hotair--2020-04-22--More on those antibody studies from Santa Clara and LA County

Monday I wrote about a new antibody study carried out in LA County which concluded that around 4 percent of the county had already developed antibodies to the virus .
That would work out to around 224,000 people in the county who have had the virus and either had very mild symptoms or none at all .
That study and an earlier one from Santa Clara County which reached similar conclusions seemed to indicate that the death rate of the virus could be much lower than previously believed , maybe between 0.1 and 0.2 percent .
But there are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me want to give them a second look .
The first point comes from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo .
In a post he wrote yesterday , he points out that both the Santa Clara and LA County studies were organized by a pair of doctors from Stanford .
Here ’ s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya touting the results of the Santa Clara study : The problem , as Marshall points out is that this low death rate Dr. Bhattacharya arrives at doesn ’ t seem possible when you look at the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restate this , if you assume a death rate like what the Santa Clara and LA County studies suggest , then to get to the actual death toll reported in New York City , you have to assume very close to 100 percent of the city has been infected with the virus already .
Not even the Swedes would believe those numbers without some strong evidence .
And if you assume that everyone in NYC has not had the virus yet , then that means the actual death rate is higher than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is that the actual death toll in NYC seems to be sending us a signal that the death rate calculated from the Santa Clara and LA County studies isn ’ t accurate .
Those studies calculated the death rate based upon the results to antibody tests in those counties .
In Santa Clara they tested 3,330 people and got 50 positive results .
But there are some potential problems with the study .
The most significant problem was pointed out in detail by Columbia statistician Andrew Gellman on his blog .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specificity , ” of the antibody tests used .
If X % of the population have the antibodies and the test has an error rate that ’ s not a lot lower than X % , you ’ re in big trouble .
This doesn ’ t mean you shouldn ’ t do testing , but it does mean you need to interpret the results carefully… Specificity .
.
.
measures the proportion of actual negatives that are correctly identified as such.
” OK , here [ our ] concern is actual negatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s relevant is the specificity… If the specificity is 90 % , we ’ re sunk .
With a 90 % specificity , you ’ d expect to see 333 positive tests out of 3330 , even if nobody had the antibodies at all .
Indeed , they only saw 50 positives , that is , 1.5 % , so we can be pretty sure that the specificity is at least 98.5 % .
If the specificity were 98.5 % , the observed data would be consistent with zero… On the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then we could take the result at face value .
The manufacturer of the test put the specificity at 99.46 percent , which sounds pretty good .
But Gellman concludes that when you add a standard 95 % confidence interval to that figure there ’ s a small possibility that all of the positive results in the Santa Clara study ( again 50 positives out of 3,330 tests ) could have been false positives .
It ’ s pretty unlikely that all of the positives were false positives but even if 1/3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevalence of the virus drops dramatically and the death rate jumps up .
The point is that the accuracy of the test used ( that photo above shows the actual test used in LA County ) has a lot to do with the results when the number of actual positives is this small .
One possible solution would be to re-contact those 50 people who tested positive in Santa Clara ( or the similar number who tested positive in LA County ) and perform a more accurate lab test to verify the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help pin down the specificity of the test .
Unfortunately , all of this is pretty important .
If the coronavirus is only slightly more deadly than the seasonal flu that could result in one set of policies to manage it .
If on the other hand it is five times deadlier than the seasonal flu ( or higher ) , that would probably have a significant impact on the kind of mediation efforts the public is willing to tolerate , i.e .
masks , social distancing , the duration of stay-at-home orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business will depend on getting accurate answers to these questions .

Monday I wrote about a new antibody study carried out in LA County which concluded that around 4 percent of the county had already developed antibodies to the virus. That would work out to around 224,000 people in the county who have had the virus and either had very mild symptoms or none at all. That study and an earlier one from Santa Clara County which reached similar conclusions seemed to indicate that the death rate of the virus could be much lower than previously believed, maybe between 0.1 and 0.2 percent.
But there are some potential problems with those results which made me want to give them a second look. The first point comes from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. In a post he wrote yesterday, he points out that both the Santa Clara and LA County studies were organized by a pair of doctors from Stanford. Here’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya touting the results of the Santa Clara study:
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford School of Medicine, from Uncommon Knowledge pic.twitter.com/B6HByva5ZW — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) April 21, 2020
The problem, as Marshall points out is that this low death rate Dr. Bhattacharya arrives at doesn’t seem possible when you look at the actual death toll in New York:
The numbers are straightforward: as of two days ago, there were 9,101 lab confirmed cases and 4,582 presumptive diagnosed cases for a total of 13,683 fatalities In New York City. The population of New York City is 8,398,748. That comes to either .11% or .16% depending on which death toll number is used.
To restate this, if you assume a death rate like what the Santa Clara and LA County studies suggest, then to get to the actual death toll reported in New York City, you have to assume very close to 100 percent of the city has been infected with the virus already. Not even the Swedes would believe those numbers without some strong evidence. And if you assume that everyone in NYC has not had the virus yet, then that means the actual death rate is higher than the Santa Clara study claims:
Even if we assume what I think most experts would consider the highly unlikely possibility that 50% of New Yorkers have been infected with COVID19 that would mean a .33% IFR. To be generous, let’s say a third of the population of New York City had already been infected with COVID19 – very high but not inconceivable. That would mean a IFR of .49%.
The point here is that the actual death toll in NYC seems to be sending us a signal that the death rate calculated from the Santa Clara and LA County studies isn’t accurate. Those studies calculated the death rate based upon the results to antibody tests in those counties. In Santa Clara they tested 3,330 people and got 50 positive results. But there are some potential problems with the study. The most significant problem was pointed out in detail by Columbia statistician Andrew Gellman on his blog. It involves the accuracy, technically the “specificity,” of the antibody tests used.
If X% of the population have the antibodies and the test has an error rate that’s not a lot lower than X%, you’re in big trouble. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do testing, but it does mean you need to interpret the results carefully… Specificity . . . measures the proportion of actual negatives that are correctly identified as such.” OK, here [our] concern is actual negatives who are misclassified, so what’s relevant is the specificity… If the specificity is 90%, we’re sunk. With a 90% specificity, you’d expect to see 333 positive tests out of 3330, even if nobody had the antibodies at all. Indeed, they only saw 50 positives, that is, 1.5%, so we can be pretty sure that the specificity is at least 98.5%. If the specificity were 98.5%, the observed data would be consistent with zero… On the other hand, if the specificity were 100%, then we could take the result at face value.
The manufacturer of the test put the specificity at 99.46 percent, which sounds pretty good. But Gellman concludes that when you add a standard 95% confidence interval to that figure there’s a small possibility that all of the positive results in the Santa Clara study (again 50 positives out of 3,330 tests) could have been false positives.
If the specificity data in the paper are consistent with all the tests being false positives—not that we believe all the tests are false positives, but this suggests we can’t then estimate the true positive rate with any precision—then how do they get a confidence nonzero estimate of the true positive rate in the population?…
It’s pretty unlikely that all of the positives were false positives but even if 1/3 of the positives were false the estimated prevalence of the virus drops dramatically and the death rate jumps up. The point is that the accuracy of the test used (that photo above shows the actual test used in LA County) has a lot to do with the results when the number of actual positives is this small.
One possible solution would be to re-contact those 50 people who tested positive in Santa Clara (or the similar number who tested positive in LA County) and perform a more accurate lab test to verify the results of the field test. That might help pin down the specificity of the test.
Unfortunately, all of this is pretty important. If the coronavirus is only slightly more deadly than the seasonal flu that could result in one set of policies to manage it. If on the other hand it is five times deadlier than the seasonal flu (or higher), that would probably have a significant impact on the kind of mediation efforts the public is willing to tolerate, i.e. masks, social distancing, the duration of stay-at-home orders. How soon the country re-opens for business will depend on getting accurate answers to these questions.


hotair--2020-04-22--How hotel stays and more will change in the post-pandemic world

