hotair--2020-03-13--Fauci: No seriously, the travel restrictions are exactly what we need to flatten the COVID-19 curve;

Fauci: No seriously, the travel restrictions are exactly what we need to flatten the COVID-19 curve; WHO confirms Europe as new "epicenter"

Dr. Anthony Fauci giveth , and he also taketh away — although not all that much , as it turns out .
The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) has become a voice of rational urgency in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic in the US .
Yesterday in Congress , Fauci made the obvious observation that we had “ failed ” in preparing for the arrival of COVID-19 after it first emerged .
Today on MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe , however , Fauci offers a much more upbeat assessment of the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ escalate ” significantly thanks to private-sector involvement .
That will allow public-health organizations to properly track the spread of the disease , which has been difficult to quantify in the US .
However , Fauci emphasizes that travel restrictions regarding China and now Europe will flatten the curve and were absolutely the right call to limit the “ seeding ” of American communities : The problem in Italy , Fauci says later , is that they didn ’ t take any aggressive measures at the beginning of the bell curve .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal mitigation actions quickly enough , but the actions taken to keep new cases from coming in from the outside has substantially altered the bell curve in the US .
“ The new China is Europe , ” Fauci emphasizes to the Morning Joe panel in defending the travel restrictions .
Fauci got corroboration from the World Health Organization on that point later in the day : Nevertheless , the curve will take place at some time here , and the disease will look like its getting worse before it gets better .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ relative mortality , but Fauci is more optimistic now that the US is catching up on its mitigation capabilities : Willie Geist managed to get Fauci to opine — indirectly — on news that Donald Trump has been exposed to a confirmed coronavirus patient .
Both Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and one of his aides tested positive for COVID-19 days after meeting and shaking hands with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last weekend , but the White House has claimed that Trump has no reason to get tested to see if he has contracted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump should get tested , but Fauci insisted that it ’ s a call for Trump ’ s medical team to make .
“ But generally speaking , ” Geist pressed , “ if I were standing next to someone who had been diagnosed with coronavirus , should I isolate myself and find a test as well ?
” For the most part , though , Fauci sounds positive and optimistic about the current direction of US policy and action .
It ’ s not going to be a picnic , Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through this.
” Watch the entire segment here .
It ’ s easy to see why Fauci has become such a go-to voice for the media , and why all sides can take some heart in his carefully blunt manner .

Dr. Anthony Fauci giveth, and he also taketh away — although not all that much, as it turns out. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has become a voice of rational urgency in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic in the US. Yesterday in Congress, Fauci made the obvious observation that we had “failed” in preparing for the arrival of COVID-19 after it first emerged.
Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, however, Fauci offers a much more upbeat assessment of the situation, noting that testing capabilities are about to “escalate” significantly thanks to private-sector involvement. That will allow public-health organizations to properly track the spread of the disease, which has been difficult to quantify in the US. However, Fauci emphasizes that travel restrictions regarding China and now Europe will flatten the curve and were absolutely the right call to limit the “seeding” of American communities:
Dr. Fauci lays it out here plain and simple: @realDonaldTrump’s actions to ban travel to/from China and Europe, has saved, and will save, American lives—period. pic.twitter.com/eGghOu53VN — Ken Farnaso (@KLF) March 13, 2020
The problem in Italy, Fauci says later, is that they didn’t take any aggressive measures at the beginning of the bell curve. The US may not have prepared its internal mitigation actions quickly enough, but the actions taken to keep new cases from coming in from the outside has substantially altered the bell curve in the US. “The new China is Europe,” Fauci emphasizes to the Morning Joe panel in defending the travel restrictions.
Fauci got corroboration from the World Health Organization on that point later in the day:
NEW: WHO director-General says that Europe has become the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, "with more reported cases than the rest of the world combined, apart from China." https://t.co/kGtP4bA84J pic.twitter.com/gFYo2wyR8u — ABC News (@ABC) March 13, 2020
Nevertheless, the curve will take place at some time here, and the disease will look like its getting worse before it gets better. Testing will quantify both its spread and relative mortality, but Fauci is more optimistic now that the US is catching up on its mitigation capabilities:
Dr. Fauci on coronavirus spreading during the next few weeks: "Two things we are looking for, A: Things are going to get worse before they get better, but B: What's happening now with many more tests going out very shortly … hopefully, we'll be able to blunt that peak." pic.twitter.com/GY7gBJc91V — MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 13, 2020
Willie Geist managed to get Fauci to opine — indirectly — on news that Donald Trump has been exposed to a confirmed coronavirus patient. Both Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and one of his aides tested positive for COVID-19 days after meeting and shaking hands with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last weekend, but the White House has claimed that Trump has no reason to get tested to see if he has contracted the virus. Geist pushed Fauci to say that Trump should get tested, but Fauci insisted that it’s a call for Trump’s medical team to make.
“But generally speaking,” Geist pressed, “if I were standing next to someone who had been diagnosed with coronavirus, should I isolate myself and find a test as well?”
“Yes,” Fauci said.
For the most part, though, Fauci sounds positive and optimistic about the current direction of US policy and action. It’s not going to be a picnic, Fauci says, “but we will get through this.”
Watch the entire segment here. It’s easy to see why Fauci has become such a go-to voice for the media, and why all sides can take some heart in his carefully blunt manner.


hotair--2020-03-13--Chinese state media warns it could cut America's pharmaceutical drug supply

This is probably just saber-rattling , but it ’ s still a bit worrisome as the U.S. is struggling to deal with a pandemic .
A Chinese state media outlet has published an article bragging about the nation ’ s control over the supply chain of pharmaceutical drugs : Now that the number of new people infected with the coronavirus in China is slowing down , the country ’ s Communist Party is ratcheting up threats against the West , with a particularly nasty warning about access to life-saving drugs aimed at the United States .
In an article in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s largely considered the mouthpiece of the party , Beijing bragged about its handling of COVID-19 , a virus that originated in the city of Wuhan and has spread quickly around the world , killing nearly 5,000 people and infecting thousands more .
The article also claimed that China could impose pharmaceutical export controls which would plunge America into “ the mighty sea of coronavirus.
” … Though the United States is a global leader in research , much of the manufacturing of life-saving drugs has moved overseas .
The last American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in penicillin shuttered in 2004 .
Since then , Chinese pharmaceuticals companies have moved in and taken over , supplying between 80 percent and 90 percent of U.S. antibiotics , 70 percent of acetaminophen and about 40 percent of heparin , according to Yanzhong Huang , a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations .
The concern about Chinese control of the drug supply chain is not new .
In fact , months before anyone had heard about the new coronavirus , CNBC published a story titled , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of American drug supply.
” American national security officials are worried about that scenario as they come to grips with this little-understood fact : The vast majority of key ingredients for drugs that many Americans rely on are manufactured abroad , mostly in China .
As the U.S. defense establishment grows increasingly concerned about China ’ s potentially hostile ambitions , the pharmaceutical supply chain is receiving new scrutiny .
“ If China shut the door on exports of medicines and their key ingredients and raw material , U.S. hospitals and military hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , if not days , ” said Rosemary Gibson , author of a book on the subject , “ China RX.
” Now , just a few months later , we ’ re seeing just how vulnerable we could be .
Tucker Carlson revived the issue this week on his show .
He ’ s been on a run of solid statements regarding the coronavirus this week .
Here ’ s Carlson discussing China ’ s control over our drug supply chain with Sen. Marco Rubio .

This is probably just saber-rattling, but it’s still a bit worrisome as the U.S. is struggling to deal with a pandemic. A Chinese state media outlet has published an article bragging about the nation’s control over the supply chain of pharmaceutical drugs:
Now that the number of new people infected with the coronavirus in China is slowing down, the country’s Communist Party is ratcheting up threats against the West, with a particularly nasty warning about access to life-saving drugs aimed at the United States. In an article in Xinhua, the state-run media agency that’s largely considered the mouthpiece of the party, Beijing bragged about its handling of COVID-19, a virus that originated in the city of Wuhan and has spread quickly around the world, killing nearly 5,000 people and infecting thousands more. The article also claimed that China could impose pharmaceutical export controls which would plunge America into “the mighty sea of coronavirus.”… Though the United States is a global leader in research, much of the manufacturing of life-saving drugs has moved overseas. The last American manufacturing plant to make a key component in penicillin shuttered in 2004. Since then, Chinese pharmaceuticals companies have moved in and taken over, supplying between 80 percent and 90 percent of U.S. antibiotics, 70 percent of acetaminophen and about 40 percent of heparin, according to Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The concern about Chinese control of the drug supply chain is not new. In fact, months before anyone had heard about the new coronavirus, CNBC published a story titled, “U.S. officials worried about Chinese control of American drug supply.”
American national security officials are worried about that scenario as they come to grips with this little-understood fact: The vast majority of key ingredients for drugs that many Americans rely on are manufactured abroad, mostly in China. As the U.S. defense establishment grows increasingly concerned about China’s potentially hostile ambitions, the pharmaceutical supply chain is receiving new scrutiny. “If China shut the door on exports of medicines and their key ingredients and raw material, U.S. hospitals and military hospitals and clinics would cease to function within months, if not days,” said Rosemary Gibson, author of a book on the subject, “China RX.”
Now, just a few months later, we’re seeing just how vulnerable we could be. Tucker Carlson revived the issue this week on his show. He’s been on a run of solid statements regarding the coronavirus this week. Here’s Carlson discussing China’s control over our drug supply chain with Sen. Marco Rubio.


