do a job better than career bureaucrats ; or Trump has so decimated the ranks of skilled people in his administration by firing them or alienating them that he has no choice but to turn to Jared .
None of those are good answers , though .
In fact , the question is so absurd that just posing it to voters will give Democrats an advantage in the fall .
Why is the president ’ s son-in-law , whose background is in real estate , managing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for doctors and nurses ?
It ’ d be like Hillary putting Chelsea ’ s husband in charge of containing some Chernobyl-like meltdown at a nuclear power plant .
Anyway , they ’ re not disbanding the task force .
As I say , I think they ’ re going to end up shrinking it , probably to just public health experts — which is A-OK provided that those experts don ’ t lose all of their influence over policy relative to advisors who are pushing to reopen the economy at all costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is the task force being downsized for efficiency reasons or is it being downsized to marginalize the doctors in it ?
Here ’ s the president earlier insisting that it ’ s time to go back to work .
Update : Looking back at Fauci ’ s denial , I ’ m wondering if he was blindsided by the news .
Maybe no one mentioned *to him* that the task force is winding down , but that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s not winding down .

A Twitter pal looks on the bright side of the news: “really this is just transitioning from a group of people accomplishing nothing to no group of people accomplishing nothing.”
I’ve made that point before. What does the coronavirus task force do at this point? They’ve already organized the manufacture of ventilators. They developed a model projecting up to 240,000 deaths from the epidemic. They produced federal guidelines for reopening states that are being mostly ignored. They used to hold a daily briefing but that’s on hiatus. Trump seems to have concluded that to the extent America needs to massively increase testing and contact tracing, that’s the states’ job, not his. He has more important things to do with his time, like tweeting about the Lincoln Project.
The federal government, particularly the president, appears to have decided that its role in managing a once-in-a-century pandemic is largely over. So why keep up a pretense to the contrary? Let Fauci and Birx go advise state coalitions on the messy, tedious work of saving people’s lives.
They won’t disband the task force. My guess is they’ll just downsize it to the “doctors’ group” that already exists within the broader task force, with occasional briefings from them. Dissolving it at the very moment the country’s watching anxiously to see if deaths begin to spike as states open back up would be so heinous a PR debacle that it might cost Trump the presidency if a second wave of the disease materialized, like the captain leaving the bridge just as the sea got stormy. Democrats would feast on it for months. Trump may be too psychologically detached from the concerns of ordinary people to grasp that, but his advisors aren’t.
It is not clear whether any other group might replace the task force. But its gradual demise, which officials said might never be formally announced, would only intensify the questions about whether the administration is adequately organized to address the complex, life-and-death decisions related to the virus and giving adequate voice to scientists and public health experts in making policy… A top adviser to Vice President Mike Pence who has helped oversee the task force, Olivia Troye, has told senior officials involved in the task force to expect the group to wind down within weeks, a notice echoed by other top White House officials. While the task force met Tuesday at the White House, Monday’s meeting was canceled, and a Saturday session, a staple of recent months, was never held… A senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations, said the task force will be winding down as the White House moves toward Phase One of Mr. Trump’s plan to “open up” the country. The focus now will be on therapeutics, vaccine development and testing, the official said.
Says Amanda Carpenter, “If Trump is a wartime President against the virus, this is surrender.” That’s exactly how it would be perceived.
I’m keen to know how the idea of dissolving the task force got rolling within the White House, even at the pure suggestion stage. Who thought the country would respond well to the prospect of Fauci and Birx being sidelined as lockdowns are easing and Americans are being asked to take a leap of faith back into something approximating business as usual? Most of us grasp that the two tracks of the federal response, public health and economic revival, need to operate in parallel. Scrapping the task force as the economic track gets rolling would seem to confirm the suspicions of Trump critics that the economy is a much, much higher priority for him than saving lives, which is not how most Americans prioritize.
Biden will use that perception of callousness to destroy him. I can’t believe Team Trump would make it that easy for him.
If they really do disband the task force, all that’ll be left is Jared’s task force of corporate volunteers/college buddies. They’re doing their best, but guess what happens when you enlist unexperienced people to manage an unprecedented mobilization of a specialized industry like public health.
The document alleges that the team responsible for PPE had little success in helping the government secure such equipment, in part because none of the team’s members had significant experience in health care, procurement or supply-chain operations. In addition, none of the volunteers had existing relationships with manufacturers or a clear understanding of customs requirements or Food and Drug Administration rules, according to the complaint and two senior administration officials… Supply-chain volunteers were instructed to fast-track protective equipment leads from “VIPs,” including conservative journalists friendly to the White House, according to the complaint and one senior administration official… The team of volunteers focused on PPE had trouble developing manufacturer relationships and making inroads with brokers, in part because they were using personal email accounts, rather than official government email addresses, the House Oversight Committee complaint states. Three senior administration officials confirmed the volunteers’ use of personal email addresses.
Why is the president’s son-in-law, whose background is in real estate, managing the White House’s procurement of PPE for doctors and nurses? We could spitball answers to that question. Trump doesn’t trust anyone outside his family; or Trump, being a populist, believes talented amateurs can do a job better than career bureaucrats; or Trump has so decimated the ranks of skilled people in his administration by firing them or alienating them that he has no choice but to turn to Jared. None of those are good answers, though. In fact, the question is so absurd that just posing it to voters will give Democrats an advantage in the fall. Why is the president’s son-in-law, whose background is in real estate, managing the White House’s procurement of PPE for doctors and nurses? It’d be like Hillary putting Chelsea’s husband in charge of containing some Chernobyl-like meltdown at a nuclear power plant.
Anyway, they’re not disbanding the task force.
Just spoke with Dr. Anthony Fauci and he says #coronavirus task force is not winding down. “That’s not true, I’ve been in every task force meeting, and that’s not what they are doing." #COVID19 https://t.co/vgcwFcuEEg — Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) May 5, 2020
As I say, I think they’re going to end up shrinking it, probably to just public health experts — which is A-OK provided that those experts don’t lose all of their influence over policy relative to advisors who are pushing to reopen the economy at all costs. Which I assume they will. Is the task force being downsized for efficiency reasons or is it being downsized to marginalize the doctors in it?
Here’s the president earlier insisting that it’s time to go back to work.
President Trump: "We did everything right, but now it's time to go back to work." pic.twitter.com/dCXVONrpjs — The Hill (@thehill) May 5, 2020
Update: Looking back at Fauci’s denial, I’m wondering if he was blindsided by the news. Maybe no one mentioned *to him* that the task force is winding down, but that doesn’t mean it’s not winding down.


hotair--2020-05-05--Pulitzer makes it official: "Fake but accurate" is today's reporting gold standard

It took sixteen long years for the journalism establishment to vindicate Dan Rather , but yesterday the Pulitzer Prize committee finally accomplished its goal .
As John wrote yesterday , the egregiously error-filled “ 1619 Project ” won recognition from Pulitzer as “ a sweeping , deeply reported and personal essay , ” without mentioning that it came under fire from professional historians from across the spectrum for errors , omissions , misrepresentations , and falsehoods .
There ’ s more at stake here than just a bad award , and a much longer arc to the attempt to legitimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what the 1619 Project was and is , an example so bad that its publisher finally had to retreat on its central claim .
The committee cited the “ public conversation about the nation ’ s founding ” that the essay prompted , but that had more to do with the New York Times ’ refusal to correct or withdraw the essay when confronted with all of its errors and manipulations .
That debate finally resulted in the New York Times issuing a major correction to the piece weeks later that reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was motivated on a desire to protect slavery ” to a gauzier claim that some individuals within the revolution wanted to protect slavery .
When the World Socialists launch a four-part rebuttal to defend the American Revolution from revisionism , that ’ s a sign that agenda journalism has gone off the rails .
To everyone , that is , except the Pulitzer Committee and the revisionists that have adopted the Dan Rather standard of “ fake but accurate ” to advance their agendas .
For those who don ’ t recall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September 2004 that used falsified documents to claim that George W. Bush had failed to fulfill his Texas Air National Guard duty and had gotten off the hook because of his family ’ s political clout .
The documents were easily demonstrated to be fake ; a New Media effort led by Power Line , Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs , and others in lesser roles ( myself included ) forced CBS into retracting the piece and eventually firing those who played a role in getting it on air .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents had been created in Microsoft Word .
CBS claimed that their source had retyped them from the originals , and advanced the idea of “ fake but accurate ” in defending their reporting .
( Ironically , the NYT report on “ fake but accurate ” itself needed several corrections after publication . )
Sixteen years ago , that drew hoots of derision from nearly all quarters , but not from some until well after Bush ’ s re-election effort concluded .
CBS News made sure to take its sweet time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the memos were both fake and inaccurate .
Rather still defends that segment to this day , however , and has a following that ignores the fact that it was based on falsified documents and never had any corroboration .
Rather has been exiled from newsrooms since then , although he still remains on the scene as an analyst and a scold , rehabilitated enough to keep his face on screen .
Brian Williams , who veered all the way into fabulism and personal lies , managed to get back into NBC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curve .
And now we have the Pulitzer committee making it official : facts don ’ t matter as long as the narrative pleases .
Does it get clicks ?
Does it generate “ a public conversation ” regardless of whether it ’ s properly researched and approaches its topic fairly and accurately ?
Is it woke ?
That ’ s good enough for today ’ s journalistic establishment — even if it eventually wasn ’ t for the essay ’ s own publisher .
Stephen Glass was ahead of his time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth .
Hack Heaven and Spring Breakdown might have qualified as Pulitzer finalists this year .
The next time journalists lament the lack of trust and support from their consumers , remind them how they lost both in the first place , starting with this Pulitzer .