In today ’ s edition of how the novel coronavirus is changing our world , I ’ ll direct your attention to the business section of NBC News and an article about how hotels are changing their practices while dealing with the pandemic .
It ’ s affecting everything from the way you check in and out to the amenities and services found in the guest ’ s rooms and the hotel restaurants and bars .
But it turns out that these may not be temporary measures .
Even once the virus has run its course ( assuming it ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at making most of these changes their new normal .
A hotel stay that doesn ’ t include a breakfast buffet , an in-room minibar and a coffee station would have been inconceivable to many Americans three months ago .
But the onset of the coronavirus has prompted a sea change that could alter everything from how guests check in and eat to how rooms are cleaned .
Hotel experts predict that the pandemic will drastically alter hotel stays in coming months , prompting many properties to embrace a host of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks upon guests ’ arrivals .
“ Hotels tend to be a reactive business , ” said Chekitan Dev , a professor of marketing and branding at Cornell University ’ s School of Hotel Administration .
“ It ’ s taken COVID-19 for a lot of hotels to take a harder look at safety procedures and to up their game.
” Going forward , you may be checking in and out without ever coming within six feet of a clerk or concierge , nor handing credit cards or room keys back and forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise as additional staffing is required to enact more stringent disinfection procedures after each guest departs .
The mini-bar may be a thing of the past unless everything in it can be completely sterilized .
Restaurant layouts will likely change and robots will probably be bringing your food and drinks out from the kitchens .
And forget sitting at a bar with a crowd of other guests .
Everyone will have to have their own table .
Many of these functions are the same ones I addressed when recently writing about how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate .
And they ’ re not the only ones .
At the Four Seasons in New York City , one of the premier hotels in the country , elevator rides are now restricted to one person or family group at a time .
There are no in-person check-in options .
It ’ s all done online .
There ’ s no more room service and both the restaurant and the complimentary coffee station are closed indefinitely .
And those things may not be coming back even after this wave of COVID-19 has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very likely changing before our eyes .
There have already been serious discussions about permanently doing away with the tradition of shaking hands .
Perhaps we ’ ll all bow to each other in Asian fashion .
And you can forget about hugs when greeting non-family members .
( Joe Biden will likely be the hardest hit . )
Will there still be saunas , public gyms or swimming pools ?
And don ’ t even get me started on bowling alleys .
Just think of the number of transmission points involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same bowling ball holes and rent shoes .
Yeesh .
Those will probably be a distant memory .
But does it make sense at this point to simply go back to the way things were and pretend all of this never happened ?
If we ’ ve learned one thing from the ongoing coronavirus saga , it ’ s that there will always be another pandemic sooner or later .
And when it arrives , it will do so on silent paws , spreading far and wide before we even realize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And yet , some of us ( like me , I think ) don ’ t want to see the world turn into a permanent Stephen King movie .
Particularly for men , shaking hands is woven into our culture and how we relate to each other .
Hugging friends and loved ones is more than just a tradition or a gesture .
It ’ s part of how we bond .
Sitting at the hotel bar at the end of the day on a business trip is a cultural excursion far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of martinis .
And I used to love bowling when I was younger , darn it !
But I ’ m old and stuck in my ways .
Perhaps this is just what the new world will have to look like .
But if so , I ’ m sure going to miss the old one .

In today’s edition of how the novel coronavirus is changing our world, I’ll direct your attention to the business section of NBC News and an article about how hotels are changing their practices while dealing with the pandemic. It’s affecting everything from the way you check in and out to the amenities and services found in the guest’s rooms and the hotel restaurants and bars. But it turns out that these may not be temporary measures. Even once the virus has run its course (assuming it ever really does), these businesses are looking at making most of these changes their new normal.
A hotel stay that doesn’t include a breakfast buffet, an in-room minibar and a coffee station would have been inconceivable to many Americans three months ago. But the onset of the coronavirus has prompted a sea change that could alter everything from how guests check in and eat to how rooms are cleaned. Hotel experts predict that the pandemic will drastically alter hotel stays in coming months, prompting many properties to embrace a host of new practices, up to and including temperature checks upon guests’ arrivals. “Hotels tend to be a reactive business,” said Chekitan Dev, a professor of marketing and branding at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration. “It’s taken COVID-19 for a lot of hotels to take a harder look at safety procedures and to up their game.”
Going forward, you may be checking in and out without ever coming within six feet of a clerk or concierge, nor handing credit cards or room keys back and forth with another human being. Prices may rise as additional staffing is required to enact more stringent disinfection procedures after each guest departs. The mini-bar may be a thing of the past unless everything in it can be completely sterilized. Restaurant layouts will likely change and robots will probably be bringing your food and drinks out from the kitchens. And forget sitting at a bar with a crowd of other guests. Everyone will have to have their own table.
Many of these functions are the same ones I addressed when recently writing about how the casinos in Las Vegas can reopen and operate. And they’re not the only ones. At the Four Seasons in New York City, one of the premier hotels in the country, elevator rides are now restricted to one person or family group at a time. There are no in-person check-in options. It’s all done online. There’s no more room service and both the restaurant and the complimentary coffee station are closed indefinitely. And those things may not be coming back even after this wave of COVID-19 has ended.
Normal interactions across society are very likely changing before our eyes. There have already been serious discussions about permanently doing away with the tradition of shaking hands. Perhaps we’ll all bow to each other in Asian fashion. And you can forget about hugs when greeting non-family members. (Joe Biden will likely be the hardest hit.)
Will there still be saunas, public gyms or swimming pools? And don’t even get me started on bowling alleys. Just think of the number of transmission points involved in a business where people stick their fingers in the same bowling ball holes and rent shoes. Yeesh. Those will probably be a distant memory.
But does it make sense at this point to simply go back to the way things were and pretend all of this never happened? If we’ve learned one thing from the ongoing coronavirus saga, it’s that there will always be another pandemic sooner or later. And when it arrives, it will do so on silent paws, spreading far and wide before we even realize that the enemy is at our gates.
And yet, some of us (like me, I think) don’t want to see the world turn into a permanent Stephen King movie. Particularly for men, shaking hands is woven into our culture and how we relate to each other. Hugging friends and loved ones is more than just a tradition or a gesture. It’s part of how we bond. Sitting at the hotel bar at the end of the day on a business trip is a cultural excursion far more than just an excuse to have a couple of martinis. And I used to love bowling when I was younger, darn it!
But I’m old and stuck in my ways. Perhaps this is just what the new world will have to look like. But if so, I’m sure going to miss the old one.


hotair--2020-04-22--Trump to Harvard: Give back the COVID relief money; Update: Harvard capitul

Trump to Harvard: Give back the COVID relief money; Update: Harvard capitulates

Here ’ s a deep philosophical question : If a $ 40 billion organization applies for a government bailout in a forest and no one ’ s around to question it , does the cash flow make a sound ?
Sadly , we will never have a chance to learn the answer to that question .
Yesterday , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin hailed Shake Shack — market cap $ 1.7 billion — for belatedly coming to its senses and agreeing to return $ 10 million it got from the Paycheck Protection Program .
What about an organization that has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similar amount of money from other programs in the CARES Act rather than the PPP , but Trump demanded that they give that money back , too .
“ They shouldn ’ t have taken it , ” Trump declared in yesterday ’ s briefing , and late last night emphasized the point : President Donald Trump demanded again that Harvard pay back the $ 8.6 million it received under a stimulus package to ease the economic impact of the coronavirus lockdown – hours after the school said it planned to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back the money now .
Their whole ‘ endowment ’ system should be looked at !
” the president said in a tweet late Tuesday .
Earlier in the day , the world ’ s wealthiest university tweeted that it was allocated the money as part of the historic $ 2.2 trillion package passed last month to stimulate the collapsing economy .
Harvard claims that the $ 9 million-plus it got from CARES Act funds will go to students for financial aid .
Forbes sounds skeptical that this was the original plan as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broad range of skeptics running from HuffPost and Trevor Noah all the way to Trump , and Harvard won ’ t say when and how that decision was made : Harvard is under attack for the $ 9 million in stimulus money it ’ s getting from the federal government .
“ America ’ s Richest University Grabs Nearly $ 9 Million In Taxpayer Aid , ” blasted a Huffington Post headline yesterday .
On Comedy Central last night , Trevor Noah said Harvard was “ just being greedy.
” Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should have gone to “ a small business that actually needs the money.
” But according to a statement emailed late yesterday by spokesman Jason Newton , Harvard won ’ t use any of its $ 9 million stimulus check to make up for losses it has absorbed since it moved classes online in mid-March .
“ Harvard is actually allocating 100 % of the funds to financial assistance for students to meet their urgent needs in the face of this pandemic , ” says the statement .
How did Harvard decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who made the call , and when ?
Was it in response to criticism ?
“ I ’ m not going to get into when the decision was made , ” says Newton .
Harvard declined repeated requests to interview President Lawrence Bacow and other university officials .
Even this explanation is nonsense .
How many Harvard students need this much financial aid ?
This ain ’ t exactly State U , after all .
Harvard students already live on campus , and the neediest are almost certainly on full scholarships anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expenses .
Most of their students come from families that can afford to support their children even in tough times .
Even if this money was needed , however , $ 9 million represents 0.0225 % of Harvard ’ s overall endowment .
Come on , man .
Needless to say , this is a *chef ’ s-kiss* perfect fight for Trump to pick .
He ’ s a populist president with a mostly conservative agenda taking on the bastion of Progressive Academia and elitist snobs , and depantsing them as hypocritical and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that Congress passed a law that allowed for this to happen in the first place , just the same way Shake Shack took advantage of PPP , but that ’ s Congress ’ issue , not Trump ’ s .
This is perhaps the juiciest of all limousine-liberal examples , and it ’ s a wide-open opportunity for Trump to repay all of the disgust and scorn dumped on him by Academia and the progressive elite .
Expect him to run with this for a long , long time .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free pass to other such corporations and organizations to get out of the line of fire .
If companies with plenty of capital follow Shake Shack ’ s example and return the cash , there won ’ t be any need to name and shame them later .
Or worse .
This amnesty sounds like a one-time-only offer from Mnuchin , who hints that legal consequences may soon follow to claw back that cash less voluntarily .
Update : Harvard surrendered this afternoon , albeit reluctantly .
Still claiming that they would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard now doesn ’ t want to be a distraction , or something : Harvard is grudgingly giving up nearly $ 9 million in coronavirus relief after President Trump called out the elite university over federal aid awarded to schools as others are fighting for their economic lives .
The university announced Wednesday afternoon the school “ has decided not to seek or accept the funds allocated to it by statute ” as part of the nation ’ s Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund .
“ We have previously said that Harvard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial challenges due to the pandemic and economic crisis it has caused , ” the school said .
“ We are also concerned however , that the intense focus by politicians and others on Harvard in connection with this program may undermine participation in a relief effort that Congress created and the President signed into law for the purpose of helping students and institutions whose financial challenges in the coming months may be most severe , ” the statement adds .
Harvard said they will inform federal education officials of their decision “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special consideration will be given to Massachusetts institutions that are struggling to serve their communities and meet the needs of their students.
” You know who else could help out ?
Harvard and its $ 40 billion endowment .
Nine million here , nine million there , and pretty soon it would add up to , er … maybe 0.1 % of their nest egg .
The most unkindest cut of all came from the fellow Ivy League school a bit to the south :