hotair--2020-03-13--California lawmaker scores hollow victory against CDC director

Rep. Katie Porter aggressively questioned CDC Director Robert Redfield Thursday .
During testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee , Porter whipped out a whiteboard and began to itemize what it costs for an uninsured person to get tested for COVID-19 .
Then she went through a series of questions to Redfield with a goal of getting him to commit to providing free testing for everyone , regardless of insurance coverage .
Today she is a hero , according to left-leaning publications .
If you ’ re looking for a big government solution to personal health care , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the freshman congresswoman .
I admit she is a new face in Congress with whom I am unfamiliar .
She is in her first term , having flipped her California district from Republican to Democrat .
Apparently , she is trying to make her mark as a relentlessly aggressive questioner .
Porter confronted the CDC director as he tried to give answers as a typical bureaucrat would do .
She asked about a specific existing federal statute that gives the director the power to “ authorize payment for the care and treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine , isolation , and conditional release.
” She demanded to know if he was familiar of the power granted to him in the statute and when he hesitated , she lambasted him .
She told him she sent a letter to his office that he would be questioned on it and received confirmation from his office that her letter was received .
She also said that she and two other congresswomen sent a letter to his office a week ago seeking answers about how the CDC planned to address insurance issues with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his office a deadline for Wednesday and they did not receive a response – the hearing was Thursday .
I have two issues with the director ’ s question and answer time with Rep. Porter .
First , this is a hollow victory for the congresswoman .
The cost she itemized totaled an estimated $ 1,331 .
That ’ s an expensive price tag for the uninsured , especially for low-income individuals and the unemployed .
The problem is , though , that there is an acute shortage of tests available .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the test , it likely will be difficult to actually get the test done .
This will be a more relevant commitment from the CDC if it holds and Dr. Fauci ’ s prediction that in a week or two there will be a “ major increase ” in the availability of tests , as he said today in a morning television interview .
The point is that there are too few people being tested right now and more tests need to be given so that more accurate numbers of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the discussion .
Also , Redfield didn ’ t specifically say the funding would include the whole bill or just part of it .
Would it be for just the test itself or the doctor ’ s visit or the lab fees ?
I imagine we ’ ll be seeing some specifications on all of this soon .
A big part of the tension and panic generated around the COVID-19 virus is a lack of availability of tests .
No one can just walk into a clinic or emergency room thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a test .
Testing is done after a doctor has made a recommendation and tracked down a test , at least that is the information being given now .
Unfortunately , the test is not widely available right now – it is an area in which the administration was caught flat-footed .
Hopefully , an increased partnership with the private sector will speed up test kit assembly and distribution .
The second problem with Redfield ’ s time before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Thursday points to something I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s narrative .
I can ’ t tell if it is true disagreement with how the COVID-19 virus pandemic is being handled or if he just caves while being questioned by liberals .
He was appointed by President Trump in 2018 .
Redfield is a renowned virologist and a retired colonel in the Army Medical Corps .
To me it sounds as though he is a bit too concerned with being politically correct in his dealings with Congress .
Under questioning from Rep. Lois Frankel ( D-FLA ) , he succumbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the “ Chinese coronavirus ” is wrong .
It ’ s popular these days for Democrats – many of whom have used the same language at the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic – to accuse people of correctly noting the country of origin of the virus as racist or xenophobic .
The point is that the virus began in China .
Feelings don ’ t trump facts .
Democrats with a political agenda can object all they want , but the facts are the facts .
Whether it is called the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that pinpoints the origin of the virus , the description has nothing to do with racism .
Redfield should have articulated that to the congresswoman .
When House Minority Leader McCarthy tweeted out that funding for the border wall is necessary because it , too , will be a tool to contain outbreaks like COVID-19 , Democrats clutched their pearls , including Rep. Porter .
Presidential candidate Joe Biden joined the chorus .
Director Redfield told a congresswoman that he agrees with the anti-wall crowd , at least as far as it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes .
I ’ ll end with this tweet from Rep. Crenshaw .
He sums it up nicely about the wall and travel bans that Biden has criticized .

Rep. Katie Porter aggressively questioned CDC Director Robert Redfield Thursday. During testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Porter whipped out a whiteboard and began to itemize what it costs for an uninsured person to get tested for COVID-19. Then she went through a series of questions to Redfield with a goal of getting him to commit to providing free testing for everyone, regardless of insurance coverage.
Today she is a hero, according to left-leaning publications. If you’re looking for a big government solution to personal health care, I suppose that would be an accurate description of the freshman congresswoman. I admit she is a new face in Congress with whom I am unfamiliar. She is in her first term, having flipped her California district from Republican to Democrat. Apparently, she is trying to make her mark as a relentlessly aggressive questioner.
Porter confronted the CDC director as he tried to give answers as a typical bureaucrat would do. She asked about a specific existing federal statute that gives the director the power to “authorize payment for the care and treatment of patients subject to medical examination, quarantine, isolation, and conditional release.” She demanded to know if he was familiar of the power granted to him in the statute and when he hesitated, she lambasted him. She told him she sent a letter to his office that he would be questioned on it and received confirmation from his office that her letter was received. She also said that she and two other congresswomen sent a letter to his office a week ago seeking answers about how the CDC planned to address insurance issues with COVID-19 testing. The three women gave his office a deadline for Wednesday and they did not receive a response – the hearing was Thursday.
I have two issues with the director’s question and answer time with Rep. Porter. First, this is a hollow victory for the congresswoman. The cost she itemized totaled an estimated $1,331. That’s an expensive price tag for the uninsured, especially for low-income individuals and the unemployed. The problem is, though, that there is an acute shortage of tests available. So, even if a person can afford to get the test, it likely will be difficult to actually get the test done. This will be a more relevant commitment from the CDC if it holds and Dr. Fauci’s prediction that in a week or two there will be a “major increase” in the availability of tests, as he said today in a morning television interview. The point is that there are too few people being tested right now and more tests need to be given so that more accurate numbers of those infected with the virus can be a part of the discussion.
Also, Redfield didn’t specifically say the funding would include the whole bill or just part of it. Would it be for just the test itself or the doctor’s visit or the lab fees? I imagine we’ll be seeing some specifications on all of this soon.
A big part of the tension and panic generated around the COVID-19 virus is a lack of availability of tests. No one can just walk into a clinic or emergency room thinking they have symptoms of the virus and get a test. Testing is done after a doctor has made a recommendation and tracked down a test, at least that is the information being given now. Unfortunately, the test is not widely available right now – it is an area in which the administration was caught flat-footed. Hopefully, an increased partnership with the private sector will speed up test kit assembly and distribution.
The second problem with Redfield’s time before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Thursday points to something I’ve noticed – he often contradicts the Trump administration’s narrative. I can’t tell if it is true disagreement with how the COVID-19 virus pandemic is being handled or if he just caves while being questioned by liberals. He was appointed by President Trump in 2018. Redfield is a renowned virologist and a retired colonel in the Army Medical Corps. To me it sounds as though he is a bit too concerned with being politically correct in his dealings with Congress.
Under questioning from Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FLA), he succumbed to the narrative that calling the coronavirus as the “Chinese coronavirus” is wrong. It’s popular these days for Democrats – many of whom have used the same language at the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic – to accuse people of correctly noting the country of origin of the virus as racist or xenophobic.
“It’s absolutely wrong and inappropriate to call this the Chinese coronavirus, I assume you would agree with that,” Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) said to CDC chief Robert Redfield, who testified in the House on Tuesday morning. Redfield said “yes,” noting the virus is also widespread in South Korea, Iran and Italy.
The point is that the virus began in China. Feelings don’t trump facts. Democrats with a political agenda can object all they want, but the facts are the facts. Whether it is called the Chinese coronavirus or Wuhan virus or anything else that pinpoints the origin of the virus, the description has nothing to do with racism. Redfield should have articulated that to the congresswoman.
When House Minority Leader McCarthy tweeted out that funding for the border wall is necessary because it, too, will be a tool to contain outbreaks like COVID-19, Democrats clutched their pearls, including Rep. Porter. Presidential candidate Joe Biden joined the chorus.
Trump on Tuesday shared a tweet advocating for his U.S.-Mexico border wall as a way to protect America against the “China Virus.” Adding his own commentary, Trump wrote, “Going up fast. We need the Wall more than ever!” That prompted Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to slam the president’s comments as racist. “A wall won’t stop a virus. Racism won’t stop a virus. Do your job,” the former vice president tweeted. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) referred to the coronavirus on Twitter as the “Chinese coronavirus.” Several Democrats condemned McCarthy for what they described as a racist tweet. “Will stop spread of the coronavirus: washing your hands/staying home if you’re sick,” Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) wrote. “Won’t stop the spread of coronavirus: racism/xenophobia.”
Director Redfield told a congresswoman that he agrees with the anti-wall crowd, at least as far as it is a tool to contain the COVID-19 virus goes.
Appearing before House lawmakers to testify about the public health crisis and the White House’s budget request for his agency, Redfield was asked by Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) whether the CDC’s recommendations for combating the coronavirus addressed whether “structural barriers” at the borders “would be of any use in mitigating” the growing outbreak. “Not that I’ve seen,” Redfield replied.
I’ll end with this tweet from Rep. Crenshaw. He sums it up nicely about the wall and travel bans that Biden has criticized.