It took sixteen long years for the journalism establishment to vindicate Dan Rather, but yesterday the Pulitzer Prize committee finally accomplished its goal. As John wrote yesterday, the egregiously error-filled “1619 Project” won recognition from Pulitzer as “a sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,” without mentioning that it came under fire from professional historians from across the spectrum for errors, omissions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods. There’s more at stake here than just a bad award, and a much longer arc to the attempt to legitimize revisionism and agenda journalism.
Which is exactly what the 1619 Project was and is, an example so bad that its publisher finally had to retreat on its central claim. The committee cited the “public conversation about the nation’s founding” that the essay prompted, but that had more to do with the New York Times’ refusal to correct or withdraw the essay when confronted with all of its errors and manipulations. That debate finally resulted in the New York Times issuing a major correction to the piece weeks later that reduced the thesis from “the American Revolution was motivated on a desire to protect slavery” to a gauzier claim that some individuals within the revolution wanted to protect slavery.
When the World Socialists launch a four-part rebuttal to defend the American Revolution from revisionism, that’s a sign that agenda journalism has gone off the rails. To everyone, that is, except the Pulitzer Committee and the revisionists that have adopted the Dan Rather standard of “fake but accurate” to advance their agendas.
For those who don’t recall, Rather fronted a 60 Minutes II segment in September 2004 that used falsified documents to claim that George W. Bush had failed to fulfill his Texas Air National Guard duty and had gotten off the hook because of his family’s political clout. The documents were easily demonstrated to be fake; a New Media effort led by Power Line, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, and others in lesser roles (myself included) forced CBS into retracting the piece and eventually firing those who played a role in getting it on air.
Once pressed, the truth emerged that the documents had been created in Microsoft Word. CBS claimed that their source had retyped them from the originals, and advanced the idea of “fake but accurate” in defending their reporting. (Ironically, the NYT report on “fake but accurate” itself needed several corrections after publication.) Sixteen years ago, that drew hoots of derision from nearly all quarters, but not from some until well after Bush’s re-election effort concluded. CBS News made sure to take its sweet time for that purpose, but eventually found that the memos were both fake and inaccurate.
Rather still defends that segment to this day, however, and has a following that ignores the fact that it was based on falsified documents and never had any corroboration. Rather has been exiled from newsrooms since then, although he still remains on the scene as an analyst and a scold, rehabilitated enough to keep his face on screen. Brian Williams, who veered all the way into fabulism and personal lies, managed to get back into NBC’s good graces on a much shorter curve.
And now we have the Pulitzer committee making it official: facts don’t matter as long as the narrative pleases. Does it get clicks? Does it generate “a public conversation” regardless of whether it’s properly researched and approaches its topic fairly and accurately? Is it woke? That’s good enough for today’s journalistic establishment — even if it eventually wasn’t for the essay’s own publisher.
Stephen Glass was ahead of his time, it seems, in putting narrative over truth. Hack Heaven and Spring Breakdown might have qualified as Pulitzer finalists this year. The next time journalists lament the lack of trust and support from their consumers, remind them how they lost both in the first place, starting with this Pulitzer.


hotair--2020-05-05--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Pulitzer's surprise, China's lies, Biden coronation tries, shutdown cri

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Pulitzer's surprise, China's lies, Biden coronation tries, shutdown cries, and what's up in the skies?

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
His McClatchy DC column today asks why the shutdown debate is getting partisan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pulitzer award for the “ 1619 Project ” and the return of “ fake but accurate.
” And let ’ s not miss the shake-up at NBC News either , and the call from the founder of The Hill and Politico for a Joe Biden “ coronation ” !
• Jazz Shaw returns to talk about an all-American NFL season , plus the latest on his UFO series , which has gotten veeerrrry interesting of late .
• How badly do we need to rethink our relationship with China — and how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ columnist Josh Rogin joins us to rebut Bill Gates ’ dismissal of China ’ s COVID-19 cover-up , and to tell us why the origin story of the outbreak matters .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown @ @

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-05-05--Michelle Goldberg: Democrats would never have put forward a story with as many problems as Tara Read

Michelle Goldberg: Democrats would never have put forward a story with as many problems as Tara Reade's

Reade ’ s story about filing a sexual harassment complaint has also changed , in ways that seem less explicable by trauma .
On March 18 , she tweeted , “ When I filed a complaint against Joe Biden for sexual harassment and more I was fired in ’ 93.
” But The Associated Press reported that last year she said , “ They have this counseling office or something , and I think I walked in there once , but then I chickened out.
” According to The A.P.
, she now says she meant that she chickened out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill out an “ intake form ” with some broad details .
I wrote a long post about the Associated Press story here .
There ’ s a lot more detail if you ’ re interested but the very short version is this : Reade ’ s story about the complaint she filed in the 90s has been consistent since March when she gave her first two interviews about the assault .
She has said all along that she filled out a form at a Senate office in which she described sexual harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not the incident of sexual assault .
As for what she said in 2019 about “ chickening out ” that does seem to match with the idea that she wasn ’ t sharing her full story at the time in 1993 , which again is something Goldberg admits is pretty normal for real victims of sexual assault .
I ’ d add that that back in 2019 , Reade also wrote a Medium post in which she said , “ I am upset now and feel defensive .
Again , somehow me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden did to me , is my fault .
And I did not even tell the whole story.
” She continued , “ The small portion that did come out of what Joe Biden did to me resulted in me being bullied and threatened to silence.
” The point being that Reade has been saying for a long time that she has been holding back part of her story .
That ’ s consistent with her explanation of “ chickening out ” by not putting the full assault allegation on the Senate form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an assault didn ’ t happen .
Reade ’ s former neighbor Lynda LaCasse says she recently remembered that Reade told her the story in 1995 or 1996 .
Other people have told reporters that Reade shared her account with them years ago , but without going on the record by name .
( Her brother has said the same thing , but his recounting of the story has changed . )
Did LaCasse say she “ recently remembered ” what Reade told her ?
That sounds like Goldberg is trying to insinuate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the interview with LaCasse I wrote about here , she said Reade told her she was going to come forward with the story of her assault and LaCasse immediately responded that she remembered what Reade had told her about the assault years earlier .
Reade has two people on the record ( LaCasse and her brother ) saying they recall hearing about the assault in the 90s .
Another friend has said the same but has asked that her name not be used .
The fourth person Reade told at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As for Dr. Ford ’ s testimony , that came after the entire Democratic party and most of the media assured us we should “ believe women ” not before .
The idea that the campaign on behalf of Dr. Ford started with her testimony is absurd .
In this case , there is no formal process so there is no formal testimony .
It ’ s hardly fair to hold that against Reade or her credibility .
As for the push for the FBI investigation , the best Democrats have come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestion that Reade ’ s story should be investigated by the DNC .
That was put forward by Goldberg ’ s own paper .
She doesn ’ t mention it and the DNC has already rejected the idea , so so much for investigations .
Now feminists are caught in a trap .
They don ’ t want to repeat the errors many of them made when they dismissed Bill Clinton ’ s accusers , nor do they want to erode the # MeToo taboo against picking apart the motives and histories of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as Reade ’ s story can ’ t be wished away because it ’ s politically inconvenient , neither can its contradictions .
Reade ’ s story is far from perfect but so was Dr. Ford ’ s .
She didn ’ t tell anyone about her alleged assault for several decades so there were no contemporaneous accounts to back it up .
And the people she claimed were at the party that night said they didn ’ t remember it .
Even her friend , Leland Keyser , who was allegedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or recall ever meeting Brett Kavanaugh .
If feminists are caught in a trap it ’ s very much one of their own making .
They pushed hard for an allegation against Kavanaugh that could not be confirmed and now people like Goldberg are absolutely dragging their heels on a story that , while not perfect , is at least as credible as Dr. Ford ’ s and more credible that Kavanaugh ’ s other accusers .
But don ’ t feel too sorry for these trapped feminists .
All they have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a ) believe Reade or b ) admit they got carried away with Kavanaugh .
So far , Michelle Goldberg hasn ’ t been willing to do either .