Here’s a deep philosophical question: If a $40 billion organization applies for a government bailout in a forest and no one’s around to question it, does the cash flow make a sound? Sadly, we will never have a chance to learn the answer to that question. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin hailed Shake Shack — market cap $1.7 billion — for belatedly coming to its senses and agreeing to return $10 million it got from the Paycheck Protection Program.
What about an organization that has a $40 billion endowment? Harvard got a similar amount of money from other programs in the CARES Act rather than the PPP, but Trump demanded that they give that money back, too. “They shouldn’t have taken it,” Trump declared in yesterday’s briefing, and late last night emphasized the point:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1252803444844494854
President Donald Trump demanded again that Harvard pay back the $8.6 million it received under a stimulus package to ease the economic impact of the coronavirus lockdown – hours after the school said it planned to keep the funds. “Harvard should give back the money now. Their whole ‘endowment’ system should be looked at!” the president said in a tweet late Tuesday. Earlier in the day, the world’s wealthiest university tweeted that it was allocated the money as part of the historic $2.2 trillion package passed last month to stimulate the collapsing economy.
Harvard claims that the $9 million-plus it got from CARES Act funds will go to students for financial aid. Forbes sounds skeptical that this was the original plan as opposed to a response to criticism from a broad range of skeptics running from HuffPost and Trevor Noah all the way to Trump, and Harvard won’t say when and how that decision was made:
Harvard is under attack for the $9 million in stimulus money it’s getting from the federal government. “America’s Richest University Grabs Nearly $9 Million In Taxpayer Aid,” blasted a Huffington Post headline yesterday. On Comedy Central last night, Trevor Noah said Harvard was “just being greedy.” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that Harvard was getting cash that should have gone to “a small business that actually needs the money.” But according to a statement emailed late yesterday by spokesman Jason Newton, Harvard won’t use any of its $9 million stimulus check to make up for losses it has absorbed since it moved classes online in mid-March. “Harvard is actually allocating 100% of the funds to financial assistance for students to meet their urgent needs in the face of this pandemic,” says the statement. How did Harvard decide to pass all the money to students, who made the call, and when? Was it in response to criticism? “I’m not going to get into when the decision was made,” says Newton. Harvard declined repeated requests to interview President Lawrence Bacow and other university officials.
Even this explanation is nonsense. How many Harvard students need this much financial aid? This ain’t exactly State U, after all. Harvard students already live on campus, and the neediest are almost certainly on full scholarships anyway, given the high tuitions and living expenses. Most of their students come from families that can afford to support their children even in tough times. Even if this money was needed, however, $9 million represents 0.0225% of Harvard’s overall endowment. Come on, man.
Needless to say, this is a *chef’s-kiss* perfect fight for Trump to pick. He’s a populist president with a mostly conservative agenda taking on the bastion of Progressive Academia and elitist snobs, and depantsing them as hypocritical and corrupt. One has to overlook the fact that Congress passed a law that allowed for this to happen in the first place, just the same way Shake Shack took advantage of PPP, but that’s Congress’ issue, not Trump’s. This is perhaps the juiciest of all limousine-liberal examples, and it’s a wide-open opportunity for Trump to repay all of the disgust and scorn dumped on him by Academia and the progressive elite. Expect him to run with this for a long, long time.
However, Mnuchin and Trump did allow for a free pass to other such corporations and organizations to get out of the line of fire. If companies with plenty of capital follow Shake Shack’s example and return the cash, there won’t be any need to name and shame them later. Or worse. This amnesty sounds like a one-time-only offer from Mnuchin, who hints that legal consequences may soon follow to claw back that cash less voluntarily.
Update: Harvard surrendered this afternoon, albeit reluctantly. Still claiming that they would have put the money to good use, Harvard now doesn’t want to be a distraction, or something:
Harvard is grudgingly giving up nearly $9 million in coronavirus relief after President Trump called out the elite university over federal aid awarded to schools as others are fighting for their economic lives. The university announced Wednesday afternoon the school “has decided not to seek or accept the funds allocated to it by statute” as part of the nation’s Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. “We have previously said that Harvard, like other institutions, will face significant financial challenges due to the pandemic and economic crisis it has caused,” the school said. “We are also concerned however, that the intense focus by politicians and others on Harvard in connection with this program may undermine participation in a relief effort that Congress created and the President signed into law for the purpose of helping students and institutions whose financial challenges in the coming months may be most severe,” the statement adds. Harvard said they will inform federal education officials of their decision “immediately,” adding they hope “special consideration will be given to Massachusetts institutions that are struggling to serve their communities and meet the needs of their students.”
You know who else could help out? Harvard and its $40 billion endowment. Nine million here, nine million there, and pretty soon it would add up to, er … maybe 0.1% of their nest egg.
The most unkindest cut of all came from the fellow Ivy League school a bit to the south:
#PrincetonU has determined it will not accept funding allocated under the CARES Act. Princeton has not yet received any of these funds, and never requested any of these funds. pic.twitter.com/En4nhqyqkc — Princeton University (@Princeton) April 22, 2020
Ouch, baby, very ouch.


hotair--2020-04-22--First U.S. coronavirus death happened weeks earlier than previously thought

Back on February 29 , health officials in Washington state reported the first known death from coronavirus in the United States .
The person who died was a man in his 50s with underlying health conditions , and there was no evidence he contracted the virus through travel , health officials said .
They suspect domestic “ community spread ” of the disease , a new phase for the United States that began this week on the West Coast .
But it turns out that was not accurate .
Santa Clara County announced today that it had identified three deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which happened before February 29 .
In fact , the first newly identified death happened on February 6th , more than three weeks before the death in Washington state which America was told was the first of its kind : The Medical Examiner-Coroner performed autopsies on two individuals who died at home on February 6 , 2020 and February 17 , 2020 .
Samples from the two individuals were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Today , the Medical Examiner-Coroner received confirmation from the CDC that tissue samples from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus that causes COVID-19 ) … These three individuals died at home during a time when very limited testing was available only through the CDC .
Testing criteria set by the CDC at the time restricted testing to only individuals with a known travel history and who sought medical care for specific symptoms .
As the Medical Examiner-Coroner continues to carefully investigate deaths throughout the county , we anticipate additional deaths from COVID-19 will be identified .
February 6th was around the time when state labs were realizing that test kits manufactured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work properly .
Investigation would later clarify that one third of the CDC test had been contaminated with the virus during production , meaning it produced a false positive .
It took weeks before the problem with the test were straightened out by the FDA and , as a result , America had very little testing in the month of February .
In the long run , it seems the story of the coronavirus is going to wind up being the story of story of Santa Clara County .
Santa Clara @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the virus .
In early March a small study of a few hundred people convinced officials that more needed to be done to prevent the spread of the virus .
That study led five other Bay Area counties to join Santa Clara in the first shelter-at-home order in the country .
That became a model for the entire state a few days later and many other states followed California ’ s lead .
More recently , Santa Clara became the site of a new antibody study which suggested many more people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll have more to say about that in my next post .