hotair--2020-03-13--Breaking: Trump to declare COVID-19 a Stafford Act national emergency

Consider this a clean-up from Wednesday ’ s Oval Office speech , in which Donald Trump added to the confusion while effecting a more serious tone .
At 3 pm ET today , Trump will hold a presser — or at least an avail — to further discuss the COVID-19 outbreak and the administration ’ s response to it : What has changed in less than 48 hours ?
The need for a stronger executive-branch reaction as Congress debates over a coronavirus-response package , that ’ s what .
Trump will invoke the 1988 Stafford Act to declare a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid dollars directly : President Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency on Friday over the coronavirus outbreak , invoking the Stafford Act to open the door to more federal aid for states and municipalities , according to two people familiar with the matter .
… An emergency declaration would allow a state to request a 75 % federal cost-share for expenses that include emergency workers , medical tests , medical supplies , vaccinations , security for medical facilities , and more , according to a letter Democrats sent the president earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declarations for public health threats have been made since the 1960s , and only two have targeted disease outbreaks , when President Bill Clinton in 2000 declared emergencies in New York and New Jersey in response to the West Nile Virus .
Barack Obama never did this with the H1N1 outbreak , even though it caused tens of thousands of excess deaths at the time .
His administration brought testing online more quickly but was also heavily criticized at the time for fumbling its public messaging .
The global scope of H1N1 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however .
If people are unhappy that Trump hasn ’ t taken enough direct action in response to the crisis , they may get a lot more than they bargained for .
The Stafford Act gives the executive branch a lot of latitude in dealing with emergencies , and its Title VII section gives a president near-plenary authority to create regulation to deal with the emergency .
( 1 ) The President may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any power or authority conferred on him by any section of this Act either directly or through such Federal agency or agencies as he may designate .
( 2 ) Deadline for payment of assistance – Rules and regulations authorized by paragraph ( 1 ) shall provide that payment of any assistance under this Act to a State shall be completed within 60 days after the date of approval of such assistance .
( b ) In furtherance of the purposes of this Act , the President or his delegate may accept and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of service , money , or property , real , personal , or mixed , tangible , or intangible .
All sums received under this subsection shall be deposited in a separate fund on the books of the Treasury and shall be available for expenditure upon the certification of the President or his delegate .
At the request of the President or his delegate , the Secretary of the Treasury may invest and reinvest excess monies in the fund .
Such investments shall be in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury , taking into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities .
The interest on such investments shall be credited to , and form a part of , the fund .
Generally speaking , this is a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency authority .
Trump ’ s reluctance to use it until now was undoubtedly due to his desire to keep panic down .
That was also the point of his Oval Office remarks , but since that hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best way to manage this crisis now is to be seen to be managing it directly .
If the panic already exists , then an exercise of executive authority has no real downside any longer .
The irony in this is that the belated switch to subsidiarity seems to be paying off .
The development cycle on testing has been pushed forward significantly and states are focusing their efforts on specific issues of community spread .
A Stafford emergency will allow Trump more flexibility on providing funding support for those efforts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tape at the federal level .
It ’ s a smart move for something that already has the nation as unsettled as it already is , but how well it will be used remains to be seen .
When Trump speaks at 3 pm ET , we ’ ll get a better sense of what he plans to do with the authority .
We will also likely hear plenty about the updates on testing capabilities , which is the best news so far this week about the response to COVID-19 .

Consider this a clean-up from Wednesday’s Oval Office speech, in which Donald Trump added to the confusion while effecting a more serious tone. At 3 pm ET today, Trump will hold a presser — or at least an avail — to further discuss the COVID-19 outbreak and the administration’s response to it:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1238478818135945216
What has changed in less than 48 hours? The need for a stronger executive-branch reaction as Congress debates over a coronavirus-response package, that’s what. Trump will invoke the 1988 Stafford Act to declare a national emergency, allowing federal agencies to direct aid dollars directly:
////BREAKING: Trump plans to declare a national emergency over the coronavirus outbreak, invoking the Stafford Act to open the door to more federal aid for states and municipalities, sources tell me, @jendeben and @SalehaMohsin — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) March 13, 2020
President Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency on Friday over the coronavirus outbreak, invoking the Stafford Act to open the door to more federal aid for states and municipalities, according to two people familiar with the matter. … An emergency declaration would allow a state to request a 75% federal cost-share for expenses that include emergency workers, medical tests, medical supplies, vaccinations, security for medical facilities, and more, according to a letter Democrats sent the president earlier this week. Only a few emergency declarations for public health threats have been made since the 1960s, and only two have targeted disease outbreaks, when President Bill Clinton in 2000 declared emergencies in New York and New Jersey in response to the West Nile Virus.
Barack Obama never did this with the H1N1 outbreak, even though it caused tens of thousands of excess deaths at the time. His administration brought testing online more quickly but was also heavily criticized at the time for fumbling its public messaging. The global scope of H1N1 was not as bad as COVID-19 is now, however.
If people are unhappy that Trump hasn’t taken enough direct action in response to the crisis, they may get a lot more than they bargained for. The Stafford Act gives the executive branch a lot of latitude in dealing with emergencies, and its Title VII section gives a president near-plenary authority to create regulation to deal with the emergency.
Sec. 701. Rules and Regulations (42 U.S.C. 5201) (a) Rules and Regulations (1) The President may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of this Act, and he may exercise any power or authority conferred on him by any section of this Act either directly or through such Federal agency or agencies as he may designate. (2) Deadline for payment of assistance – Rules and regulations authorized by paragraph (1) shall provide that payment of any assistance under this Act to a State shall be completed within 60 days after the date of approval of such assistance. (b) In furtherance of the purposes of this Act, the President or his delegate may accept and use bequests, gifts, or donations of service, money, or property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible, or intangible. All sums received under this subsection shall be deposited in a separate fund on the books of the Treasury and shall be available for expenditure upon the certification of the President or his delegate. At the request of the President or his delegate, the Secretary of the Treasury may invest and reinvest excess monies in the fund. Such investments shall be in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs of the fund and shall bear interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities. The interest on such investments shall be credited to, and form a part of, the fund.
Generally speaking, this is a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency authority. Trump’s reluctance to use it until now was undoubtedly due to his desire to keep panic down. That was also the point of his Oval Office remarks, but since that hasn’t worked, Trump likely figures that the best way to manage this crisis now is to be seen to be managing it directly. If the panic already exists, then an exercise of executive authority has no real downside any longer.
The irony in this is that the belated switch to subsidiarity seems to be paying off. The development cycle on testing has been pushed forward significantly and states are focusing their efforts on specific issues of community spread. A Stafford emergency will allow Trump more flexibility on providing funding support for those efforts, along with an ability to cut red tape at the federal level. It’s a smart move for something that already has the nation as unsettled as it already is, but how well it will be used remains to be seen.
When Trump speaks at 3 pm ET, we’ll get a better sense of what he plans to do with the authority. We will also likely hear plenty about the updates on testing capabilities, which is the best news so far this week about the response to COVID-19.


hotair--2020-03-13--Ohio health official estimates 1% of residents -- more than 100,000 people -- are already infected.

Ohio health official estimates 1% of residents -- more than 100,000 people -- are already infected. Is that realistic?