Reade’s story about filing a sexual harassment complaint has also changed, in ways that seem less explicable by trauma. On March 18, she tweeted, “When I filed a complaint against Joe Biden for sexual harassment and more I was fired in ’93.” But The Associated Press reported that last year she said, “They have this counseling office or something, and I think I walked in there once, but then I chickened out.” According to The A.P., she now says she meant that she chickened out about reporting her full experience but did fill out an “intake form” with some broad details.
I wrote a long post about the Associated Press story here. There’s a lot more detail if you’re interested but the very short version is this: Reade’s story about the complaint she filed in the 90s has been consistent since March when she gave her first two interviews about the assault. She has said all along that she filled out a form at a Senate office in which she described sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it, but not the incident of sexual assault.
As for what she said in 2019 about “chickening out” that does seem to match with the idea that she wasn’t sharing her full story at the time in 1993, which again is something Goldberg admits is pretty normal for real victims of sexual assault.
I’d add that that back in 2019, Reade also wrote a Medium post in which she said, “I am upset now and feel defensive. Again, somehow me talking about what happened, what Joe Biden did to me, is my fault. And I did not even tell the whole story.” She continued, “The small portion that did come out of what Joe Biden did to me resulted in me being bullied and threatened to silence.” The point being that Reade has been saying for a long time that she has been holding back part of her story. That’s consistent with her explanation of “chickening out” by not putting the full assault allegation on the Senate form.
Again: None of this means an assault didn’t happen. Reade’s former neighbor Lynda LaCasse says she recently remembered that Reade told her the story in 1995 or 1996. Other people have told reporters that Reade shared her account with them years ago, but without going on the record by name. (Her brother has said the same thing, but his recounting of the story has changed.)
Did LaCasse say she “recently remembered” what Reade told her? That sounds like Goldberg is trying to insinuate this memory is of recent vintage. In the interview with LaCasse I wrote about here, she said Reade told her she was going to come forward with the story of her assault and LaCasse immediately responded that she remembered what Reade had told her about the assault years earlier.
Still, where things stand now, it’s hard to compare Blasey’s case with Reade’s. Blasey had four sworn affidavits from people whom she’d told that she’d been assaulted, as well as therapist’s notes and the results from a polygraph. She testified, and was cross-examined, under oath. The Democratic plea, at the time, was for a thorough F.B.I. investigation.
Reade has two people on the record (LaCasse and her brother) saying they recall hearing about the assault in the 90s. Another friend has said the same but has asked that her name not be used. The fourth person Reade told at the time, her mother, died in 2016.
As for Dr. Ford’s testimony, that came after the entire Democratic party and most of the media assured us we should “believe women” not before. The idea that the campaign on behalf of Dr. Ford started with her testimony is absurd. In this case, there is no formal process so there is no formal testimony. It’s hardly fair to hold that against Reade or her credibility.
As for the push for the FBI investigation, the best Democrats have come up with in this case is the suggestion that Reade’s story should be investigated by the DNC. That was put forward by Goldberg’s own paper. She doesn’t mention it and the DNC has already rejected the idea, so so much for investigations.


hotair--2020-05-05--Report: NY AG investigating NBC News over sexual assault, discrimination claims -- focusing on sudde

Report: NY AG investigating NBC News over sexual assault, discrimination claims -- focusing on suddenly-departed chief

Could this explain yesterday ’ s shake-up at NBC News ?
Late in the afternoon , NBCUniversal announced a restructuring of the executive office in the news division , with chair Andrew Lack getting the heave-ho .
Lack had previously announced he ’ d leave after the presidential election , but NBCUniversal apparently couldn ’ t wait that long : The new boss of NBCUniversal announced a surprise shakeup Monday that will include the ouster of longtime NBC News chairman Andy Lack .
Jeff Shell ’ s restructuring means Lack — who came under fire after Ronan Farrow ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC News executives including Lack ’ s right-hand man Noah Oppenheim of killing his Harvey Weinstein reporting — will leave at the end of the month , instead of after the 2020 presidential election as previously planned .
Lack , who has also been accused of downplaying an explosive rape allegation against former “ Today ” host Matt Lauer , will be replaced by Telemundo chief Cesar Conde , who will oversee NBC News , MSNBC and CNBC .
“ There had been talk of management changes for a while , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andy is so past his prime .
Between the Ronan debacle , the Lauer debacle and even before that the Megyn Kelly and Brian Williams debacles , it ’ s no wonder he ’ s out.
” The Farrow revelation might be even more on point than first thought .
According to the Daily Mail , New York ’ s attorney general Letitia James has opened an investigation into sexual assault and discrimination allegations at NBC News , and Lack has become a subject of interest to the probe .
The name of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a direct slap at Lack himself , in fact : More than a dozen women have been interviewed by officials from a Civil Division department dubbed ‘ The Weinstein Unit ’ following its investigation into the disgraced movie mogul who was jailed earlier this year after being convicted of rape .
In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com , former NBC News anchor Linda Vester said she was one of the women interviewed about alleged violations at the network .
… Sources told DailyMail.com the unit has been looking into claims of sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least six months .
Vester told the Daily Mail that investigators have taken a very granular interest in Lack .
In particular , they want to know about his involvement in attacking the public reputation of those who tried to blow the whistle , if any : [ Vester ] added : ‘ They asked me to re-tell , not just the initial harassment I had experienced but also more importantly , they wanted to know about [ chairman ] Andy Lack and what I knew about his involvement in retaliation against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came forward with my story .
‘ They wanted to know as many details as I could offer about what Andy Lack ’ s involvement was in orchestrating a public response against me and a defense or cover-up .
He was one of many.
’ That sounds more like a civil than criminal matter , but the state ’ s laws likely gives the AG room to pursue civil damages in such cases .
The timing of all this is curious , though .
Vester ’ s work with the AG ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push Lack out now ?
Perhaps NBCUniversal got word that the probe had leaked to the Daily Mail or other news outlets , which would make it look like Lack had bigger problems than just killing Farrow ’ s reporting on Big Harv and taking too long to kick Matt Lauer to the curb .
In fact , Tucker Carlson discussed the probe last night when Fox ’ s Rich McHugh revealed the investigation into NBC News .
Tucker offers up some I told you so ’ s before turning to McHugh .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced its shakeup .
McHugh says that the probe is coming out of its civil division , but that doesn ’ t preclude criminal charges , either .
As McHugh notes , booting Lack gives NBC a chance to start over fresh , but McHugh says victims from NBC ’ s ranks are not going to be satisfied — especially while Noah Oppenheim remains in the executive suite .
“ If they ’ re going to clean house , ” McHugh says , “ they need to really clean house.
” Indeed .