Back on February 29, health officials in Washington state reported the first known death from coronavirus in the United States.
The person who died was a man in his 50s with underlying health conditions, and there was no evidence he contracted the virus through travel, health officials said. They suspect domestic “community spread” of the disease, a new phase for the United States that began this week on the West Coast.
But it turns out that was not accurate. Santa Clara County announced today that it had identified three deaths linked to the virus, two of which happened before February 29. In fact, the first newly identified death happened on February 6th, more than three weeks before the death in Washington state which America was told was the first of its kind:
The Medical Examiner-Coroner performed autopsies on two individuals who died at home on February 6, 2020 and February 17, 2020. Samples from the two individuals were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Today, the Medical Examiner-Coroner received confirmation from the CDC that tissue samples from both cases are positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19)… These three individuals died at home during a time when very limited testing was available only through the CDC. Testing criteria set by the CDC at the time restricted testing to only individuals with a known travel history and who sought medical care for specific symptoms. As the Medical Examiner-Coroner continues to carefully investigate deaths throughout the county, we anticipate additional deaths from COVID-19 will be identified.
February 6th was around the time when state labs were realizing that test kits manufactured and sent out by the CDC didn’t work properly. Investigation would later clarify that one third of the CDC test had been contaminated with the virus during production, meaning it produced a false positive. It took weeks before the problem with the test were straightened out by the FDA and, as a result, America had very little testing in the month of February.
In the long run, it seems the story of the coronavirus is going to wind up being the story of story of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara probably had one of the earliest deaths from the virus. In early March a small study of a few hundred people convinced officials that more needed to be done to prevent the spread of the virus. That study led five other Bay Area counties to join Santa Clara in the first shelter-at-home order in the country. That became a model for the entire state a few days later and many other states followed California’s lead.
More recently, Santa Clara became the site of a new antibody study which suggested many more people have had the virus than we know. I’ll have more to say about that in my next post.


hotair--2020-04-22--CDC director: Next winter's COVID-19 season could be even worse

Will we have to do this all over again at Christmas ?
Allahpundit mentioned this last night in a roundup but it ’ s worth a closer look , at least for the economic implications .
Dr. Robert Redfield warned that we could wind up facing tough decisions this winter , not so much because the coronavirus would get worse but because we might have two epidemics to deal with .
Well , he can just rock me to sleep tonight , then : “ There ’ s a possibility that the assault of the virus on our nation next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the one we just went through , ” CDC Director Robert Redfield said in an interview with The Washington Post .
“ And when I ’ ve said this to others , they kind of put their head back , they don ’ t understand what I mean.
” “ We ’ re going to have the flu epidemic and the coronavirus epidemic at the same time , ” he said .
Having two simultaneous respiratory outbreaks would put unimaginable strain on the health-care system , he said .
The first wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus , has already killed more than 42,000 people across the country .
It has overwhelmed hospitals and revealed gaping shortages in test kits , ventilators and protective equipment for health-care workers .
In a wide-ranging interview , Redfield said federal and state officials need to use the coming months to prepare for what lies ahead .
As stay-at-home orders are lifted , officials need to stress the continued importance of social distancing , he said .
They also need to massively scale up their ability to identify the infected through testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing .
Doing so prevents new cases from becoming larger outbreaks .
It ’ s certainly possible , but is it probable ?
Redfield bases this warning on two assumptions : that the coming flu season will be as bad as possible , and that we will have not made any progress in treating or preventing the spread of COVID-19 .
Don ’ t forget that we were in the middle of flu season when COVID-19 hit the US — closer to it than we thought , as we ’ ll note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly that we mistook it as part of the flu here at first .
The next influenza strain might be worse , or it might not be as bad , too .
What about our status with COVID-19 ?
It might be as weak as it is now , too , but that would be highly disappointing , to say the least , and fairly unlikely .
For one thing , we will have plenty of testing in place by then — probably so in a month or less , and that production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
We ’ re just a few weeks before an FDA-authorized nasal swab diagnostic test for home use will become widely available .
Some of the testing capacity issues are in the distribution channel and not production , as FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn explained this morning : Other production channels for tamping down the spread are also going to keep expanding as the year progresses .
We will have much better capacity for PPE in hospitals and clinics , for instance , as well as ventilators for the worst cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as health-care workers get their inventory stocked up too .
All of that will slow down the spread ( of both flu and COVID-19 , actually ) even apart from the development of therapeutic remedies and hopefully a clinically proven vaccine , although expecting the latter before Christmas really does require a belief in Santa Claus .
Plus , we are seeing data that COVID-19 might be more prevalent in the population now than previously thought .
It ’ s nowhere near prevalent enough to confer “ herd immunity , ” but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited .
The CDC has now identified two COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara from early February as the first US deaths from the disease , and neither of those victims had any known vectors to travel in China .
They both appear to be cases of community spread , as NBC notes in its report : That ’ s a good news/bad news development .
The bad news is that we may continue to see more community spread for a while because we might not have identified the spreaders quickly enough .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community spread beginning a month earlier than assumed , we didn ’ t see a sudden explosion of excess mortality .
That suggests that the mortality rate might be lower than thought — but almost certainly still far more lethal than most if not all influenza strains , and still more serious even for the recovered .
The purpose of the “ shutdown ” strategy was to get all the pieces in place to deal with a pandemic .
We will have that shortly , perhaps within weeks , and we will also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tamp down transmission even further .
If what Redfield says is true or even probable , then we need to reopen ASAP to generate enough economic activity to produce the rest of what we ’ ll need over the winter and tide us over while people increase social-distancing techniques over the Christmas season and winter .
We need to start making the engines of American ingenuity work for us again to prepare for a long winter — but hopefully a manageable one , now that we ’ re preparing for it rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Will we have to do this all over again at Christmas? Allahpundit mentioned this last night in a roundup but it’s worth a closer look, at least for the economic implications. Dr. Robert Redfield warned that we could wind up facing tough decisions this winter, not so much because the coronavirus would get worse but because we might have two epidemics to deal with.
Well, he can just rock me to sleep tonight, then:
The director of the CDC is warning that a second wave of coronavirus next winter could be even worse than the first. This, as the FDA approves the first at-home COVID-19 testing kit. @tomcostellonbc has the latest. pic.twitter.com/eJnxcRmypY — TODAY (@TODAYshow) April 22, 2020
“There’s a possibility that the assault of the virus on our nation next winter will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through,” CDC Director Robert Redfield said in an interview with The Washington Post. “And when I’ve said this to others, they kind of put their head back, they don’t understand what I mean.” “We’re going to have the flu epidemic and the coronavirus epidemic at the same time,” he said. Having two simultaneous respiratory outbreaks would put unimaginable strain on the health-care system, he said. The first wave of covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, has already killed more than 42,000 people across the country. It has overwhelmed hospitals and revealed gaping shortages in test kits, ventilators and protective equipment for health-care workers. In a wide-ranging interview, Redfield said federal and state officials need to use the coming months to prepare for what lies ahead. As stay-at-home orders are lifted, officials need to stress the continued importance of social distancing, he said. They also need to massively scale up their ability to identify the infected through testing and find everyone they interact with through contact tracing. Doing so prevents new cases from becoming larger outbreaks.
It’s certainly possible, but is it probable? Redfield bases this warning on two assumptions: that the coming flu season will be as bad as possible, and that we will have not made any progress in treating or preventing the spread of COVID-19. Don’t forget that we were in the middle of flu season when COVID-19 hit the US — closer to it than we thought, as we’ll note in a moment. They overlapped so significantly that we mistook it as part of the flu here at first. The next influenza strain might be worse, or it might not be as bad, too.
What about our status with COVID-19? It might be as weak as it is now, too, but that would be highly disappointing, to say the least, and fairly unlikely. For one thing, we will have plenty of testing in place by then — probably so in a month or less, and that production won’t slow down this year, either. We’re just a few weeks before an FDA-authorized nasal swab diagnostic test for home use will become widely available. Some of the testing capacity issues are in the distribution channel and not production, as FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn explained this morning:
"The whole taskforce set of doctors is concerned about the second wave… that's why we have built into the plan the surveillance mechanisms to look for the respiratory illnesses and then do the appropriate testing at that time" — @SteveFDA on CDC warning of second wave of virus pic.twitter.com/jVzWEyNKYw — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) April 22, 2020
Other production channels for tamping down the spread are also going to keep expanding as the year progresses. We will have much better capacity for PPE in hospitals and clinics, for instance, as well as ventilators for the worst cases. Face masks for personal use will improve as health-care workers get their inventory stocked up too. All of that will slow down the spread (of both flu and COVID-19, actually) even apart from the development of therapeutic remedies and hopefully a clinically proven vaccine, although expecting the latter before Christmas really does require a belief in Santa Claus.
Plus, we are seeing data that COVID-19 might be more prevalent in the population now than previously thought. It’s nowhere near prevalent enough to confer “herd immunity,” but it does mean future waves might be more limited. The CDC has now identified two COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara from early February as the first US deaths from the disease, and neither of those victims had any known vectors to travel in China. They both appear to be cases of community spread, as NBC notes in its report:
Two coronavirus-related deaths confirmed in Northern California’s Santa Clara County from early February are the earliest known deaths from the virus in the US. The deaths were from February 6 and February 17 — up to three weeks before the first known US death in Kirkland, Washington, on February 29.
That’s a good news/bad news development. The bad news is that we may continue to see more community spread for a while because we might not have identified the spreaders quickly enough. However, it also means that even with community spread beginning a month earlier than assumed, we didn’t see a sudden explosion of excess mortality. That suggests that the mortality rate might be lower than thought — but almost certainly still far more lethal than most if not all influenza strains, and still more serious even for the recovered.
The purpose of the “shutdown” strategy was to get all the pieces in place to deal with a pandemic. We will have that shortly, perhaps within weeks, and we will also hopefully have the benefit of warmer weather to tamp down transmission even further. If what Redfield says is true or even probable, then we need to reopen ASAP to generate enough economic activity to produce the rest of what we’ll need over the winter and tide us over while people increase social-distancing techniques over the Christmas season and winter. We need to start making the engines of American ingenuity work for us again to prepare for a long winter — but hopefully a manageable one, now that we’re preparing for it rather than getting blindsided by this pandemic.