Lotta buzz overnight about this figure from yesterday ’ s press conference with Gov .
Mike DeWine , which is good .
Scary numbers drive home to people how serious this is .
But the number didn ’ t make sense to me intuitively .
Since 80 percent of people with the disease experience mild symptoms , 20 percent should logically require medical intervention .
If 100,000+ Ohioans have it , there should already be a glut of patients at ERs needing oxygen , ventilators , and so on .
There are no reports of that yet .
So how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected ?
“ We know now , just the fact of community spread , says that at least 1 percent , at the very least , 1 percent of our population is carrying this virus in Ohio today , ” [ Ohio Department of Health Director Amy ] Acton said .
“ We have 11.7 million people .
So the math is over 100,000 .
So that just gives you a sense of how this virus spreads and is spreading quickly.
” … “ Our delay in being able to test has delayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Acton said .
Seemed suspicious to a dummy like me , but it also seemed suspicious to people who do this for a living .
Trevor Bedford is a scientist in Seattle who specializes in viruses and has been studying the spread of COVID-19 there .
If his name sounds familiar , it ’ s because he ’ s the person who was sounding the alarm several weeks ago about undetected community spread in Seattle based on the similar genome of the viruses found in two different local patients weeks apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ohio yesterday and scratched his head .
Some readers tweeted at him that maybe coronavirus infections in Ohio are being “ disguised ” as flu or pneumonia cases right now .
We ’ re barely even testing for the disease , after all ; isn ’ t it possible that patients are coming into the ER and being misdiagnosed ?
Not really , said Bedford .
The CDC tracks pneumonia cases .
There ’ s been no big uptick recently .
He notes that Ohio officials have cited a 2017 CDC report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know of 2 people that have it due to community spread , then you can assume that 1 % of your population has it.
” But obviously , per the hospitalization rate , that ’ s just not true right now .
Check back in a few weeks , though .
The most encouraging information online today about COVID-19 is this interactive graph at the Times , which lets you see how strategies to combat the disease like “ social distancing ” are projected to affect its spread .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is acting too soon in shutting everything down should play with the graph and see how the number of infections and deaths changes when you wait as little as a week or two to ramp up .
Wider testing will also dramatically affect the spread .
That testing is coming online , verrrrrrry slowly , but it ’ s coming ; that ’ s the good news .
The bad news is that it ’ s come slowly enough that experts like Scott Gottlieb think our chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and largely stamping this fire out before it ’ s had a chance to roar are gone .
Even in the Times model ’ s very best-case scenario , in which we institute “ aggressive ” countermeasures today , the disease is projected to infect half a million people and kill 50,000 .
The very worst-case scenario projected by the CDC is 160 million and 214 million Americans infected over the next year with somewhere between 200,000 and 1.7 million dead .
Those numbers assume “ business as usual ” with socialization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from business as usual in mass public gatherings , so that ’ ll bring the numbers down .
That ’ s the point of the interactive graph above .
On the other hand , there ’ s not a ton of evidence yet that people are practicing widespread smaller-scale “ social distancing , ” which leaves me to assume that the best-case scenario isn ’ t in the offing either .
Given how close to full capacity U.S. hospitals operate even in normal times , my impression from the reporting is that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Italy scenario in which patients are being triaged to some degree in one or more cities before we get a handle on this .
“ The estimated 45,000 intensive care unit beds in the United States would be swamped by even a moderate outbreak of about 200,000 in need of I.C.U .
admission , ” the NYT reports .
Given that we missed our opportunity to test early in a volume sufficient needed to contain this thing , how do we avoid so much as a “ moderate outbreak ” now ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cut the line at the ER .
Exit quotation : “ The priority should be health care workers ; police , firefighters and other emergency workers ; and those who keep water , electricity and other necessary systems functioning , because they can save the lives of others .
”

Lotta buzz overnight about this figure from yesterday’s press conference with Gov. Mike DeWine, which is good. Scary numbers drive home to people how serious this is.
But the number didn’t make sense to me intuitively. Since 80 percent of people with the disease experience mild symptoms, 20 percent should logically require medical intervention. If 100,000+ Ohioans have it, there should already be a glut of patients at ERs needing oxygen, ventilators, and so on. There are no reports of that yet.
So how can one percent of the population be infected?
“We know now, just the fact of community spread, says that at least 1 percent, at the very least, 1 percent of our population is carrying this virus in Ohio today,” [Ohio Department of Health Director Amy] Acton said. “We have 11.7 million people. So the math is over 100,000. So that just gives you a sense of how this virus spreads and is spreading quickly.”… “Our delay in being able to test has delayed our understanding of the spread of this,” Acton said.
Seemed suspicious to a dummy like me, but it also seemed suspicious to people who do this for a living. Trevor Bedford is a scientist in Seattle who specializes in viruses and has been studying the spread of COVID-19 there. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the person who was sounding the alarm several weeks ago about undetected community spread in Seattle based on the similar genome of the viruses found in two different local patients weeks apart. Bedford noticed this 100,000+ figure out of Ohio yesterday and scratched his head.
Wuhan as a city had seen 1000 severe cases and 300 deaths at this point (https://t.co/0IbxHzcj93). Thus, given the severity of this disease I don't see how it's possible to reach 100k infections and not notice it in deaths and hospitalizations. 3/5 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 13, 2020
I don't doubt community spread is happening Ohio and it's highly difficult to do these prevalence estimates well without wider surveillance efforts, but I think this is certainly a strong overestimate. 5/5 — Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) March 13, 2020
Some readers tweeted at him that maybe coronavirus infections in Ohio are being “disguised” as flu or pneumonia cases right now. We’re barely even testing for the disease, after all; isn’t it possible that patients are coming into the ER and being misdiagnosed? Not really, said Bedford. The CDC tracks pneumonia cases. There’s been no big uptick recently. He notes that Ohio officials have cited a 2017 CDC report on viruses in claiming that “Whenever you know of 2 people that have it due to community spread, then you can assume that 1% of your population has it.” But obviously, per the hospitalization rate, that’s just not true right now.
Check back in a few weeks, though.
The most encouraging information online today about COVID-19 is this interactive graph at the Times, which lets you see how strategies to combat the disease like “social distancing” are projected to affect its spread. There’s an enormous difference based on timing alone. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is acting too soon in shutting everything down should play with the graph and see how the number of infections and deaths changes when you wait as little as a week or two to ramp up.
Wider testing will also dramatically affect the spread. That testing is coming online, verrrrrrry slowly, but it’s coming; that’s the good news. The bad news is that it’s come slowly enough that experts like Scott Gottlieb think our chances of “pulling a South Korea” and largely stamping this fire out before it’s had a chance to roar are gone. Even in the Times model’s very best-case scenario, in which we institute “aggressive” countermeasures today, the disease is projected to infect half a million people and kill 50,000.
THREAD: In U.S. we face two alternative but hard outlooks with #COVID19: that we follow a path similar to South Korea or one closer to Italy. We probably lost chance to have an outcome like South Korea. We must do everything to avert the tragic suffering being borne by Italy 1/10 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 12, 2020
In some respects our fate rests on the entities that are capable of sharply ramping testing and distributing the services nationally. Academic labs can serve their institutions. Only big national clinical labs like LabCorp and Quest can fill the void. A lot rides on them now 3/10 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 12, 2020
3. We need to create surge capacity in hospitals. Congress must support the effort. Patients and providers can too. Elective procedures should be postponed for next few months. Hospitals should lower volumes everywhere they can. We need to prepare for an influx of cases. 8/10 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 12, 2020
We’ll get through this. It’ll end. We have two hard months ahead of us. We need to sacrifice some of the trappings of normal life to reduce the scope and severity of what’s ahead. We must protect the vulnerable. We must act collectively in common interest. We must work together. — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 12, 2020
The very worst-case scenario projected by the CDC is 160 million and 214 million Americans infected over the next year with somewhere between 200,000 and 1.7 million dead. Those numbers assume “business as usual” with socialization, though. We’ve already shifted from business as usual in mass public gatherings, so that’ll bring the numbers down. That’s the point of the interactive graph above.
On the other hand, there’s not a ton of evidence yet that people are practicing widespread smaller-scale “social distancing,” which leaves me to assume that the best-case scenario isn’t in the offing either. Given how close to full capacity U.S. hospitals operate even in normal times, my impression from the reporting is that we’re likely to end up with an Italy scenario in which patients are being triaged to some degree in one or more cities before we get a handle on this. “The estimated 45,000 intensive care unit beds in the United States would be swamped by even a moderate outbreak of about 200,000 in need of I.C.U. admission,” the NYT reports. Given that we missed our opportunity to test early in a volume sufficient needed to contain this thing, how do we avoid so much as a “moderate outbreak” now?
Time to start thinking about who gets to cut the line at the ER. Exit quotation: “The priority should be health care workers; police, firefighters and other emergency workers; and those who keep water, electricity and other necessary systems functioning, because they can save the lives of others.”