Could this explain yesterday’s shake-up at NBC News? Late in the afternoon, NBCUniversal announced a restructuring of the executive office in the news division, with chair Andrew Lack getting the heave-ho. Lack had previously announced he’d leave after the presidential election, but NBCUniversal apparently couldn’t wait that long:
The new boss of NBCUniversal announced a surprise shakeup Monday that will include the ouster of longtime NBC News chairman Andy Lack. Jeff Shell’s restructuring means Lack — who came under fire after Ronan Farrow’s book “Catch and Kill” accused NBC News executives including Lack’s right-hand man Noah Oppenheim of killing his Harvey Weinstein reporting — will leave at the end of the month, instead of after the 2020 presidential election as previously planned. Lack, who has also been accused of downplaying an explosive rape allegation against former “Today” host Matt Lauer, will be replaced by Telemundo chief Cesar Conde, who will oversee NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC. “There had been talk of management changes for a while,” said a source close to NBC. “Andy is so past his prime. Between the Ronan debacle, the Lauer debacle and even before that the Megyn Kelly and Brian Williams debacles, it’s no wonder he’s out.”
The Farrow revelation might be even more on point than first thought. According to the Daily Mail, New York’s attorney general Letitia James has opened an investigation into sexual assault and discrimination allegations at NBC News, and Lack has become a subject of interest to the probe. The name of the AG’s investigative team sounds like a direct slap at Lack himself, in fact:
More than a dozen women have been interviewed by officials from a Civil Division department dubbed ‘The Weinstein Unit’ following its investigation into the disgraced movie mogul who was jailed earlier this year after being convicted of rape. In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, former NBC News anchor Linda Vester said she was one of the women interviewed about alleged violations at the network. … Sources told DailyMail.com the unit has been looking into claims of sexual harassment and discrimination at the network for at least six months.
Vester told the Daily Mail that investigators have taken a very granular interest in Lack. In particular, they want to know about his involvement in attacking the public reputation of those who tried to blow the whistle, if any:
[Vester] added: ‘They asked me to re-tell, not just the initial harassment I had experienced but also more importantly, they wanted to know about [chairman] Andy Lack and what I knew about his involvement in retaliation against me and by NBC News once I came forward with my story. ‘They wanted to know as many details as I could offer about what Andy Lack’s involvement was in orchestrating a public response against me and a defense or cover-up. He was one of many.’
That sounds more like a civil than criminal matter, but the state’s laws likely gives the AG room to pursue civil damages in such cases. The timing of all this is curious, though. Vester’s work with the AG’s investigators took place in January. Why push Lack out now? Perhaps NBCUniversal got word that the probe had leaked to the Daily Mail or other news outlets, which would make it look like Lack had bigger problems than just killing Farrow’s reporting on Big Harv and taking too long to kick Matt Lauer to the curb.
In fact, Tucker Carlson discussed the probe last night when Fox’s Rich McHugh revealed the investigation into NBC News. Tucker offers up some I told you so’s before turning to McHugh. This conversation took place just after NBCUniversal announced its shakeup. McHugh says that the probe is coming out of its civil division, but that doesn’t preclude criminal charges, either.
As McHugh notes, booting Lack gives NBC a chance to start over fresh, but McHugh says victims from NBC’s ranks are not going to be satisfied — especially while Noah Oppenheim remains in the executive suite. “If they’re going to clean house,” McHugh says, “they need to really clean house.” Indeed.


hotair--2020-05-05--Hmmm: New Senate poll shows Democrat leading by seven -- in Montana

I ’ m skeptical , but only because of blind faith that Montana is and forever shall remain a red state , never mind that the current governor and one of the state ’ s two senators is a Democrat .
Oh , and because of this tweet from CNN elections expert Harry Enten : Is it possible that a Democrat is leading by seven points in a statewide race in Montana ?
Well , Democrat Jon Tester has been elected to the Senate no fewer than three times there .
Granted , he had the good luck to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” years and he never won by more than four points .
But Montanans clearly are willing to go blue .
By seven points , though ?
Normally I ’ d say no — but the Democrat running against Republican Steve Daines this year is no random joe .
A new poll from Montana State University shows Democratic Gov .
Steve Bullock leading Republican Sen. Steve Daines by seven percentage points in Montana ’ s high-profile 2020 U.S. Senate contest .
The online poll , which surveyed 738 Montanans in mid-to-late April , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would support , if the election for Senate were held now .
Just over 46 percent said they ’ d choose Bullock and 39 percent supported Daines… President Trump led Democrat Joe Biden , but only by 5.6 percentage points – 45.3 percent to 39.7 percent .
About 10 percent said they would vote for someone else and 5 percent said they were undecided .
I ’ d never guess that Daines , who had a respectable 47/31 job approval rating at the end of last year , would be running behind Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economic collapse .
But consider their respective opposition .
Biden is a generic Democrat and generic Democrats aren ’ t going to win Montana .
Bullock isn ’ t generic : He ’ s the twice-elected incumbent governor running at a moment when governors are the most popular political figures in America .
His approval rating on responding to the pandemic stood at 70/22 in this poll versus just 53/39 for Trump .
He was a dangerous opponent for Daines before the coronavirus crisis boosted the visibility of governors .
Now he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for real , the GOP ’ s margin for error in holding the Senate majority this fall is near-zero .
Enten , in fact , believes Democrats are now slightly favored : An early look at the data finds that Democrats are the slightest of favorites to take back the Senate .
The chance Democrats net gain at least 3 seats is about 3-in-5 ( 60 % ) , while the chance they net gain at least 4 seats is about 1-in-2 ( 50 % ) … Democratic chances have risen since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ago , in large part because the national environment continues to look good for them .
They hold about an 8-point lead on the generic ballot .
That ’ s about the same as it was in 2018 , when it was 7 points , and about double what it was in 2016 .
Based on past trends , this large advantage suggests that races that may look like tossups right now are forecasted to move toward the Democrats over the course of the year… Republicans have about a 7-in-10 to 3-4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in Kansas , Iowa and Montana .
Although Democrats aren ’ t likely to win any of these seats individually , their chance of winning any one of the three is higher .
If Biden beats Trump , Democrats need to net only three seats to have control of a 50/50 chamber .
That means four pick-ups ( assuming Doug Jones is a goner in Alabama ) , and right now there are four races for Republican-held seats in which Dems are leading by either a little or a lot .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points on Susan Collins and raised more than twice as much money as Collins did in the first quarter .
In Colorado , which broke for Hillary four years ago and has been trending blue , Cory Gardner is widely assumed to be an underdog against former Gov .
John Hickenlooper .
He trailed by double digits in a poll taken there last year and was outraised by the Democrat in the first quarter as well .
In Arizona , Mark Kelly appears to be running away with his race against Martha McSally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight points in polls and nearly doubled McSally ’ s fundraising haul in the first quarter .
That ’ s a Daily Kos poll so feel free to ignore it , but left-leaning PPP had Cunningham up seven in a poll taken a few weeks ago and a Meredith College poll taken in late April found Cunningham ahead by nine .
Lotta sizable Cunningham leads turning up in the data lately .
That ’ s four seats poised to flip , not counting Bullock ’ s lead in the new Montana poll .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ A PPP poll of Iowa published yesterday found Joni Ernst ’ s lead down from six points in December to one point now .
It ’ s not hard to spot the problem : With even Trump ’ s campaign detecting erosion in his numbers in battleground states , downballot Republicans are at risk .
Time for them to practice some social distancing from Trump , writes Josh Kraushaar : Similar advice about not mentioning Trump was given before the midterms .
I don ’ t understand what that was supposed to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand what it ’ s supposed to look like now .
A conventional president who was unpopular and under the gun for his handling of a national crisis would recognize that he ’ s hurting the party and lie low .
Trump isn ’ t conventional .
He ’ d never accept that he ’ s hurting the GOP — look how long it took aides to convince him to dial back the daily coronavirus briefing — and even if he did , his need for camera time would overwhelm that concern .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign doing a “ Donald who ?
” routine on the trail and Trump will simply burst through the wall intermittently like Kool-Aid Man to remind everyone .
If anything , perceptions that endangered Republicans are showing “ disloyalty ” by inching away from him might annoy him to the point where he ’ ll start rage-tweeting about them .
That would make Republicans ’ problem even worse , with the base suddenly angry at Senate incumbents for abandoning the president and swing voters angry at them for the state of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better figure something out soon .
Anyway , let ’ s not put much stock in the Montana poll yet .
Not only does Enten have his doubts about its methodology , so does GOP pollster Logan Dobson per this thread .
It ’ s probably enough to say that the state is in play amid a national climate that doesn ’ t look encouraging for Republicans .