hotair--2020-04-22--Welp: Sweden withdraws study suggesting that one-third of Stockholm's population may have been infec

Welp: Sweden withdraws study suggesting that one-third of Stockholm's population may have been infected

It seemed like a bad sign last night when even an ignoramus like me was able to spot a problem with one of their claims .
According to Forbes , Sweden ’ s top epidemiologist said at a press conference that “ the study indicates that for every confirmed case of COVID-19 , a further 999 people are likely to have been infected with the virus without knowing it.
” But the country ’ s public health agency later contradicted him and said that ’ s not true .
Why ?
Probably because , with 15,000 confirmed cases already , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confirmed cases would require a population of 15 million people .
Around five million more than the actual population of Sweden .
The study ’ s now been temporarily withdrawn , per Forbes : The Swedish Public Health Agency made international headlines yesterday by estimating that one-third of Stockholm residents would be infected with the coronavirus by May 1 .
Less than 24 hours later , the Agency has taken a dramatic u-turn and withdrawn the report .
The decision was announced via Twitter : “ We have discovered an error in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently going through the material again .
We will republish the report as soon as it is ready.
” Everyone makes mistakes , but I ’ m curious to see if the error involved something obvious , like the 1,000-to-one ratio , which would force a correction because the public is already aware of it or if it ’ s something more subtle , in which case withdrawing the study to get it right would be a show of good faith .
If it turns out that this particular mistake just so happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity ” strategy appear more effective than the data supports , that confirmation bias will make it harder to trust them going forward .
This wasn ’ t the only study out of Sweden to be withdrawn yesterday either .
“ Another Swedish report on the coronavirus spread in the capital has also been withdrawn by its authors , ” Forbes adds .
“ The preliminary findings by researchers at Karolinska University Hospital and the Karolinska Institute estimated that at least 11 out of 100 blood donors in Stockholm had already developed antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack rate seems superficially plausible for a city like Stockholm that hasn ’ t closed schools or issued lockdown orders .
There ’ s no hint as to what went wrong with that study , although the fact that the government ’ s study suggested that one-third of Stockholm has been infected rather than 11 percent leaves a large and significant gap between the two .
Sweden does have some encouraging hard data to report , though .
I noted myself in last night ’ s post that the refusal to lock down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runaway epidemic ( yet ) , even if the country does have a relatively high number of deaths .
Sweden has taken a middle-ground approach , avoiding stay-at-home orders but avoiding business as usual as well .
People are encouraged to be responsible in distancing from others and large gatherings are banned .
That ’ s enough to avert the worst-case scenario so far , notes an author writing in the Spectator : Perhaps more important is the situation at our hospitals and their intensive care wards .
The main ambition of suppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid hospitals getting overwhelmed by patients they can not treat because of shortages of staff , equipment and intensive care beds .
Modellers in Sweden that have followed an Imperial College type approach have suggested demand will peak at 8,000 to 9,000 patients in intensive care per day .
But actual numbers are telling a very different story .
Yes , the situation is stressful , but – mercifully – the growth in intensive care patients has slowed down remarkably and the number of patients currently in intensive care has flatlined .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensive care in the country : our hospital capacity is twice as high at 1,100 .
Stockholm now averages about 220 critical care patients per day and its hospitals , far from being overwhelmed , have capacity for another 70 .
Stockholm also reports that it has several hundred inpatient care beds unoccupied and that people shouldn ’ t hesitate to seek hospital care if they feel sick .
A new field ward has been set up in Stockholm for intensive and inpatient care and some predicted it would start getting patients two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received any patients yet .
How much added value are other western countries getting from their “ social distancing + lockdowns ” strategy relative to Sweden ’ s “ social distancing only ” approach ?
Two different pieces circulating today looked at that question and concluded : Not much .
One comes from Wilfred Reilly at Spiked , who compared different nations and different U.S. states to see whether the lockdown jurisdictions performed meaningfully better at containing the epidemic than non-lockdown ones .
The only meaningful variable in western countries was population , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where there are more people and those people are more concentrated , are going to have a tougher time of it .
Asian cities like Hong Kong with huge populations have done spectacularly well at holding down their outbreaks , Reilly allows , but it ’ s apples-and-oranges with western cities because Asian countries have experience containing epidemics early thanks to SARS .
The other piece , titled “ Lockdowns Don ’ t Work , ” comes from Lyman Stone and looks at how outbreaks in different countries developed time-wise relative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone found that the curve began to flatten *sooner* than we ’ d expect in each country if lockdowns were driving the drop in infections , in light of what we know about how long COVID cases take to develop and run their course .
That is , it appears that people were beginning to voluntarily stay home and take precautions while out and about to limit transmission even before the government stepped in and required them to shelter in place .
It ’ s counterintuitive that a sustained lockdown might cause deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speculate that because people have different thresholds for how much self-isolation they can take , some who are forced into staying home for longer than they ’ re comfortable might eventually rebel and engage in reckless mass gatherings .
( Ahem . )
But that cuts both ways .
Logically , one would think , there are people at the beginning of an epidemic who ’ ll refuse to take it seriously even after much of the rest of the population is already social distancing voluntarily .
See , e.g.
, the spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stay-at-home orders are going to keep some of them away from each other , limiting transmission .
The “ lockdowns don ’ t work ” debate won ’ t really begin to rage until some states reopen up , see a predictable uptick in transmission , and their governors are then forced to decide whether to undertake a second lockdown to limit them .
Reilly and Stone would presumably say no — but note that Stone , at least , is a fan of all sorts of lesser social distancing measures .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions , large-assembly limits , centralized quarantine , mask requirements , and school cancellations — do work , ” he stresses , with special emphasis on the effectiveness of school closings to limit contagion .
( Are we willing and able to provide centralized quarantine ? )
His anti-lockdown position is *not* a claim that the threat from the virus is overstated or that aggressive action isn ’ t needed .
It is .
But indefinite stay-at-home orders may be a bridge too far , a draconian measure that simply doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