hotair--2020-03-13--Splitsville? #NeverBiden movement emerging on the Left

Is this a case of the usual momentary sour grapes , or something more significant ?
In the wake of Joe Biden ’ s sudden — and largely fortunate — rise to dominance in the Democratic presidential primary , Politico reports that a new reaction threatens his ability to unite the party behind his candidacy .
Meet the # NeverBidens , the # WriteInBernie bros , and the perhaps-coming # DemExit2020 : There ’ s no question it ’ s been a banner two weeks for Biden .
But lurking in the background of his sudden ascension to all-but-presumptive nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders supporters might not migrate to him in November , weakening him in the general election .
The significance of the problem became apparent in the same string of primaries that put Biden on the cusp of the nomination .
In Michigan — a state critical to Democrats ’ efforts to reclaim their general election footing in the Rust Belt — just 2 of 5 Sanders backers said they would vote Democratic in November , regardless of who became the nominee , according to exit polls .
Four in five said they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic standard-bearer .
Though it ’ s unclear how widespread or adamant the # NeverBiden contingent is — will they really stay home when the alternative is another four years of President Donald Trump ?
— the misgivings at least put the Biden campaign on notice that it has significant work to do to bring along Sanders ’ base .
In every primary cycle , there is a period of time that can be fairly described as A Great Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth .
People invest themselves heavily in primary fights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all sweetness and light and their opponents become a cross between Darth Vader and the Three Stooges .
In the immediate aftermath of that collapse , people react irrationally and declare themselves unalterably opposed to the primary winner no matter what happens , even if that means voting against their ideological interests .
Usually that dissipates by the time the conventions roll around , but not always .
We still have a # NeverTrump movement , for instance , although its significance is small enough that it couldn ’ t even generate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split didn ’ t keep Trump from winning it all in 2016 , although it might have against a stronger opponent than Hillary Clinton .
In this case , the split may well be more significant .
Bernie Sanders ’ voters are less likely to identify as Democrats ( or at least as strongly ) as supporters of Biden ’ s other primary voters , and that means they ’ re more likely to sit out the election .
They are also more ideological than partisan as a result , which means that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take half a loaf over none at all .
Some will , but not the true believers , and they make up a solid core of voters that Biden will need in November .
Unfortunately , their ideological needs would put them at direct conflict with the centrism that Biden needs to embody in order to win a national election against Trump , which puts Biden between a rock and a hard place .
That tapdance would tax the capabilities even of the most skilled politician .
As I write in my column @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not much of a dancer , and is more lucky than good : The quality of Biden ’ s sudden good fortune raises another question about his viability , too .
Until Sanders started offering arguments about the good side of Fidel Castro and communist China , Biden had trailed in a number of Super Tuesday states .
After winning South Carolina and having the remaining center-lane candidates drop out , Biden began winning in places he ’ d barely visited — Minnesota , Massachusetts , Maine , and arguably Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ahead .
Polls suggested that Sanders would score a huge delegate advantage over Biden in progressive California , but Biden finished within seven points of Sanders and with just 50 fewer delegates .
The impression this leaves is of a candidate who is winning by default , not by skill or argument .
Exit polls favoring electability over policy amplify that impression .
Sanders must believe that to be true , too , which is why he ’ s defying the delegate math for a few more days to take a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has to do at Sunday ’ s debate is survive it without doing too much damage to his own case .
Sanders can only win now if Biden stumbles so badly as to make himself the more dangerous choice in a general election , and it will take a historic stumble to make the Fidel apologist the safe choice .
However , Biden ’ s performance thus far should raise serious concerns about his ability to compete against President Trump .
It ’ s true that Trump largely won four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign and the disgust she inspired among voters , as Chait notes .
This time around , though , Trump ’ s record primary turnout while running largely unopposed hints at the kind of voter-turnout organization that he largely eschewed in 2016 .
If Sunday ’ s debate is Bernie ’ s last stand , it may also be the last chance Biden has to prove he can actually compete on his own terms in a presidential contest .
A default candidacy may not suffice in the general election .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debate , his nomination is all but assured .
His ability to hold the party together is still a big question , and it won ’ t take a major # DemExit2020 to send Biden permanently into retirement .

Is this a case of the usual momentary sour grapes, or something more significant? In the wake of Joe Biden’s sudden — and largely fortunate — rise to dominance in the Democratic presidential primary, Politico reports that a new reaction threatens his ability to unite the party behind his candidacy. Meet the #NeverBidens, the #WriteInBernie bros, and the perhaps-coming #DemExit2020:
There’s no question it’s been a banner two weeks for Biden. But lurking in the background of his sudden ascension to all-but-presumptive nominee is evidence that at least some Bernie Sanders supporters might not migrate to him in November, weakening him in the general election. The significance of the problem became apparent in the same string of primaries that put Biden on the cusp of the nomination. In Michigan — a state critical to Democrats’ efforts to reclaim their general election footing in the Rust Belt — just 2 of 5 Sanders backers said they would vote Democratic in November, regardless of who became the nominee, according to exit polls. Four in five said they’d be dissatisfied with Biden as the Democratic standard-bearer. Though it’s unclear how widespread or adamant the #NeverBiden contingent is — will they really stay home when the alternative is another four years of President Donald Trump? — the misgivings at least put the Biden campaign on notice that it has significant work to do to bring along Sanders’ base.
In every primary cycle, there is a period of time that can be fairly described as A Great Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth. People invest themselves heavily in primary fights, to the point where their side becomes all sweetness and light and their opponents become a cross between Darth Vader and the Three Stooges. In the immediate aftermath of that collapse, people react irrationally and declare themselves unalterably opposed to the primary winner no matter what happens, even if that means voting against their ideological interests.
Usually that dissipates by the time the conventions roll around, but not always. We still have a #NeverTrump movement, for instance, although its significance is small enough that it couldn’t even generate a primary challenge in this cycle. That split didn’t keep Trump from winning it all in 2016, although it might have against a stronger opponent than Hillary Clinton.
In this case, the split may well be more significant. Bernie Sanders’ voters are less likely to identify as Democrats (or at least as strongly) as supporters of Biden’s other primary voters, and that means they’re more likely to sit out the election. They are also more ideological than partisan as a result, which means that they aren’t as likely to take half a loaf over none at all. Some will, but not the true believers, and they make up a solid core of voters that Biden will need in November. Unfortunately, their ideological needs would put them at direct conflict with the centrism that Biden needs to embody in order to win a national election against Trump, which puts Biden between a rock and a hard place.
That tapdance would tax the capabilities even of the most skilled politician. As I write in my column for The Week, however, Biden’s not much of a dancer, and is more lucky than good:
The quality of Biden’s sudden good fortune raises another question about his viability, too. Until Sanders started offering arguments about the good side of Fidel Castro and communist China, Biden had trailed in a number of Super Tuesday states. After winning South Carolina and having the remaining center-lane candidates drop out, Biden began winning in places he’d barely visited — Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, and arguably Texas — where Sanders had been presumed to be ahead. Polls suggested that Sanders would score a huge delegate advantage over Biden in progressive California, but Biden finished within seven points of Sanders and with just 50 fewer delegates. The impression this leaves is of a candidate who is winning by default, not by skill or argument. Exit polls favoring electability over policy amplify that impression. Sanders must believe that to be true, too, which is why he’s defying the delegate math for a few more days to take a direct run at Biden on stage. All Biden has to do at Sunday’s debate is survive it without doing too much damage to his own case. Sanders can only win now if Biden stumbles so badly as to make himself the more dangerous choice in a general election, and it will take a historic stumble to make the Fidel apologist the safe choice. However, Biden’s performance thus far should raise serious concerns about his ability to compete against President Trump. It’s true that Trump largely won four years ago because of the incompetence of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the disgust she inspired among voters, as Chait notes. This time around, though, Trump’s record primary turnout while running largely unopposed hints at the kind of voter-turnout organization that he largely eschewed in 2016. If Sunday’s debate is Bernie’s last stand, it may also be the last chance Biden has to prove he can actually compete on his own terms in a presidential contest. A default candidacy may not suffice in the general election.
Even if Biden fumbles his way through Sunday’s debate, his nomination is all but assured. His ability to hold the party together is still a big question, and it won’t take a major #DemExit2020 to send Biden permanently into retirement.


hotair--2020-03-13--Finally: Trump administration fast-tracks private COVID-19 test approvals