I’m skeptical, but only because of blind faith that Montana is and forever shall remain a red state, never mind that the current governor and one of the state’s two senators is a Democrat. Oh, and because of this tweet from CNN elections expert Harry Enten:
Eh, I'm gonna wait for more data from Montana… When you see an online poll from an outfit that doesn't normally do it… Plus a result that doesn't jibe with anything I've read + heard about… Lots of caution should be the rule. — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 5, 2020
Is it possible that a Democrat is leading by seven points in a statewide race in Montana? Well, Democrat Jon Tester has been elected to the Senate no fewer than three times there. Granted, he had the good luck to run those races in three Democratic “wave” years and he never won by more than four points. But Montanans clearly are willing to go blue.
By seven points, though? Normally I’d say no — but the Democrat running against Republican Steve Daines this year is no random joe.
A new poll from Montana State University shows Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock leading Republican Sen. Steve Daines by seven percentage points in Montana’s high-profile 2020 U.S. Senate contest. The online poll, which surveyed 738 Montanans in mid-to-late April, asked registered, likely voters who they would support, if the election for Senate were held now. Just over 46 percent said they’d choose Bullock and 39 percent supported Daines… President Trump led Democrat Joe Biden, but only by 5.6 percentage points – 45.3 percent to 39.7 percent. About 10 percent said they would vote for someone else and 5 percent said they were undecided.
I’d never guess that Daines, who had a respectable 47/31 job approval rating at the end of last year, would be running behind Trump in the middle of a killer pandemic and economic collapse. But consider their respective opposition. Biden is a generic Democrat and generic Democrats aren’t going to win Montana. Bullock isn’t generic: He’s the twice-elected incumbent governor running at a moment when governors are the most popular political figures in America. His approval rating on responding to the pandemic stood at 70/22 in this poll versus just 53/39 for Trump. He was a dangerous opponent for Daines before the coronavirus crisis boosted the visibility of governors. Now he’s potentially lethal.
If Bullock is for real, the GOP’s margin for error in holding the Senate majority this fall is near-zero. Enten, in fact, believes Democrats are now slightly favored:
An early look at the data finds that Democrats are the slightest of favorites to take back the Senate. The chance Democrats net gain at least 3 seats is about 3-in-5 (60%), while the chance they net gain at least 4 seats is about 1-in-2 (50%)… Democratic chances have risen since I first looked at the map a year ago, in large part because the national environment continues to look good for them. They hold about an 8-point lead on the generic ballot. That’s about the same as it was in 2018, when it was 7 points, and about double what it was in 2016. Based on past trends, this large advantage suggests that races that may look like tossups right now are forecasted to move toward the Democrats over the course of the year… Republicans have about a 7-in-10 to 3-4 shot (70% to 75%) in Kansas, Iowa and Montana. Although Democrats aren’t likely to win any of these seats individually, their chance of winning any one of the three is higher.
If Biden beats Trump, Democrats need to net only three seats to have control of a 50/50 chamber. That means four pick-ups (assuming Doug Jones is a goner in Alabama), and right now there are four races for Republican-held seats in which Dems are leading by either a little or a lot. In Maine, Sara Gideon is up 2.5 points on Susan Collins and raised more than twice as much money as Collins did in the first quarter. In Colorado, which broke for Hillary four years ago and has been trending blue, Cory Gardner is widely assumed to be an underdog against former Gov. John Hickenlooper. He trailed by double digits in a poll taken there last year and was outraised by the Democrat in the first quarter as well. In Arizona, Mark Kelly appears to be running away with his race against Martha McSally. He leads by an average of eight points in polls and nearly doubled McSally’s fundraising haul in the first quarter.
Then there’s North Carolina. Not great:
That’s a Daily Kos poll so feel free to ignore it, but left-leaning PPP had Cunningham up seven in a poll taken a few weeks ago and a Meredith College poll taken in late April found Cunningham ahead by nine. Lotta sizable Cunningham leads turning up in the data lately.
That’s four seats poised to flip, not counting Bullock’s lead in the new Montana poll. And the map could expand further. A PPP poll of Iowa published yesterday found Joni Ernst’s lead down from six points in December to one point now. It’s not hard to spot the problem: With even Trump’s campaign detecting erosion in his numbers in battleground states, downballot Republicans are at risk. Time for them to practice some social distancing from Trump, writes Josh Kraushaar:
Here’s what I’m hearing from smart GOP strategists now: Republicans should be talking about their work to help their communities in the wake of the pandemic, and avoid referencing President Trump’s role in managing the crisis. To win battleground Senate seats that are looking more tenuous, it will be crucial to maintain support from some Trump-skeptical independents. If Trump’s political condition doesn’t improve by the fall, prepare to talk about keeping the Senate as a check against Democratic power, even if it means acknowledging the presidency is likely lost.
Similar advice about not mentioning Trump was given before the midterms. I don’t understand what that was supposed to look like then and I don’t understand what it’s supposed to look like now. A conventional president who was unpopular and under the gun for his handling of a national crisis would recognize that he’s hurting the party and lie low. Trump isn’t conventional. He’d never accept that he’s hurting the GOP — look how long it took aides to convince him to dial back the daily coronavirus briefing — and even if he did, his need for camera time would overwhelm that concern. Martha McSally could spend the rest of the campaign doing a “Donald who?” routine on the trail and Trump will simply burst through the wall intermittently like Kool-Aid Man to remind everyone. If anything, perceptions that endangered Republicans are showing “disloyalty” by inching away from him might annoy him to the point where he’ll start rage-tweeting about them. That would make Republicans’ problem even worse, with the base suddenly angry at Senate incumbents for abandoning the president and swing voters angry at them for the state of the pandemic and the economy. McConnell had better figure something out soon.
Anyway, let’s not put much stock in the Montana poll yet. Not only does Enten have his doubts about its methodology, so does GOP pollster Logan Dobson per this thread. It’s probably enough to say that the state is in play amid a national climate that doesn’t look encouraging for Republicans.


hotair--2020-05-05--Study claims European strain of coronavirus is more infectious than the original (but is it?) (Updat

Study claims European strain of coronavirus is more infectious than the original (but is it?) (Update: Virologist says this looks shoddy)

Viruses mutate as they get passed around .
The original strain of the coronavirus existed in a bat and probably made its way into another animal host where it picked up new features that allowed it to become highly infectious to humans .
Now a new study which was pre-published last week , meaning it hasn ’ t been peer-reviewed yet , claims the virus has mutated , making it even more infectious to humans than the original strain .
The new strain appeared in February in Europe , migrated quickly to the East Coast of the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world since mid-March , the scientists wrote… The mutation identified in the new report affects the now infamous spikes on the exterior of the coronavirus , which allow it to enter human respiratory cells .
The report ’ s authors said they felt an “ urgent need for an early warning ” so that vaccines and drugs under development around the world will be effective against the mutated strain .
Wherever the new strain appeared , it quickly infected far more people than the earlier strains that came out of Wuhan , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only strain that was prevalent in some nations , according to the report .
The new strain ’ s dominance over its predecessors demonstrates that it is more infectious , according to the report , though exactly why is not yet known .
If confirmed , this might help explain a number of things we ’ ve all witnesses .
For instance , the northeastern United States has been much harder hit than the west coast even though the west coast had some of the first hot spots .
That could be because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wuhan strain while the east coast was hit with the more infectious European strain .
These results could also help explain some of the international differences we ’ ve seen .
For instance , China was able to stop the first wave of the virus in Wuhan while places like Spain and Italy , who were dealing with the new strain , struggled to achieve the same results .
Maybe the difference in partly based on China dealing with a less infectious strain of the virus .
Or maybe not .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public health published a thread about this study last Friday suggesting that the opposite could be the case : Maybe it only appears the European strain is more infectious because it spread more successfully in a place where mitigation efforts were insufficient .
So maybe what looks like a more infectious strain to us is really just a reflection of less intensive mitigation efforts in nations , like Italy , where this particular variation spread .
That answer isn ’ t as satisfying in some ways but it could be true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been peer-reviewed and could be explained in other ways just means we should probably take it with a grain of salt for now .
Update : A virologist from Colombia University is also dumping on the study .