It seemed like a bad sign last night when even an ignoramus like me was able to spot a problem with one of their claims. According to Forbes, Sweden’s top epidemiologist said at a press conference that “the study indicates that for every confirmed case of COVID-19, a further 999 people are likely to have been infected with the virus without knowing it.” But the country’s public health agency later contradicted him and said that’s not true. Why?
Probably because, with 15,000 confirmed cases already, a potential 1,000-to-one ratio of actual infections to confirmed cases would require a population of 15 million people. Around five million more than the actual population of Sweden.
The study’s now been temporarily withdrawn, per Forbes:
The Swedish Public Health Agency made international headlines yesterday by estimating that one-third of Stockholm residents would be infected with the coronavirus by May 1. Less than 24 hours later, the Agency has taken a dramatic u-turn and withdrawn the report. The decision was announced via Twitter: “We have discovered an error in the report and so the authors are currently going through the material again. We will republish the report as soon as it is ready.”
Everyone makes mistakes, but I’m curious to see if the error involved something obvious, like the 1,000-to-one ratio, which would force a correction because the public is already aware of it or if it’s something more subtle, in which case withdrawing the study to get it right would be a show of good faith. If it turns out that this particular mistake just so happened to make Sweden’s “herd immunity” strategy appear more effective than the data supports, that confirmation bias will make it harder to trust them going forward.
This wasn’t the only study out of Sweden to be withdrawn yesterday either. “Another Swedish report on the coronavirus spread in the capital has also been withdrawn by its authors,” Forbes adds. “The preliminary findings by researchers at Karolinska University Hospital and the Karolinska Institute estimated that at least 11 out of 100 blood donors in Stockholm had already developed antibodies to the coronavirus.” An 11 percent attack rate seems superficially plausible for a city like Stockholm that hasn’t closed schools or issued lockdown orders. There’s no hint as to what went wrong with that study, although the fact that the government’s study suggested that one-third of Stockholm has been infected rather than 11 percent leaves a large and significant gap between the two.
Sweden does have some encouraging hard data to report, though. I noted myself in last night’s post that the refusal to lock down there hasn’t produced an apocalyptic runaway epidemic (yet), even if the country does have a relatively high number of deaths. Sweden has taken a middle-ground approach, avoiding stay-at-home orders but avoiding business as usual as well. People are encouraged to be responsible in distancing from others and large gatherings are banned. That’s enough to avert the worst-case scenario so far, notes an author writing in the Spectator:
Perhaps more important is the situation at our hospitals and their intensive care wards. The main ambition of suppression policies, after all, has been to avoid hospitals getting overwhelmed by patients they cannot treat because of shortages of staff, equipment and intensive care beds. Modellers in Sweden that have followed an Imperial College type approach have suggested demand will peak at 8,000 to 9,000 patients in intensive care per day. But actual numbers are telling a very different story. Yes, the situation is stressful, but – mercifully – the growth in intensive care patients has slowed down remarkably and the number of patients currently in intensive care has flatlined. We now have about 530 patients in intensive care in the country: our hospital capacity is twice as high at 1,100. Stockholm now averages about 220 critical care patients per day and its hospitals, far from being overwhelmed, have capacity for another 70. Stockholm also reports that it has several hundred inpatient care beds unoccupied and that people shouldn’t hesitate to seek hospital care if they feel sick. A new field ward has been set up in Stockholm for intensive and inpatient care and some predicted it would start getting patients two weeks ago. It hasn’t received any patients yet.
How much added value are other western countries getting from their “social distancing + lockdowns” strategy relative to Sweden’s “social distancing only” approach? Two different pieces circulating today looked at that question and concluded: Not much. One comes from Wilfred Reilly at Spiked, who compared different nations and different U.S. states to see whether the lockdown jurisdictions performed meaningfully better at containing the epidemic than non-lockdown ones. The only meaningful variable in western countries was population, says Reilly: Places like New York, where there are more people and those people are more concentrated, are going to have a tougher time of it. Asian cities like Hong Kong with huge populations have done spectacularly well at holding down their outbreaks, Reilly allows, but it’s apples-and-oranges with western cities because Asian countries have experience containing epidemics early thanks to SARS.
The other piece, titled “Lockdowns Don’t Work,” comes from Lyman Stone and looks at how outbreaks in different countries developed time-wise relative to the lockdown orders issued in each. Stone found that the curve began to flatten *sooner* than we’d expect in each country if lockdowns were driving the drop in infections, in light of what we know about how long COVID cases take to develop and run their course. That is, it appears that people were beginning to voluntarily stay home and take precautions while out and about to limit transmission even before the government stepped in and required them to shelter in place.
My findings are striking: for every eight days (including weekends) since school cancellations began, a county tends to have one less death per 100,000 people. For every nine days a ban on gatherings over 500 people has been in place, there’s one less death per 100,000 people. These policies work. But the correlation flips for bans on gatherings of fifty people or for stay-at-home orders. For every two weeks a stay-at-home order is in place, the death rate rises by one person per 100,000. For bans of gatherings of fifty people, it’s every eleven days.
It’s counterintuitive that a sustained lockdown might cause deaths to slowly *rise.* We can speculate that because people have different thresholds for how much self-isolation they can take, some who are forced into staying home for longer than they’re comfortable might eventually rebel and engage in reckless mass gatherings. (Ahem.) But that cuts both ways. Logically, one would think, there are people at the beginning of an epidemic who’ll refuse to take it seriously even after much of the rest of the population is already social distancing voluntarily. See, e.g., the spring break crowd in Florida last month. Stay-at-home orders are going to keep some of them away from each other, limiting transmission.
The “lockdowns don’t work” debate won’t really begin to rage until some states reopen up, see a predictable uptick in transmission, and their governors are then forced to decide whether to undertake a second lockdown to limit them. Reilly and Stone would presumably say no — but note that Stone, at least, is a fan of all sorts of lesser social distancing measures. “[O]ther policies — travel restrictions, large-assembly limits, centralized quarantine, mask requirements, and school cancellations — do work,” he stresses, with special emphasis on the effectiveness of school closings to limit contagion. (Are we willing and able to provide centralized quarantine?) His anti-lockdown position is *not* a claim that the threat from the virus is overstated or that aggressive action isn’t needed. It is. But indefinite stay-at-home orders may be a bridge too far, a draconian measure that simply doesn’t pay off in terms of saving lives.


hotair--2020-04-22--Good news? Loughlin's judge finds investigation misconduct "disturbing"

Is it possible that actress Lori Loughlin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli might have some good news on their horizon as they prepare for trial ?
The couple is neck-deep in the FBI ’ s Operation Varsity Blues scandal , with a trial scheduled for October .
A new allegation brought forward by the couple ’ s defense attorneys is found to be both troubling and disturbing by the judge .
Attorneys for Loughlin and Giannulli argued that their case should be thrown out after notes from Rick Singer , the college counselor at the center of this scandal became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI told him to lie to his clients , wealthy parents like Loughlin and Giannulli willing to pay big bucks to secure college admission for their children , in order to prompt them into implicating themselves in the scam .
In February their attorneys argued that the Department of Justice had withheld exculpatory evidence in the case .
Loughlin and Giannulli have pleaded not guilty from the beginning of this whole story , even after additional charges were filed against them .
They have refused to cut a deal with prosecutors , unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this scandal .
A new three-page memorandum from Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton demands the prosecution address the allegation .
He isn ’ t disturbed quite enough to dismiss the trial yet , though .
Gorton calls that a “ drastic sanction ” .
“ In their motion to dismiss the indictment ( Docket No .
971 ) , defendants contend that the government ’ s failure 1 ) to disclose contemporaneous notes taken by Rick Singer and 2 ) to investigate his assertions of investigatorial misconduct in those notes warrant the extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” his letter reads .
“ The government rejoins that although counsel should have produced Singer ’ s notes earlier , that mistake was neither willful nor prejudicial and does not merit any such drastic sanction.
” Judge Gorton ’ s words echo those previously made by the prosecution in which they denied acting in bad faith or that Singer ’ s notes were at all exonerating to the famous couple .
Aunt Becky and her clothing designer mogul husband Mossimo are charged with paying Rick Singer $ 500,000 to get their daughters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted to the University of Southern California .
While they admit to paying Singer , they have said all along that the money was a donation to the school , not a bribe for admittance .
Prosecutors have maintained that whether it is called a bribe or a donation , the payment was illegal .
So , as their case stands right now , they are still going to trial and the government has some ‘ splaining to do .
Another person caught up in the arrests of 50 people in the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepting bribes .
Jorge Salcedo of Los Angeles , a 47-year-old former UCLA men ’ s soccer coach will plead guilty to taking $ 200,000 in bribes .
He admits to helping one male and one female student gain acceptance into UCLA as phony soccer recruits .
He will plead guilty to a racketeering conspiracy charge .
Salcedo accepted $ 100,000 to help California couple Bruce and Davina Isackson get their daughter into UCLA as a bogus soccer recruit , prosecutors said .
The Isacksons have also pleaded guilty and have been cooperating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lighter sentence .
Salcedo took another $ 100,000 bribe from the admissions consultant at the center of the scheme , Rick Singer , to “ recruit ” the son of Xiaoning Sui of , Surrey , British Columbia , to his team , authorities said .
Singer and Sui have also pleaded guilty .
Salcedo entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors on Sunday .
In exchange for Slacedo ’ s cooperation , prosecutors are recommending 24 to 30 months in federal prison .
He will also forfeit the bribe money .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bus in defense of himself , claiming he was just doing what the university expected of him .
He claims the system has been corrupted for a long time .
In other words , he was going along to get along .
Prior to agreeing to plead guilty , Salcedo had tried to extract from his former employer some documents that his attorneys claimed would demonstrate UCLA was not a victim of a money-for-admissions scheme , but in fact was its “ architect and orchestrator.
” The school ’ s athletic department , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue a subpoena , routinely endorsed the unqualified children of wealthy families in exchange for donations .
Salcedo ’ s attorneys said they intended to show at trial that various administrators had pressed UCLA coaches to endorse their children or otherwise intervened in the admissions process , including one incident in 2008 , when a supervisor “ pressured ” Salcedo to recruit his son to the soccer team , they claimed .
UCLA ’ s attorneys asked a judge to reject the requested subpoena .
Salcedo , they argued , was trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that enriched no one but himself , selling off university benefits — two admissions slots and a partial athletic scholarship — that “ were not Salcedo ’ s to give away for his own.
” His subpoena , they said , “ would serve no purpose other than to distract from the charges at hand.
” While Salcedo claims it was all just business as usual for UCLA , the fact is he willingly participated , remained employed with the university , and pocketed the money .
This all points to the conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college admissions scam .
He is no better than any of the other facility members of universities who passed over more qualified , deserving students seeking admission in order to cater to the children of the wealthy parents willing to fork over big money in exchange .
If the judge in Salcedo ’ s case , U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani , accepts his plea , he will become the sixth person to admit wrongdoing of the dozen college coaches and test administrators charged with conspiring to commit racketeering .