Of all the frustrations around the government response to the coronavirus outbreak , the lack of testing capacity and development tops the charts .
This morning , however , the Trump administration plans to unleash the private sector and state governments in developing new and more rapid testing .
Under an emergency authorization , the FDA has told Roche to begin producing a new COVID-19 test that will expand capacity on an exponential scale : The Food and Drug Administration granted “ emergency use authorization ” to the test , which runs on Roche Holding AG ’ s cobas 6800/8800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of testing 4,128 patients a day , and the 6800 version can test as many as 1,440 .
The tool also is available in Europe and countries that accept its CE marking for medical devices .
… This is the third test — and first commercially available one — granted emergency approval by the FDA .
The agency in February cleared diagnostic tools brought forth by the CDC and the New York State Department of Public Health .
The U.S. and much of Europe have been criticized for testing their populations too slowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roche ’ s cobas systems , launched in 2014 , are widely available globally , with 695 of the 6800 instruments and 132 of the 8800 systems already installed .
There are 110 of these tools in the U.S. , and Roche has installed a “ significant amount ” of new ones in key locations in the U.S. in recent weeks , Schinecker said .
Roche declined to specify how many of those units are 8800 and how many are 6800 models .
According to Politico ’ s Jake Sherman , that isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FDA .
The agency has given approval for the state of New York to take charge of testing authorizations for both public- and private-sector efforts , a move that will reduce the lag time in getting testing facilities up and running .
That would signal a willingness to use subsidiarity and devolved authority to encourage innovation and expansion , which is sorely needed at this stage of the disease ’ s spread .
The FDA will coordinate with a 24/7 hotline , Sherman reports , to facilitate testing , validation , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the famed Mayo Clinic announced last night that they have a new test that they have already rolled out to their own clinics and will shortly make much more widely available : The Mayo Clinic has begun rolling out a test to detect the virus that causes COVID-19 , a development that comes as concerns build that a lack of testing capacity could thwart a robust response to the outbreak .
Mayo ’ s large commercial lab in Rochester is one of several that have scrambled in recent weeks to create a test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The lab says it started making tests available to health care providers at Mayo on Thursday and will open the supply to others in the coming days .
Mayo ’ s initial capacity of 200 to 300 tests per day is expected to grow in the coming weeks .
Creating a new test usually takes months or even a year , clinic officials say , but they opted to fast-track development of the new test beginning in mid-February after watching the virus overwhelm the health care system in China , where the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the FDA breaks a logjam that has hampered the US response to COVID-19 for at least a month .
The FDA had dragged its heels on getting commercial labs involved in the development of tests , which forced a bottleneck at the CDC , former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb explained yesterday on Twitter .
The emergency authorization to Roche ( not mentioned by Gottlieb ) provides a first answer to this call .
Mayo Clinic ’ s new effort — which is in response to a deluge of testing demands — will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a concerted effort to expand this capacity to meet the demand necessary to identify and track the spread of COVID-19 , and the FDA ’ s willingness to decentralize that effort is a good step in the right direction .
Gottlieb expressed his approval earlier this morning as well , noting that the new measures will free up the big labs to ramp up capacity quickly : Speaking of which , the Trump administration has also begun funding development for rapid-response tests : The Trump administration is awarding $ 1.3 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop rapid COVID-19 tests that could detect whether a person tests positive for the new coronavirus within an hour .
The Department of Health and Human Services says Friday it is awarding $ 679,000 to DiaSorin Molecular , of Cypress , California , and $ 598,000 to QIAGEN LLC of Germantown , Maryland , to accelerate development of the tests .
The agency says DiaSorin could potentially be ready within six weeks for consideration by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration , and the QIAGEN test could be ready within 12 weeks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have happened a month or more ago , but at least it ’ s happening now .
Within a few weeks , we should have a much better idea about the actual exposure of COVID-19 , its actual mortality , and — perhaps most important — a solid metric on when it starts to abate and the country can return to normal .
Until we have that data , we ’ re flying blind .
Addendum : In the end , we may be very grateful for not having a single-payer system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Wall Street Journal .
Not only does our system encourage this kind of free-market innovation , it also forces better investment across the board — as we see in Europe : Doctors in Italy know what to do to treat severe cases , such as using ventilators in intensive-care units .
But hospitals lack the beds and equipment for the influx of patients and Italy doesn ’ t have enough doctors even to make the attempt .
Ill patients languish in hospital corridors for want of beds , recovering patients are rushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and exhausted ( and sometimes sick ) doctors and nurses can ’ t even muster the energy to throw up their hands in despair .
Is this more a result of the severity of Covid-19 , or of long-term failures to invest in the Italian health-care system ?
One starts to suspect the latter .
Italy lags other large European countries in provision of acute-care hospital beds , furnishing 2.62 of them per 1,000 residents as of 2016 , according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development .
In Germany it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Netherlands it ’ s 3.15 and 3 respectively .
That year , Italy devoted around $ 913 per capita to inpatient acute and rehabilitative care , compared with $ 1,338 in France , $ 1,506 in Germany , and $ 1,732 in the U.S. U.K. policy makers understand what such analyses portend—because underinvestment in Britain ’ s creaking health-care system is even worse .
The U.K. spent the princely sum of $ 901.70 per capita on acute care in 2016 , according to the OECD .
British data don ’ t distinguish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available beds overall isn ’ t any more favorable to the U.K. ( or to Italy ) .
In 2017 , when Germany provided 8 beds per 1,000 residents and France offered 5.98 , Italy managed 3.18 and the U.K. only 2.54 .
Be sure to read it all .

Of all the frustrations around the government response to the coronavirus outbreak, the lack of testing capacity and development tops the charts. This morning, however, the Trump administration plans to unleash the private sector and state governments in developing new and more rapid testing. Under an emergency authorization, the FDA has told Roche to begin producing a new COVID-19 test that will expand capacity on an exponential scale:
The Food and Drug Administration granted “emergency use authorization” to the test, which runs on Roche Holding AG’s cobas 6800/8800 systems. The 8800 system is capable of testing 4,128 patients a day, and the 6800 version can test as many as 1,440. The tool also is available in Europe and countries that accept its CE marking for medical devices. … This is the third test — and first commercially available one — granted emergency approval by the FDA. The agency in February cleared diagnostic tools brought forth by the CDC and the New York State Department of Public Health. The U.S. and much of Europe have been criticized for testing their populations too slowly, allowing the virus to proliferate. Roche’s cobas systems, launched in 2014, are widely available globally, with 695 of the 6800 instruments and 132 of the 8800 systems already installed. There are 110 of these tools in the U.S., and Roche has installed a “significant amount” of new ones in key locations in the U.S. in recent weeks, Schinecker said. Roche declined to specify how many of those units are 8800 and how many are 6800 models.
According to Politico’s Jake Sherman, that isn’t the only change coming from the FDA. The agency has given approval for the state of New York to take charge of testing authorizations for both public- and private-sector efforts, a move that will reduce the lag time in getting testing facilities up and running. That would signal a willingness to use subsidiarity and devolved authority to encourage innovation and expansion, which is sorely needed at this stage of the disease’s spread. The FDA will coordinate with a 24/7 hotline, Sherman reports, to facilitate testing, validation, or processing support.
Here in Minnesota, the famed Mayo Clinic announced last night that they have a new test that they have already rolled out to their own clinics and will shortly make much more widely available:
The Mayo Clinic has begun rolling out a test to detect the virus that causes COVID-19, a development that comes as concerns build that a lack of testing capacity could thwart a robust response to the outbreak. Mayo’s large commercial lab in Rochester is one of several that have scrambled in recent weeks to create a test that can detect coronavirus in specimens. The lab says it started making tests available to health care providers at Mayo on Thursday and will open the supply to others in the coming days. Mayo’s initial capacity of 200 to 300 tests per day is expected to grow in the coming weeks. Creating a new test usually takes months or even a year, clinic officials say, but they opted to fast-track development of the new test beginning in mid-February after watching the virus overwhelm the health care system in China, where the outbreak strain of coronavirus originated.
These moves by the FDA breaks a logjam that has hampered the US response to COVID-19 for at least a month. The FDA had dragged its heels on getting commercial labs involved in the development of tests, which forced a bottleneck at the CDC, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb explained yesterday on Twitter.
In some respects our fate rests on the entities that are capable of sharply ramping testing and distributing the services nationally. Academic labs can serve their institutions. Only big national clinical labs like LabCorp and Quest can fill the void. A lot rides on them now 3/10 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 12, 2020
Public health labs have been an outstanding pillar. They’re working around the clock. They’re the nation’s backbone of response. But they aren’t richly funded and are being maxed out against current facilities. Only clinical labs have ability to sharply scale the efforts. 6/10 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 12, 2020
The emergency authorization to Roche (not mentioned by Gottlieb) provides a first answer to this call. Mayo Clinic’s new effort — which is in response to a deluge of testing demands — will also ease the logjam. It will take a concerted effort to expand this capacity to meet the demand necessary to identify and track the spread of COVID-19, and the FDA’s willingness to decentralize that effort is a good step in the right direction.
Gottlieb expressed his approval earlier this morning as well, noting that the new measures will free up the big labs to ramp up capacity quickly:
…This, in turn, can help make sure there are more platforms that can be used for #coronavirus testing. And FDA resources could then be prioritized toward working with manufacturers on a much needed, true point of care rapid test doctors can use in office. — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 13, 2020
Speaking of which, the Trump administration has also begun funding development for rapid-response tests:
The Trump administration is awarding $1.3 million in federal money to two companies trying to develop rapid COVID-19 tests that could detect whether a person tests positive for the new coronavirus within an hour. The Department of Health and Human Services says Friday it is awarding $679,000 to DiaSorin Molecular, of Cypress, California, and $598,000 to QIAGEN LLC of Germantown, Maryland, to accelerate development of the tests. The agency says DiaSorin could potentially be ready within six weeks for consideration by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the QIAGEN test could be ready within 12 weeks for EUA consideration by the FDA.
This should have happened a month or more ago, but at least it’s happening now. Within a few weeks, we should have a much better idea about the actual exposure of COVID-19, its actual mortality, and — perhaps most important — a solid metric on when it starts to abate and the country can return to normal. Until we have that data, we’re flying blind.
Addendum: In the end, we may be very grateful for not having a single-payer system, writes Joseph Sternberg in today’s Wall Street Journal. Not only does our system encourage this kind of free-market innovation, it also forces better investment across the board — as we see in Europe:
Doctors in Italy know what to do to treat severe cases, such as using ventilators in intensive-care units. But hospitals lack the beds and equipment for the influx of patients and Italy doesn’t have enough doctors even to make the attempt. Ill patients languish in hospital corridors for want of beds, recovering patients are rushed out the door as quickly as possible, and exhausted (and sometimes sick) doctors and nurses can’t even muster the energy to throw up their hands in despair. Is this more a result of the severity of Covid-19, or of long-term failures to invest in the Italian health-care system? One starts to suspect the latter. Italy lags other large European countries in provision of acute-care hospital beds, furnishing 2.62 of them per 1,000 residents as of 2016, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In Germany it’s 6.06 and in France and the Netherlands it’s 3.15 and 3 respectively. That year, Italy devoted around $913 per capita to inpatient acute and rehabilitative care, compared with $1,338 in France, $1,506 in Germany, and $1,732 in the U.S. U.K. policy makers understand what such analyses portend—because underinvestment in Britain’s creaking health-care system is even worse. The U.K. spent the princely sum of $901.70 per capita on acute care in 2016, according to the OECD. British data don’t distinguish acute-care beds, but a comparison of available beds overall isn’t any more favorable to the U.K. (or to Italy). In 2017, when Germany provided 8 beds per 1,000 residents and France offered 5.98, Italy managed 3.18 and the U.K. only 2.54.
Be sure to read it all.


hotair--2020-03-13--Has a bipartisan 'vaccine' been applied to the coronavirus-relief bill yet?