Viruses mutate as they get passed around. The original strain of the coronavirus existed in a bat and probably made its way into another animal host where it picked up new features that allowed it to become highly infectious to humans. Now a new study which was pre-published last week, meaning it hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet, claims the virus has mutated, making it even more infectious to humans than the original strain.
The new strain appeared in February in Europe, migrated quickly to the East Coast of the United States and has been the dominant strain across the world since mid-March, the scientists wrote… The mutation identified in the new report affects the now infamous spikes on the exterior of the coronavirus, which allow it to enter human respiratory cells. The report’s authors said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” so that vaccines and drugs under development around the world will be effective against the mutated strain. Wherever the new strain appeared, it quickly infected far more people than the earlier strains that came out of Wuhan, China, and within weeks it was the only strain that was prevalent in some nations, according to the report. The new strain’s dominance over its predecessors demonstrates that it is more infectious, according to the report, though exactly why is not yet known.
If confirmed, this might help explain a number of things we’ve all witnesses. For instance, the northeastern United States has been much harder hit than the west coast even though the west coast had some of the first hot spots. That could be because the west coast was initially dealing with the Wuhan strain while the east coast was hit with the more infectious European strain.
These results could also help explain some of the international differences we’ve seen. For instance, China was able to stop the first wave of the virus in Wuhan while places like Spain and Italy, who were dealing with the new strain, struggled to achieve the same results. Maybe the difference in partly based on China dealing with a less infectious strain of the virus.
Or maybe not.
An associate professor from Harvard’s school of public health published a thread about this study last Friday suggesting that the opposite could be the case: Maybe it only appears the European strain is more infectious because it spread more successfully in a place where mitigation efforts were insufficient.
Major observation: a specific mutation in the spike protein of the virus has been in a higher fraction of cases as the pandemic has worn on in multiple places. Given the role of the spike protein in entry of the virus to cells this might be reasonable. Now for the cold water 2/n — Bill Hanage (@BillHanage) May 2, 2020
by that, I mean this variant might have been lucky and got introduced to places outside Wuhan and different approaches to social distancing early on. It's not about the virus, it's the environment and the opportunities for transmission 4/n — Bill Hanage (@BillHanage) May 2, 2020
The blue mutation is already found in close to 100% of the cases of the early outbreak in North Italy. This might be selection. It might well also be chance, the lucky strain that got out of China. Most outbreaks around the world descend from Europe now 6/n — Bill Hanage (@BillHanage) May 2, 2020
WA was alerted early on through outbreaks in healthcare. It put in serious controls at local and state levels. The orange variant arises, and is followed by the blue (coming in from the east coast and Europe) yet both decline at roughly the same rate 13/n — Bill Hanage (@BillHanage) May 2, 2020
So maybe what looks like a more infectious strain to us is really just a reflection of less intensive mitigation efforts in nations, like Italy, where this particular variation spread. That answer isn’t as satisfying in some ways but it could be true. The fact that this research hasn’t been peer-reviewed and could be explained in other ways just means we should probably take it with a grain of salt for now.
Update: A virologist from Colombia University is also dumping on the study.
This type of reporting on #SARSCoV2 #COVID19 #coronavirus makes my blood boil. There is no evidence that the dominant strain is such because it is "more contagious"https://t.co/IesYkQetSS — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020
The old adage that correlation does not equal causation applies here. If you are looking at sequence data alone, you can't show effect that this single mutation, spike D614G has on transmission. This means that a mutation at position 614 in spike changed aspartic acid to glycine. — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020
Importantly, these studies actually did experiments to show that A82V increased infectivity (the ability to infect cells) in surrogate systems (not actual Ebola virus). Claims about A82V's function in infection and pathogenesis were not made based solely on sequence data. — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020
In cell culture, the A82V mutation did appear to improve viral fitness (the overall ability of the virus to infect cells and replicate), which may explain why this emerged early in the epidemic and there was selection pressure to maintain the A82V change.https://t.co/wPWwMB1zoR — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020
And for Ebola GP A82V, these conclusions were based on a number of rigorous, well-controlled experiments conducted by teams of respected virologists. Spike D614G from #SARSCoV2 has not ever been tested in a single experiment. This is based solely on computational analysis. — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020
Spike D614G may well have functional importance. It may even increase transmissibility. But we won't know until this is tested experimentally. There's no basis for the breathless OMG #SARSCoV2 HAS MUTATED TO BE MORE TRANSMISSIBLE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE tone in the LA Times piece. — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020
If you don't know what a single amino acid change even does, why is there an "urgent need for an early warning"? Warning about what? Are there any vaccines or drugs specifically targeting position 614 in spike? We don't even know if this has any kind of biological effect. — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) May 5, 2020


hotair--2020-05-05--All NFL games to be played in the United States. Good.

When we recently discussed the idea of a “ compressed ” schedule for the NFL this year , possibly not starting until almost Halloween , all scheduling decisions were still up in the air .
As of this date , the league is still holding those alternate scheduling choices in reserve as a backup plan .
They plan to release the fall schedule on Thursday , currently slated to start and end on the normal dates .
( While we don ’ t know the exact dates for each matchup yet , the teams each franchise will face is already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your team will be playing here . )
But as much as the season may still look the same , there will be one significant difference .
As in past years , the league had been planning to play several games in London and another in Mexico City .
Those plans are now canceled .
All games will be played at the various teams ’ home stadiums right here in the United States to avoid even more exposure to the novel coronavirus .
( CBS Denver ) The Broncos will not be going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The NFL announced Monday that all 2020 games will be played in the United States due to the coronavirus pandemic .
It had been widely reported that the Broncos would play the Atlanta Falcons in London during the season , which would have been Denver ’ s first international game since the 2010 season .
The NFL is expected to release its full schedule later this week .
Despite the ongoing pandemic , the league is planning to begin the season on time .
All I can say about this is… it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not just saying this because it makes sense not to fly the teams to another continent if the pandemic is still raging .
( Though that absolutely does make sense , depending on where we stand in late August . )
This entire idea was a fiasco from the beginning and if we have to adapt to a “ new normal ” after the pandemic passes , I hope this change becomes part of it .
It ’ s not hard to weigh the pros and cons of overseas games .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up being broadcast when most of the United States has barely finished breakfast or isn ’ t even out of bed yet .
You realize that ’ s a really awkward time to start cracking open beers , right ?
( Martinis or bloody marys , sure .
But that ’ s way too early for beer . )
Also , traveling from the east coast to the west coast is hard enough on the players in terms of jet lag and throwing off their internal clocks .
Sending them to Europe is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of teams have to take on that additional stress and inherent disadvantage the following week , it ’ s simply unfair .
And beyond that , why do the Brits ( or the Mexicans for that matter ) need to see live football games ?
This is an American sport .
Most of the “ fans ” over there think you ’ re talking about soccer when somebody mentions football .
The games should be held for the benefit of the fans of the respective teams when it comes to live attendance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ?
That one is obvious .
More advertising revenue for the NFL Network and yet another market to tap into .
Even the people in the league ’ s home office aren ’ t insane enough to think that we would ever expand the NFL to include franchises in Europe .
( Or at least I hope they aren ’ t . )
If you do that , you ’ ll soon have a bunch of teams making intercontinental flights every other week .
And that – again – is simply insane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They don ’ t need to squeeze a few extra quid out of the Brits to make ends meet .
And the stress on the players is far too high of a price to pay for an extra advertising market .
Let ’ s keep this decision in place and keep the games at home in America where they belong .

When we recently discussed the idea of a “compressed” schedule for the NFL this year, possibly not starting until almost Halloween, all scheduling decisions were still up in the air. As of this date, the league is still holding those alternate scheduling choices in reserve as a backup plan. They plan to release the fall schedule on Thursday, currently slated to start and end on the normal dates. (While we don’t know the exact dates for each matchup yet, the teams each franchise will face is already known. You can check out who your team will be playing here.)
But as much as the season may still look the same, there will be one significant difference. As in past years, the league had been planning to play several games in London and another in Mexico City. Those plans are now canceled. All games will be played at the various teams’ home stadiums right here in the United States to avoid even more exposure to the novel coronavirus. (CBS Denver)
The Broncos will not be going to London during the 2020 season. The NFL announced Monday that all 2020 games will be played in the United States due to the coronavirus pandemic. It had been widely reported that the Broncos would play the Atlanta Falcons in London during the season, which would have been Denver’s first international game since the 2010 season. The NFL is expected to release its full schedule later this week. Despite the ongoing pandemic, the league is planning to begin the season on time.
All I can say about this is… it’s about time. And I’m not just saying this because it makes sense not to fly the teams to another continent if the pandemic is still raging. (Though that absolutely does make sense, depending on where we stand in late August.) This entire idea was a fiasco from the beginning and if we have to adapt to a “new normal” after the pandemic passes, I hope this change becomes part of it.
It’s not hard to weigh the pros and cons of overseas games. On the con side, the games wind up being broadcast when most of the United States has barely finished breakfast or isn’t even out of bed yet. You realize that’s a really awkward time to start cracking open beers, right? (Martinis or bloody marys, sure. But that’s way too early for beer.)
Also, traveling from the east coast to the west coast is hard enough on the players in terms of jet lag and throwing off their internal clocks. Sending them to Europe is just insane. When only a handful of teams have to take on that additional stress and inherent disadvantage the following week, it’s simply unfair. And beyond that, why do the Brits (or the Mexicans for that matter) need to see live football games? This is an American sport. Most of the “fans” over there think you’re talking about soccer when somebody mentions football. The games should be held for the benefit of the fans of the respective teams when it comes to live attendance.
So what are the pros of doing this? That one is obvious. More advertising revenue for the NFL Network and yet another market to tap into. Even the people in the league’s home office aren’t insane enough to think that we would ever expand the NFL to include franchises in Europe. (Or at least I hope they aren’t.) If you do that, you’ll soon have a bunch of teams making intercontinental flights every other week. And that – again – is simply insane.
The NFL makes plenty of money. They don’t need to squeeze a few extra quid out of the Brits to make ends meet. And the stress on the players is far too high of a price to pay for an extra advertising market. Let’s keep this decision in place and keep the games at home in America where they belong.