Is it possible that actress Lori Loughlin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli might have some good news on their horizon as they prepare for trial? The couple is neck-deep in the FBI’s Operation Varsity Blues scandal, with a trial scheduled for October. A new allegation brought forward by the couple’s defense attorneys is found to be both troubling and disturbing by the judge.
Attorneys for Loughlin and Giannulli argued that their case should be thrown out after notes from Rick Singer, the college counselor at the center of this scandal became available. The notes show that the FBI told him to lie to his clients, wealthy parents like Loughlin and Giannulli willing to pay big bucks to secure college admission for their children, in order to prompt them into implicating themselves in the scam. In February their attorneys argued that the Department of Justice had withheld exculpatory evidence in the case.
Loughlin and Giannulli have pleaded not guilty from the beginning of this whole story, even after additional charges were filed against them. They have refused to cut a deal with prosecutors, unlike many of the other parents rounded up in this scandal. A new three-page memorandum from Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton demands the prosecution address the allegation. He isn’t disturbed quite enough to dismiss the trial yet, though. Gorton calls that a “drastic sanction”.
“In their motion to dismiss the indictment (Docket No. 971), defendants contend that the government’s failure 1) to disclose contemporaneous notes taken by Rick Singer and 2) to investigate his assertions of investigatorial misconduct in those notes warrant the extraordinary remedy of dismissal of the indictment,” his letter reads. “The government rejoins that although counsel should have produced Singer’s notes earlier, that mistake was neither willful nor prejudicial and does not merit any such drastic sanction.” Judge Gorton’s words echo those previously made by the prosecution in which they denied acting in bad faith or that Singer’s notes were at all exonerating to the famous couple.
Aunt Becky and her clothing designer mogul husband Mossimo are charged with paying Rick Singer $500,000 to get their daughters, Isabella and Oliva Jade Giannulli, admitted to the University of Southern California. While they admit to paying Singer, they have said all along that the money was a donation to the school, not a bribe for admittance. Prosecutors have maintained that whether it is called a bribe or a donation, the payment was illegal. So, as their case stands right now, they are still going to trial and the government has some ‘splaining to do.
“The Court considered the allegations in Singer’s October notes to be serious and disturbing. While government agents are permitted to coach cooperating witnesses during the course of an investigation, they are not permitted to suborn the commission of a crime,” the note reads. “The government is therefore directed to respond specifically in its sur-reply to the allegations of investigatorial misconduct on October 2, 2018.”
Another person caught up in the arrests of 50 people in the FBI operation is going to plead guilty to accepting bribes. Jorge Salcedo of Los Angeles, a 47-year-old former UCLA men’s soccer coach will plead guilty to taking $200,000 in bribes. He admits to helping one male and one female student gain acceptance into UCLA as phony soccer recruits. He will plead guilty to a racketeering conspiracy charge.
Salcedo accepted $100,000 to help California couple Bruce and Davina Isackson get their daughter into UCLA as a bogus soccer recruit, prosecutors said. The Isacksons have also pleaded guilty and have been cooperating with authorities in the hopes of getting a lighter sentence. Salcedo took another $100,000 bribe from the admissions consultant at the center of the scheme, Rick Singer, to “recruit” the son of Xiaoning Sui of, Surrey, British Columbia, to his team, authorities said. Singer and Sui have also pleaded guilty.
Salcedo entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors on Sunday. In exchange for Slacedo’s cooperation, prosecutors are recommending 24 to 30 months in federal prison. He will also forfeit the bribe money.
In his plea agreement, which Salcedo signed Sunday, prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston said they would recommend a sentence at the low end of a guideline range that calls for 24 to 30 months in federal prison. Salcedo agreed to forfeit $200,000, the sum he pocketed from two families whose children were admitted to UCLA as phony soccer players, prosecutors alleged. Salcedo’s attorney, Thomas Frongillo, declined to comment.
Salcedo tried to throw UCLA under the bus in defense of himself, claiming he was just doing what the university expected of him. He claims the system has been corrupted for a long time. In other words, he was going along to get along.
Prior to agreeing to plead guilty, Salcedo had tried to extract from his former employer some documents that his attorneys claimed would demonstrate UCLA was not a victim of a money-for-admissions scheme, but in fact was its “architect and orchestrator.” The school’s athletic department, they alleged in asking a judge to issue a subpoena, routinely endorsed the unqualified children of wealthy families in exchange for donations. Salcedo’s attorneys said they intended to show at trial that various administrators had pressed UCLA coaches to endorse their children or otherwise intervened in the admissions process, including one incident in 2008, when a supervisor “pressured” Salcedo to recruit his son to the soccer team, they claimed. UCLA’s attorneys asked a judge to reject the requested subpoena. Salcedo, they argued, was trying to conflate university fundraising with a bribery scheme that enriched no one but himself, selling off university benefits — two admissions slots and a partial athletic scholarship — that “were not Salcedo’s to give away for his own.” His subpoena, they said, “would serve no purpose other than to distract from the charges at hand.”
While Salcedo claims it was all just business as usual for UCLA, the fact is he willingly participated, remained employed with the university, and pocketed the money. This all points to the conclusion that Salcedo had no problem with the college admissions scam. He is no better than any of the other facility members of universities who passed over more qualified, deserving students seeking admission in order to cater to the children of the wealthy parents willing to fork over big money in exchange.
If the judge in Salcedo’s case, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, accepts his plea, he will become the sixth person to admit wrongdoing of the dozen college coaches and test administrators charged with conspiring to commit racketeering.


hotair--2020-04-22--Michigan Governor rescinds pandemic contract awarded to campaign vendor

On Monday , Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) announced a new project intended to trace contacts between people who were potentially exposed to the novel coronavirus .
Such a system could potentially help contain and slow the spread of the virus , though many have raised concerns over the intrusive nature of a program that would generate a lot of detailed , private data about people .
But that wasn ’ t the only issue being raised .
As it turns out , Whitmer awarded the contract to Every Action VAN , described as one of the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group was also a vendor on the payroll of Whitmer ’ s campaign .
In addition , their parent organization has ties to both the Clintons and Joe Biden ’ s campaign , as well as having done work for hundreds of labor unions .
Shortly after the publication of the Free Beacon article linked above , the news went viral , and the following day , Whitmer had a change of heart and canceled the contract .
Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan announced late Tuesday that the state was rescinding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus that she had awarded to a Democratic consulting firm , according to Crain ’ s Detroit .
The organization , Great Lakes Community Engagement , is run by Democratic political consultant Mike Kolehouse , who planned to use a software vendor affiliated with a Democratic data firm that is working for the governor ’ s reelection campaign .
Whitmer ’ s decision to hire Democratic political operatives to run a public health project sparked immediate backlash , the Washington Free Beacon reported just hours before Whitmer ’ s office said she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement smells fishy at best .
The original announcement about the contract was put out by the State Emergency Operations Center ( appropriately enough ) , but it was quickly revealed that the SEOC hadn ’ t been involved in the selection of Every Action VAN and hadn ’ t approved them for the project .
Now that the contract has been pulled , the SEOC will select the vendor themselves .
It ’ s also not clear that there was even a competitive bidding process in awarding this work .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of taxpayer money here , but that ’ s really not the point .
If the final product winds up being a repository for massive amounts of data on citizens who aren ’ t aware of how that data could wind up being used , the optics alone should be setting off alarm bells .
Having a firm that specializes in politics – specifically Democrat and liberal politics – holding the reins of that sort of resource simply invites abuse .
Of course , NGP VAN ( the parent company of Every Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would never appropriate the data for political purposes .
Well , obviously not .
Perish the thought .
You people have such suspicious minds .
I ’ m very disappointed .
But there were conflicting statements adding to the confusion and making everything look even less on the level .
The organization responsible for the actual development of the system is Great Lakes Community Engagement .
GLCE is run by Democratic political consultant Mike Kolehouse .
A spokesperson for NGP Van told the Free Beacon “ We were not contracted with the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , we ’ re unfortunately unable to provide details on specific clients.
” But the Governor ’ s own spokesperson stated that only one contract had been signed and that was with Kolehouse .
Kolehouse , in turn , signed on NGP Van .
That ’ s awfully convenient , isn ’ t it ?
There ’ s one more thing to consider .
If there was nothing questionable going on , why would Gretchen Whitmer do a 180-degree turn and rescind the contract as soon as the information was made public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong and there ’ s nothing to hide , why not stick with your original executive decision and defend it ?
Keep in mind that this is the same Michigan Governor who has been rumored to be on the shortlist for Biden ’ s veep selection .
Just imagine the hijinks she could get up to in the Vice President ’ s office… or even the Oval Office .

On Monday, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) announced a new project intended to trace contacts between people who were potentially exposed to the novel coronavirus. Such a system could potentially help contain and slow the spread of the virus, though many have raised concerns over the intrusive nature of a program that would generate a lot of detailed, private data about people. But that wasn’t the only issue being raised.
As it turns out, Whitmer awarded the contract to Every Action VAN, described as one of the left’s biggest technology firms. The group was also a vendor on the payroll of Whitmer’s campaign. In addition, their parent organization has ties to both the Clintons and Joe Biden’s campaign, as well as having done work for hundreds of labor unions. Shortly after the publication of the Free Beacon article linked above, the news went viral, and the following day, Whitmer had a change of heart and canceled the contract.
Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan announced late Tuesday that the state was rescinding a contract to track the spread of the coronavirus that she had awarded to a Democratic consulting firm, according to Crain’s Detroit. The organization, Great Lakes Community Engagement, is run by Democratic political consultant Mike Kolehouse, who planned to use a software vendor affiliated with a Democratic data firm that is working for the governor’s reelection campaign. Whitmer’s decision to hire Democratic political operatives to run a public health project sparked immediate backlash, the Washington Free Beacon reported just hours before Whitmer’s office said she had terminated the contract.
Everything about this announcement smells fishy at best. The original announcement about the contract was put out by the State Emergency Operations Center (appropriately enough), but it was quickly revealed that the SEOC hadn’t been involved in the selection of Every Action VAN and hadn’t approved them for the project. Now that the contract has been pulled, the SEOC will select the vendor themselves.
It’s also not clear that there was even a competitive bidding process in awarding this work. We’re not talking about a massive amount of taxpayer money here, but that’s really not the point. If the final product winds up being a repository for massive amounts of data on citizens who aren’t aware of how that data could wind up being used, the optics alone should be setting off alarm bells. Having a firm that specializes in politics – specifically Democrat and liberal politics – holding the reins of that sort of resource simply invites abuse.
Of course, NGP VAN (the parent company of Every Action VAN), was insisting that they would never appropriate the data for political purposes. Well, obviously not. Perish the thought. You people have such suspicious minds. I’m very disappointed.
But there were conflicting statements adding to the confusion and making everything look even less on the level. The organization responsible for the actual development of the system is Great Lakes Community Engagement. GLCE is run by Democratic political consultant Mike Kolehouse. A spokesperson for NGP Van told the Free Beacon “We were not contracted with the state of Michigan at any point. Beyond that, we’re unfortunately unable to provide details on specific clients.” But the Governor’s own spokesperson stated that only one contract had been signed and that was with Kolehouse. Kolehouse, in turn, signed on NGP Van. That’s awfully convenient, isn’t it?
There’s one more thing to consider. If there was nothing questionable going on, why would Gretchen Whitmer do a 180-degree turn and rescind the contract as soon as the information was made public? If you’ve done nothing wrong and there’s nothing to hide, why not stick with your original executive decision and defend it?
Keep in mind that this is the same Michigan Governor who has been rumored to be on the shortlist for Biden’s veep selection. Just imagine the hijinks she could get up to in the Vice President’s office… or even the Oval Office.