One can always count on Congress to do the right thing — after it exhausts all other possibilities first .
With stock markets reeling and Americans growing more nervous about the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic , members of both parties and both chambers on Capitol Hill understood the need to bolster the US economy in the weeks ahead .
Unfortunately , it took an embarrassing sequence of partisan games and demands for recess before they could finally come to a deal all sides could accept .
Actually , they ’ re not quite there yet , but at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Trump administration and congressional Democrats neared agreement Thursday night on an economic relief package to help people impacted by the coronavirus , with both sides under enormous pressure to act to address the spiraling crisis .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) said she expected a vote Friday ” one way or another ” to approve the package , which is expected to amount to several tens of billions of dollars .
“ We ’ ve resolved most of our differences , and those we haven ’ t we ’ ll continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will obviously be other bills , ” Pelosi told reporters outside of her office in the Capitol , at the end of a long day of intense talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin .
The problem with House Democrats ’ bill was that it didn ’ t actually have as much to do with the coronavirus as it did with their political hobby horses .
The language was structured in such a way that medical-health spending would have created a loophole in the Hyde Amendment , an annual budget rider that prohibits federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi of hijacking the bill to advance her anti-Hyde agenda , At the moment , that issue appears to have been resolved , but others remain .
One key sticking point is the application of paid-leave support .
In the original House bill , there was no sunset and the language would have put the entire onus on employers , making this a permanent public policy change rather than an emergency measure : At the center of the negotiations is a dispute over paid leave provisions in the Democrats ’ initial bill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers accrue seven days of leave that would apply in future public health emergencies , on top of an immediate 14 days of leave due to coronavirus-related work stoppages .
Republicans have been pressing to use the incentive of tax credits to employers rather than government mandates to make paid emergency and sick leave available to workers , according to multiple sources who spoke on condition they not be identified due to the sensitivity of the talks .
GOP negotiators also object to administering the paid leave program through the Social Security Administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that benefit could be moved to the jurisdiction of the Labor Department , two people with knowledge of the talks said .
… McConnell also criticized the House bill during a floor speech Thursday morning .
“ The speaker ’ s proposal would stand up a needless thicket of new bureaucracy , ” he said .
“ As currently drafted , their proposal appears to impose permanent unfunded mandates on businesses that could cause massive job losses and put thousands of small businesses at risk.
” Pelosi still wants to hold a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not yet clear on what .
Unless the Senate gets a bill they can either accept or modify to send back to the House for a later vote , it won ’ t matter much what Pelosi does .
That leaves relief on hold for the most part , and Trump controlling whatever else can actually get accomplished without Congress .
If Pelosi doesn ’ t negotiate in good faith , she ’ s setting herself up for a deluge of blame for any failure to respond to the economic aspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially true if she sends the House on a recess while Mitch McConnell holds the Senate in session .
Eventually , Pelosi will realize this .
She just has to do everything wrong first .

One can always count on Congress to do the right thing — after it exhausts all other possibilities first. With stock markets reeling and Americans growing more nervous about the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, members of both parties and both chambers on Capitol Hill understood the need to bolster the US economy in the weeks ahead. Unfortunately, it took an embarrassing sequence of partisan games and demands for recess before they could finally come to a deal all sides could accept.
Actually, they’re not quite there yet, but at least they’re getting closer:
The Trump administration and congressional Democrats neared agreement Thursday night on an economic relief package to help people impacted by the coronavirus, with both sides under enormous pressure to act to address the spiraling crisis. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she expected a vote Friday ”one way or another” to approve the package, which is expected to amount to several tens of billions of dollars. “We’ve resolved most of our differences, and those we haven’t we’ll continue to have a conversation — because there will obviously be other bills,” Pelosi told reporters outside of her office in the Capitol, at the end of a long day of intense talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
The problem with House Democrats’ bill was that it didn’t actually have as much to do with the coronavirus as it did with their political hobby horses. The language was structured in such a way that medical-health spending would have created a loophole in the Hyde Amendment, an annual budget rider that prohibits federal spending on abortions. Republicans accused Nancy Pelosi of hijacking the bill to advance her anti-Hyde agenda,
At the moment, that issue appears to have been resolved, but others remain. One key sticking point is the application of paid-leave support. In the original House bill, there was no sunset and the language would have put the entire onus on employers, making this a permanent public policy change rather than an emergency measure:
At the center of the negotiations is a dispute over paid leave provisions in the Democrats’ initial bill. The legislation would require employers to let workers accrue seven days of leave that would apply in future public health emergencies, on top of an immediate 14 days of leave due to coronavirus-related work stoppages. Republicans have been pressing to use the incentive of tax credits to employers rather than government mandates to make paid emergency and sick leave available to workers, according to multiple sources who spoke on condition they not be identified due to the sensitivity of the talks. GOP negotiators also object to administering the paid leave program through the Social Security Administration. Under one proposal under discussion, that benefit could be moved to the jurisdiction of the Labor Department, two people with knowledge of the talks said. … McConnell also criticized the House bill during a floor speech Thursday morning. “The speaker’s proposal would stand up a needless thicket of new bureaucracy,” he said. “As currently drafted, their proposal appears to impose permanent unfunded mandates on businesses that could cause massive job losses and put thousands of small businesses at risk.”
Pelosi still wants to hold a vote today in the House, but it’s not yet clear on what. Unless the Senate gets a bill they can either accept or modify to send back to the House for a later vote, it won’t matter much what Pelosi does. That leaves relief on hold for the most part, and Trump controlling whatever else can actually get accomplished without Congress. If Pelosi doesn’t negotiate in good faith, she’s setting herself up for a deluge of blame for any failure to respond to the economic aspects of the crisis. That’s especially true if she sends the House on a recess while Mitch McConnell holds the Senate in session.
Eventually, Pelosi will realize this. She just has to do everything wrong first.


hotair--2020-03-13--Chelsea Manning released from jail, but not for the reason you might think

As recently as this Tuesday , the situation with Chelsea Manning seemed to be stalled .
She had been in jail since last May , running up fines as she refused to testify before the grand jury investigating Julian Assange and Wikileaks .
Then on Wednesday , Manning allegedly attempted suicide at the jail and was temporarily transferred to a hospital .
Then , last night , despite being scheduled to appear in court today , the judge in the case ordered Manning to be released from jail .
( BBC ) Manning was remanded for refusing to testify in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been held in a detention centre in Virginia since last May .
She was scheduled to appear in court on Friday , but the judge ruled that it was no longer necessary for her to testify .
Manning was found guilty in 2013 of charges including espionage for leaking secret military files to Wikileaks… Manning , 32 , refused to answer further questions about Wikileaks from investigators because she said she had already given her testimony during the 2013 trial .
So does this mean that Chelsea Manning was finally victorious over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year-long standoff ?
Should we take this to mean that the suicide incident worked and convinced the judge to finally relent ?
No , it does not .
What actually happened was that the grand jury was dis-impaneled .
Manning ’ s procedural hearing that was scheduled for today was declared by the judge to no longer be necessary .
And just as happened when the original grand jury was sent home , Manning could no longer be considered in contempt and had to be released once again .
Further proof of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manning came when her lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the more than $ 250,000 in fines she had accrued .
The judge refused , saying that the fines would have to be paid in full .
It ’ s also worth noting that the prosecutors in the case still have the ability to impanel yet another grand jury if they feel that would be needed .
In that case , Manning could quickly end up behind bars yet again .
The real mystery here is why the grand jury was sent home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve collected all of the evidence they feel is available and are ready to take Assange to trial if he ’ s successfully extradited from Great Britain ?
Or are they giving up on the case ?
We probably won ’ t know the answer to that question until the extradition hearings conclude later this month .
A spokesman for Manning ’ s legal team released a statement about her release .
Judge Anthony Trenga today ordered Chelsea Manning ’ s release from confinement , after the apparent conclusion of the grand jury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and before which she refused to testify .
He further ordered that she pay $ 256,000 in fines which accrued each day she refused to cooperate with the grand jury .
Needless to say we are relieved and ask that you respect her privacy while she gets on her feet .
That doesn ’ t sound like much of a victory lap to me .
It ’ s just an acknowledgment that she ’ s out of jail and heading home .
And with that , another chapter in the long , strange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life comes to a close .