hotair--2020-05-05--Whoa: New York adds over 1700 "previously undisclosed" nursing-home deaths to COVID-19 total

As the reporting on COVID-19 fatalities improve , we should expect some shocks , but this one will reverberate more than most .
New York has added over 1,700 deaths from nursing homes to the pandemic ’ s death toll , a number that will once again call into question a series of decisions made by Gov .
Andrew Cuomo .
Patients and nurses that tested positive got sent back to long-term care facilities , in part to keep from overwhelming other parts of the health-care infrastructure , but those decisions will get a lot more scrutiny now : New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously undisclosed deaths at nursing homes and adult care facilities as the state faces scrutiny over how it ’ s protected vulnerable residents during the coronavirus pandemic .
At least 4,813 people have died from COVID-19 in the state ’ s nursing homes since March 1 , according to a tally released by Gov .
Andrew M. Cuomo ’ s administration late Monday that , for the first time , includes people believed to have been killed by the coronavirus before their diagnoses could be confirmed by a lab test .
Exactly how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertain despite the state ’ s latest disclosure , as the list doesn ’ t nursing home residents who were transferred to hospitals before dying .
That added close to 10 % alone to the state ’ s COVID-19 death tally , which now stands at 19,415 as of 11 am ET .
That ’ s one hell of a jump , even by this pandemic ’ s standards .
To put this admission in context , it outstrips the country ’ s overall total yesterday of 1,176 deaths , and it amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 3,555 .
The question of how to deal with the particularly vulnerable nursing-home population came up early in the COVID-19 response , Newsday notes , when Cuomo pledged on March 2 to make a “ special effort ” to protect them .
Instead , as the New York Times reported ten days ago , Cuomo ordered patients who tested positive to be returned to nursing homes rather than be kept at a hospital , which one resident called “ playing Russian roulette with my life ” : A state guideline says nursing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from hospitals solely because they have the coronavirus .
“ I don ’ t like them playing Russian roulette with my life , ” said Mr. Nibur , who is on oxygen .
“ It ’ s putting us at risk .
I am 80 years old with underlying problems .
Everybody here has an underlying problem.
” … At the epicenter of the outbreak , New York issued a strict new rule last month : Nursing homes must readmit residents sent to hospitals with the coronavirus and accept new patients as long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” To be fair , California and New Jersey put similar policies in place , and that might have been prompted by fears — later unrealized , but certainly reasonable at that time — of running out of bedspace for acute cases .
Cuomo and the state later defended the policy as being in consonance with guidance from Medicare/Medicaid , but Newsday notes that CMS specifically restricted COVID-19 readmissions to nursing homes to those facilities that could ensure against retransmission .
At the same time New York was sending those patients back , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing COVID-positive nurses back to work in nursing homes , as the New York Post reported last week : The state Health Department allowed nurses and other staff who tested positive for the coronavirus to continue treating COVID-19 patients at an upstate nursing home , The Post has learned .
State officials signed off on the move during an April 10 conference call that excluded local officials from Steuben County , who protested the move , according to a document provided by the county government ’ s top administrator , Jack Wheeler .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hornell Gardens nursing home in the tiny town of Hornell since the outbreak , according to county tallies .
State records show just seven deaths across the county and include no data about this home .
Clearly Cuomo will have to answer for those decisions in light of this new data , but perhaps he might need to answer why this data is new at all .
It ’ s a product of better testing capability , surely , but why weren ’ t symptomatic patients diagnosed ?
Did a burst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and/or staff ?
If so , or even if not , how did the circumstances of these deaths get missed at the time , especially when Cuomo had pledged to pay special attention to the situation in nursing-home care ?
Why did all of these get reclassified today — and how many more might be reclassified tomorrow and in succeeding days ?
If Cuomo wants to maintain his political standing , enhanced by his early leadership in the pandemic , he ’ d better provide answers to these questions tout suite .
Otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the worst response to the crisis will start firming up — quickly .

As the reporting on COVID-19 fatalities improve, we should expect some shocks, but this one will reverberate more than most. New York has added over 1,700 deaths from nursing homes to the pandemic’s death toll, a number that will once again call into question a series of decisions made by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Patients and nurses that tested positive got sent back to long-term care facilities, in part to keep from overwhelming other parts of the health-care infrastructure, but those decisions will get a lot more scrutiny now:
New York State is reporting more than 1,700 previously undisclosed deaths at nursing homes and adult care facilities as the state faces scrutiny over how it’s protected vulnerable residents during the coronavirus pandemic. At least 4,813 people have died from COVID-19 in the state’s nursing homes since March 1, according to a tally released by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s administration late Monday that, for the first time, includes people believed to have been killed by the coronavirus before their diagnoses could be confirmed by a lab test. Exactly how many nursing home residents have died remains uncertain despite the state’s latest disclosure, as the list doesn’t nursing home residents who were transferred to hospitals before dying.
That added close to 10% alone to the state’s COVID-19 death tally, which now stands at 19,415 as of 11 am ET. That’s one hell of a jump, even by this pandemic’s standards. To put this admission in context, it outstrips the country’s overall total yesterday of 1,176 deaths, and it amounts to half of the global single-day total of 3,555.
The question of how to deal with the particularly vulnerable nursing-home population came up early in the COVID-19 response, Newsday notes, when Cuomo pledged on March 2 to make a “special effort” to protect them. Instead, as the New York Times reported ten days ago, Cuomo ordered patients who tested positive to be returned to nursing homes rather than be kept at a hospital, which one resident called “playing Russian roulette with my life”:
A state guideline says nursing homes cannot refuse to take patients from hospitals solely because they have the coronavirus. “I don’t like them playing Russian roulette with my life,” said Mr. Nibur, who is on oxygen. “It’s putting us at risk. I am 80 years old with underlying problems. Everybody here has an underlying problem.” … At the epicenter of the outbreak, New York issued a strict new rule last month: Nursing homes must readmit residents sent to hospitals with the coronavirus and accept new patients as long as they are deemed “medically stable.”
To be fair, California and New Jersey put similar policies in place, and that might have been prompted by fears — later unrealized, but certainly reasonable at that time — of running out of bedspace for acute cases. Cuomo and the state later defended the policy as being in consonance with guidance from Medicare/Medicaid, but Newsday notes that CMS specifically restricted COVID-19 readmissions to nursing homes to those facilities that could ensure against retransmission. At the same time New York was sending those patients back, however, it went even further by allowing COVID-positive nurses back to work in nursing homes, as the New York Post reported last week:
The state Health Department allowed nurses and other staff who tested positive for the coronavirus to continue treating COVID-19 patients at an upstate nursing home, The Post has learned. State officials signed off on the move during an April 10 conference call that excluded local officials from Steuben County, who protested the move, according to a document provided by the county government’s top administrator, Jack Wheeler. At least 15 people have died at the Hornell Gardens nursing home in the tiny town of Hornell since the outbreak, according to county tallies. State records show just seven deaths across the county and include no data about this home.
Clearly Cuomo will have to answer for those decisions in light of this new data, but perhaps he might need to answer why this data is new at all. It’s a product of better testing capability, surely, but why weren’t symptomatic patients diagnosed? Did a burst of these occur in facilities with known-positive readmissions and/or staff? If so, or even if not, how did the circumstances of these deaths get missed at the time, especially when Cuomo had pledged to pay special attention to the situation in nursing-home care? Why did all of these get reclassified today — and how many more might be reclassified tomorrow and in succeeding days?
If Cuomo wants to maintain his political standing, enhanced by his early leadership in the pandemic, he’d better provide answers to these questions tout suite. Otherwise, the impression that Cuomo might have had the worst response to the crisis will start firming up — quickly.