hotair--2020-04-22--Trump to US Navy: Blow up the next Iranian gunboat to challenge us in international waters

This order is a reminder that not every malevolent act relates to the spread of a pandemic .
Iran has been escalating its provocations in the Persian Gulf , which it claims to be anti-smuggling patrols and security for Iranian vessels .
What it actually entails , according to the US Navy , are aggressive and provocative acts by Iranian gunboats around American ships in international waters .
Eleven Iranian boats circled US Navy ships at close quarters last week , with guns unsecured , in what Pentagon called an “ unsafe and unprofessional interaction ” : The Iranians issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public with these complaints , basically ordering us out of the region : The Guards ’ statement on Sunday , which said Iran will give a decisive response to any mistake by the United States in the Gulf , provided the first confirmation of the incident .
“ We advise the Americans to follow international regulations and maritime protocols in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and to refrain from any adventurism and false and fake stories , ” the statement said .
“ They should be assured that the Revolutionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Islamic Republic of Iran sees the dangerous actions of foreigners in the region as a threat to national security and its red line and any error in calculation on their part will receive a decisive response.
” It was that threat which led to Donald Trump ’ s response , via his favorite medium : Iran had just this week bragged that it had a faster and more powerful fleet than the US , and perhaps they might have been itching to test that out : Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy commander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his forces now “ have a variety of surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 700 km [ more than 430 miles ] produced domestically.
” He also touted the production of new warships , such as the 55-meter catamaran-style helicopter carrier inaugurated in 2016 , along with other vessels that are said to be capable of reading speeds of up to 90 knots , or “ three times faster than American vessels.
” “ Wherever the Americans have been present , insecurity has arisen , and we do not know where the presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , ” Tangsiri said .
He referenced the recent encounter in which up to 11 armed Revolutionary Guard fast-attack craft appeared to approach and circle ships of the U.S. Navy ’ s Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf , arguing that “ contrary to international regulations , the Americans blocked the way for our vessels and refused to respond to the radio , which was met with a powerful confrontation by our forces.
” The Fifth Fleet has alleged that it was Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard that initiated what the Navy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprofessional interaction , ” ignoring repeated warnings for more than an hour and a half .
The Persian Gulf has for decades been a flashpoint for U.S.-Iran tensions , which have escalated during the past year .
Reuters noted in its report that these provocations had been mainly a thing of the past until the strike on Qassem Soleimani earlier this year .
That ’ s not entirely true ; the Iranians had been harassing shipping in the Gulf prior to that strike in early January , and its increased activity is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Trump on Iran .
That had included the targeting of a military drone over international waters last fall , which Trump at the time let slide with a warning , but the attacks on US positions in Iraq prompted the Soleimani strike .
Trump ’ s order this morning , assuming that he actually did pass this along as an order , is undoubtedly his way of reminding the Iranians that he can multi-task .
If they want to provoke a military conflict as a means of distracting Iranians from their terrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he demonstrated with the strike on Soleimani .
These gunboat runs are clear threats to the security of the American ships , which have every right to sail in international waters without being harassed by other militaries .
Of course , this might also have something to do with it : Meh .
If anything , Trump would probably root for Captain Crozier ’ s exoneration , so that he can personally order his reinstatement and soak up the goodwill from it .
The extended FUBAR of former Navy Secretary Thomas Modly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be all that much of a concern .
If the report criticizes the Pentagon ’ s response to Crozier ’ s warnings , that ’ s more on Modly and maybe Mark Esper than Trump , even if the media will try to make it more about Trump .
Iran ’ s testing Trump with these provocations .
This warning might be enough for them to pull back .
Let ’ s hope that ’ s the case , but we can ’ t wait for Iran to get the message before they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Soleimani ’ s sudden achievement of room temperature didn ’ t teach them any better , it might unfortunately be time for another lesson .

This order is a reminder that not every malevolent act relates to the spread of a pandemic. Iran has been escalating its provocations in the Persian Gulf, which it claims to be anti-smuggling patrols and security for Iranian vessels. What it actually entails, according to the US Navy, are aggressive and provocative acts by Iranian gunboats around American ships in international waters. Eleven Iranian boats circled US Navy ships at close quarters last week, with guns unsecured, in what Pentagon called an “unsafe and unprofessional interaction”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFB8Vo1OD7w
The Iranians issued a statement after the US Navy went public with these complaints, basically ordering us out of the region:
The Guards’ statement on Sunday, which said Iran will give a decisive response to any mistake by the United States in the Gulf, provided the first confirmation of the incident. “We advise the Americans to follow international regulations and maritime protocols in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and to refrain from any adventurism and false and fake stories,” the statement said. “They should be assured that the Revolutionary Guards navy and the powerful armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran sees the dangerous actions of foreigners in the region as a threat to national security and its red line and any error in calculation on their part will receive a decisive response.”
It was that threat which led to Donald Trump’s response, via his favorite medium:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1252932181447630848
Iran had just this week bragged that it had a faster and more powerful fleet than the US, and perhaps they might have been itching to test that out:
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy commander Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri said Monday that his forces now “have a variety of surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 700 km [more than 430 miles] produced domestically.” He also touted the production of new warships, such as the 55-meter catamaran-style helicopter carrier inaugurated in 2016, along with other vessels that are said to be capable of reading speeds of up to 90 knots, or “three times faster than American vessels.” “Wherever the Americans have been present, insecurity has arisen, and we do not know where the presence of the United States has led to security,” Tangsiri said. He referenced the recent encounter in which up to 11 armed Revolutionary Guard fast-attack craft appeared to approach and circle ships of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, arguing that “contrary to international regulations, the Americans blocked the way for our vessels and refused to respond to the radio, which was met with a powerful confrontation by our forces.” The Fifth Fleet has alleged that it was Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that initiated what the Navy group described as an “unsafe and unprofessional interaction,” ignoring repeated warnings for more than an hour and a half. The Persian Gulf has for decades been a flashpoint for U.S.-Iran tensions, which have escalated during the past year.
Reuters noted in its report that these provocations had been mainly a thing of the past until the strike on Qassem Soleimani earlier this year. That’s not entirely true; the Iranians had been harassing shipping in the Gulf prior to that strike in early January, and its increased activity is likely more tied to the reimposition of sanctions by Trump on Iran. That had included the targeting of a military drone over international waters last fall, which Trump at the time let slide with a warning, but the attacks on US positions in Iraq prompted the Soleimani strike.
Trump’s order this morning, assuming that he actually did pass this along as an order, is undoubtedly his way of reminding the Iranians that he can multi-task. If they want to provoke a military conflict as a means of distracting Iranians from their terrible leadership, Trump could oblige them — as he demonstrated with the strike on Soleimani. These gunboat runs are clear threats to the security of the American ships, which have every right to sail in international waters without being harassed by other militaries.
Of course, this might also have something to do with it:
The Navy is expected to release its investigation into the USS Theodore Roosevelt situation today https://t.co/3AxA0YuGUV — Dave Brown (@dave_brown24) April 22, 2020
Meh. If anything, Trump would probably root for Captain Crozier’s exoneration, so that he can personally order his reinstatement and soak up the goodwill from it. The extended FUBAR of former Navy Secretary Thomas Modly is distinct enough from Trump not to be all that much of a concern. If the report criticizes the Pentagon’s response to Crozier’s warnings, that’s more on Modly and maybe Mark Esper than Trump, even if the media will try to make it more about Trump.
Iran’s testing Trump with these provocations. This warning might be enough for them to pull back. Let’s hope that’s the case, but we can’t wait for Iran to get the message before they start hijacking American shipping in the Gulf. If Soleimani’s sudden achievement of room temperature didn’t teach them any better, it might unfortunately be time for another lesson.