hotair--2020-05-05--Where's the beef? Shortages limit burger sales at Wendy's, grocery sales

Remember that 1984 Wendy ’ s commercial with the elderly lady yelling , “ Where ’ s the beef ?
” as she looked at another fast-food chain ’ s hamburger ?
The coronavirus pandemic is causing meat shortages due to processing plant closures and Clara ’ s question may be coming back into our everyday conversations .
Clara Peller , a character actress , became famous for that commercial at the age of 81 .
Some of Wendy ’ s customers are likely repeating Clara ’ s line and wondering why they can ’ t buy a burger as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are available .
This was predicted as the coronavirus spreads across the country .
Meat processing plants are dealing with sick workers and trying to keep operations running so as to limit shortages in the food supply chain .
I ’ ve written several posts about the problem as it has increased .
Those posts weren ’ t meant to fearmonger but to warn of what may be coming down the road .
Now some areas are experiencing meat shortages .
Wendy ’ s uses fresh beef for its burgers and the chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beef prices and shortages in the supply of beef .
According to the report , Wendy ’ s has “ struggled to maintain enough supply this past week ” and to keep up with the demand for its burgers .
Wendy ’ s issued a statement saying that it is closely monitoring the situation .
“ As you ’ ve likely read , there have been challenges among protein suppliers across North America , ” Wendy ’ s spokesperson Heidi Schauer told the outlet : “ We are working closely with our supplier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact to our customers and continue to monitor this closely.
” Some Wendy ’ s are only able to serve chicken while others are limiting burger sales to only the smaller ones .
A customer in Warren , Michigan tweeted a picture of a sign posted at one of the restaurants .
Other fast-food chains aren ’ t experiencing shortages yet and are hoping to stay ahead of the situation .
There is optimism that prices may be coming back down soon and that this is the peak time of any shortages that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McDonald ’ s and Restaurant Brands International , which owns Burger King , told Restaurant Business that they don ’ t expect any shortages , but RBI said it ’ s obviously on the company ’ s mind .
“ It ’ s something we ’ re very acutely aware of , ” said CEO of RBI Jose Cil on the company ’ s first-quarter earnings call .
“ We ’ re monitoring on an hour and daily basis .
Obviously , we ’ re working closely with suppliers to make sure we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has encouraged meat processing plants to re-open via an executive order last week and as plants begin to operate again ( and take measures to protect employees ) , prices are expected to improve in the next few weeks executive vice president of analytics for Arrowstream David Maloni told Restaurant Business .
“ The worst of it might be right now , ” he said .
There is no shortage of fast-food establishments , no one is in danger of not being able to buy a hamburger .
What some of Wendy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the result of what is happening at the other end of the food chain supply , as was predicted .
Some grocery stores announced Monday that they are limiting the amount of meat that customers are allowed to purchase in one trip , too , to head off panic shopping .
Grocery chains Costco , Kroger and others announced temporary limits on meat items , and meat producer Tyson Foods warned Monday that more meat processing plants would be closing due to COVID-19 outbreaks .
Costco said on the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and poultry was being classified as “ high-demand merchandise ” and limited meat purchases to “ a total of 3 items per member.
” Kroger supermarkets stores may have limited inventory “ due to high demand , ” the company warned on the meat section of its website .
Customers were limited to two items of chicken breasts and some pork products .
Limits in purchases of fresh meat were announced by HEB in Texas on Friday .
And Tyson Foods said on an investor call Monday that slowdowns and temporary closures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat shortages are showing up now but the problem looks to be a temporary one .
That ’ s good news .
As long as shoppers don ’ t overreact and panic buy what is available in grocery stores , it should be a manageable shortage .
We don ’ t need what happened to toilet paper supplies to happen to meat supplies .
With more people cooking at home during the sheltering in place phase of the coronavirus pandemic , demand has been stronger .
Once processing plants began to close , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before consumers began to feel the effect .

Remember that 1984 Wendy’s commercial with the elderly lady yelling, “Where’s the beef?” as she looked at another fast-food chain’s hamburger? The coronavirus pandemic is causing meat shortages due to processing plant closures and Clara’s question may be coming back into our everyday conversations.
Clara Peller, a character actress, became famous for that commercial at the age of 81. Some of Wendy’s customers are likely repeating Clara’s line and wondering why they can’t buy a burger as they see signs noting only chicken choices are available. This was predicted as the coronavirus spreads across the country. Meat processing plants are dealing with sick workers and trying to keep operations running so as to limit shortages in the food supply chain. I’ve written several posts about the problem as it has increased. Those posts weren’t meant to fearmonger but to warn of what may be coming down the road. Now some areas are experiencing meat shortages.
Wendy’s uses fresh beef for its burgers and the chain is struggling to keep up with rising beef prices and shortages in the supply of beef.
According to the report, Wendy’s has “struggled to maintain enough supply this past week” and to keep up with the demand for its burgers. Wendy’s issued a statement saying that it is closely monitoring the situation. “As you’ve likely read, there have been challenges among protein suppliers across North America,” Wendy’s spokesperson Heidi Schauer told the outlet: “We are working closely with our supplier partners and restaurant teams to minimize the impact to our customers and continue to monitor this closely.”
Some Wendy’s are only able to serve chicken while others are limiting burger sales to only the smaller ones. A customer in Warren, Michigan tweeted a picture of a sign posted at one of the restaurants.
WARREN DRIVE THRU: “I went there for lunch to grab the kids some frosties & everything. They were just like we don’t have any beef today.” @Wendys customer responds to #beef shortage at fast food location at 10 mile & Ryan. @wxyzdetroit #coronavirus #10PM #11PM pic.twitter.com/DCABuSGD8j — Simon Shaykhet WXYZ (@simonshaykhet) May 5, 2020
Other fast-food chains aren’t experiencing shortages yet and are hoping to stay ahead of the situation. There is optimism that prices may be coming back down soon and that this is the peak time of any shortages that may arise from plant closures.
Both McDonald’s and Restaurant Brands International, which owns Burger King, told Restaurant Business that they don’t expect any shortages, but RBI said it’s obviously on the company’s mind. “It’s something we’re very acutely aware of,” said CEO of RBI Jose Cil on the company’s first-quarter earnings call. “We’re monitoring on an hour and daily basis. Obviously, we’re working closely with suppliers to make sure we have our contingency plan.” President Donald Trump has encouraged meat processing plants to re-open via an executive order last week and as plants begin to operate again (and take measures to protect employees), prices are expected to improve in the next few weeks executive vice president of analytics for Arrowstream David Maloni told Restaurant Business. “The worst of it might be right now,” he said.
There is no shortage of fast-food establishments, no one is in danger of not being able to buy a hamburger. What some of Wendy’s restaurants are experiencing, though, is the result of what is happening at the other end of the food chain supply, as was predicted. Some grocery stores announced Monday that they are limiting the amount of meat that customers are allowed to purchase in one trip, too, to head off panic shopping.
Grocery chains Costco, Kroger and others announced temporary limits on meat items, and meat producer Tyson Foods warned Monday that more meat processing plants would be closing due to COVID-19 outbreaks. Costco said on the company’s website that fresh beef, pork and poultry was being classified as “high-demand merchandise” and limited meat purchases to “a total of 3 items per member.” Kroger supermarkets stores may have limited inventory “due to high demand,” the company warned on the meat section of its website. Customers were limited to two items of chicken breasts and some pork products.
Limits in purchases of fresh meat were announced by HEB in Texas on Friday. And Tyson Foods said on an investor call Monday that slowdowns and temporary closures of processing plants may continue.
Texas-based H.E.B. grocery chain announced Friday that stores would limit packages of fresh meat to five per customer. “To help protect the supply chain in Texas, we’ve implemented temporary purchase limits on certain items,” the company said on its website.
So, meat shortages are showing up now but the problem looks to be a temporary one. That’s good news. As long as shoppers don’t overreact and panic buy what is available in grocery stores, it should be a manageable shortage. We don’t need what happened to toilet paper supplies to happen to meat supplies. With more people cooking at home during the sheltering in place phase of the coronavirus pandemic, demand has been stronger. Once processing plants began to close, it was just a matter of time before consumers began to feel the effect.