As recently as this Tuesday, the situation with Chelsea Manning seemed to be stalled. She had been in jail since last May, running up fines as she refused to testify before the grand jury investigating Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Then on Wednesday, Manning allegedly attempted suicide at the jail and was temporarily transferred to a hospital. Then, last night, despite being scheduled to appear in court today, the judge in the case ordered Manning to be released from jail. (BBC)
Manning was remanded for refusing to testify in an inquiry into Wikileaks. She had been held in a detention centre in Virginia since last May. She was scheduled to appear in court on Friday, but the judge ruled that it was no longer necessary for her to testify. Manning was found guilty in 2013 of charges including espionage for leaking secret military files to Wikileaks… Manning, 32, refused to answer further questions about Wikileaks from investigators because she said she had already given her testimony during the 2013 trial.
So does this mean that Chelsea Manning was finally victorious over the courts and “won” this nearly year-long standoff? Should we take this to mean that the suicide incident worked and convinced the judge to finally relent?
No, it does not. What actually happened was that the grand jury was dis-impaneled. Manning’s procedural hearing that was scheduled for today was declared by the judge to no longer be necessary. And just as happened when the original grand jury was sent home, Manning could no longer be considered in contempt and had to be released once again.
Further proof of a lack of any “victory” for Manning came when her lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the more than $250,000 in fines she had accrued. The judge refused, saying that the fines would have to be paid in full. It’s also worth noting that the prosecutors in the case still have the ability to impanel yet another grand jury if they feel that would be needed. In that case, Manning could quickly end up behind bars yet again.
The real mystery here is why the grand jury was sent home. Does this mean that they’ve collected all of the evidence they feel is available and are ready to take Assange to trial if he’s successfully extradited from Great Britain? Or are they giving up on the case? We probably won’t know the answer to that question until the extradition hearings conclude later this month.
A spokesman for Manning’s legal team released a statement about her release.
Judge Anthony Trenga today ordered Chelsea Manning’s release from confinement, after the apparent conclusion of the grand jury to which she had been subpoenaed, and before which she refused to testify. He further ordered that she pay $256,000 in fines which accrued each day she refused to cooperate with the grand jury. Needless to say we are relieved and ask that you respect her privacy while she gets on her feet.
That doesn’t sound like much of a victory lap to me. It’s just an acknowledgment that she’s out of jail and heading home. And with that, another chapter in the long, strange tale that is Chelsea Manning’s life comes to a close.


hotair--2020-03-13--Maryland gov: We've "moved on" from testing because hospitals will be overwhelmed soon

A lighthearted note on which to end a lighthearted week .
“ I ’ m just wondering what ’ s taking so long [ with testing ] , ” Tur declared .
Hogan then admitted , “ Everybody ’ s trying to work on it , but I don ’ t believe they can wrap up fast enough .
That ’ s the simple answer .
We ’ ve moved on from testing , quite frankly , to other things right now.
” After being asked what the “ other things ” are , Hogan said , “ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite frankly at some point soon we ’ re probably not going to be into testing as much because the hospitals will be overwhelmed and unable to do the tests.
” I don ’ t know what to make of that .
Most testing won ’ t be done at hospitals .
It ’ ll be done at public labs , private labs , and academic labs .
My sense , if you watch the clip below ( starting at 7:44 ) , is that he means his administration is “ moving on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing .
They have more pressing issues now , like outfitting hospitals for the coming crunch .
He doesn ’ t mean that the feds or the medical community are giving up on it .
But it can ’ t be that his administration is moving on fully .
Even in the teeth of a major outbreak , testing will remain a priority in order to identify people who need to self-quarantine so that they don ’ t spread the virus further .
His team has an interest in making sure that testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run on hospitals has begun for that reason .
Or does it ?
It ’ s above my pay grade but maybe there ’ s a tipping point in an outbreak at which the virus is so far out of control that it doesn ’ t make epidemiological sense anymore to test for it .
There must be some threshold at which so many people are infected that it suddenly becomes highly likely that at least half of the population will contract the disease and herd immunity will begin to control further spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing to test people at that point ?
Even if there isn ’ t , we can ’ t be so far gone already that Hogan should be indifferent to testing hold-ups .
Is he just trying to cover for Trump here in shrugging off the delay , making sure that Maryland doesn ’ t end up getting short shrift from the feds because he knows the president will be vindictive if he criticizes him ?
Former Trump advisor Tom Bossert is still very much interested in testing , and the sooner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grasp the math behind the urgency , I strongly recommend this Times piece on the “ positive ” side of exponential growth .
The exponential growth of coronavirus is the great peril of the disease ; it doubles among the population every week or so , which means the numbers can go from unnoticeable to explosive in a blink .
That cuts both ways , though : The sooner we act to reduce infections , which is already happening via social distancing , the more enormous the long-term payoff is in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illustrates the results of a thought experiment .
It assumes constant 30 percent growth throughout the next month in an epidemic like the one in the U.S. right now , and compares the results of stopping one infection today — by actions such as shifting to online classes , canceling of large events and imposing travel restrictions — versus taking the same action one week from today The difference is stark .
If you act today , you will have averted four times as many infections in the next month : roughly 2,400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wait one week .
That ’ s the power of averting just one infection , and obviously we would like to avert more than one .
That ’ s not to say those 2,400 people who are spared will never be infected .
But they ’ ll be infected later .
Maybe when the hospitals aren ’ t crowded .
Maybe when antiviral drugs are in place to help them fight the infection off .
Every second counts .
Some heartbreaking goodbye phone calls from the gurney will never need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assumption is that we ’ ll have 8,000 known infections or more by mid-week next week *assuming* that testing is robust enough to detect them .
God only knows how many undetected cases are already circulating .
In the meantime , food for thought : What ’ s Congress doing to prepare for an outbreak within its own ranks ?
Our national legislature is teeming with geriatrics , the people most vulnerable to serious complications from infection .
There are no gubernatorial appointments to fill vacant House seats ; special elections would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inopportune time .
If members are merely incapacitated and not killed by the disease , that would potentially affect Congress ’ s ability to act legislatively by impairing its ability to form a quorum .
How will they deal with that ?
Read this and this for some ideas .
Exit question : Why can ’ t Congress just vote from home ?
It ’ s an archaic tradition in an age of teleconferencing that they congregate to do business .
Let ’ em spend more time in their home districts , closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from infecting each other in the Capitol .
It ’ ll be good for federalism and helpful going forward in preventing them from becoming native creatures of the Washington swamp .

A lighthearted note on which to end a lighthearted week.
“I’m just wondering what’s taking so long [with testing],” Tur declared. Hogan then admitted, “Everybody’s trying to work on it, but I don’t believe they can wrap up fast enough. That’s the simple answer. We’ve moved on from testing, quite frankly, to other things right now.” After being asked what the “other things” are, Hogan said, “We’ve moved from containment to mitigation and quite frankly at some point soon we’re probably not going to be into testing as much because the hospitals will be overwhelmed and unable to do the tests.”
I don’t know what to make of that. Most testing won’t be done at hospitals. It’ll be done at public labs, private labs, and academic labs. My sense, if you watch the clip below (starting at 7:44), is that he means his administration is “moving on” from worrying about the delay in testing. They have more pressing issues now, like outfitting hospitals for the coming crunch. He doesn’t mean that the feds or the medical community are giving up on it.
But it can’t be that his administration is moving on fully. Even in the teeth of a major outbreak, testing will remain a priority in order to identify people who need to self-quarantine so that they don’t spread the virus further. His team has an interest in making sure that testing in Maryland is widespread even after the run on hospitals has begun for that reason.
Or does it? It’s above my pay grade but maybe there’s a tipping point in an outbreak at which the virus is so far out of control that it doesn’t make epidemiological sense anymore to test for it. There must be some threshold at which so many people are infected that it suddenly becomes highly likely that at least half of the population will contract the disease and herd immunity will begin to control further spread. Is there sound cost/benefit logic in continuing to test people at that point?
Even if there isn’t, we can’t be so far gone already that Hogan should be indifferent to testing hold-ups. Is he just trying to cover for Trump here in shrugging off the delay, making sure that Maryland doesn’t end up getting short shrift from the feds because he knows the president will be vindictive if he criticizes him?
Former Trump advisor Tom Bossert is still very much interested in testing, and the sooner, the better:
When will new, promised automatic testing be in place? Task force speculated CoV will peak over the next 8-9 weeks. The goal of implementing targeted, layered, mitigation is to do so before the virus has spread to 1% of any community. Which comes first. Keep an eye on timelines. — Thomas P. Bossert (@TomBossert) March 13, 2020
If you want to grasp the math behind the urgency, I strongly recommend this Times piece on the “positive” side of exponential growth. The exponential growth of coronavirus is the great peril of the disease; it doubles among the population every week or so, which means the numbers can go from unnoticeable to explosive in a blink. That cuts both ways, though: The sooner we act to reduce infections, which is already happening via social distancing, the more enormous the long-term payoff is in terms of infections that never happen.
The graph illustrates the results of a thought experiment. It assumes constant 30 percent growth throughout the next month in an epidemic like the one in the U.S. right now, and compares the results of stopping one infection today — by actions such as shifting to online classes, canceling of large events and imposing travel restrictions — versus taking the same action one week from today The difference is stark. If you act today, you will have averted four times as many infections in the next month: roughly 2,400 averted infections, versus just 600 if you wait one week. That’s the power of averting just one infection, and obviously we would like to avert more than one.
That’s not to say those 2,400 people who are spared will never be infected. But they’ll be infected later. Maybe when the hospitals aren’t crowded. Maybe when antiviral drugs are in place to help them fight the infection off. Every second counts. Some heartbreaking goodbye phone calls from the gurney will never need to be made.
Because of exponential growth, the assumption is that we’ll have 8,000 known infections or more by mid-week next week *assuming* that testing is robust enough to detect them. God only knows how many undetected cases are already circulating. In the meantime, food for thought: What’s Congress doing to prepare for an outbreak within its own ranks? Our national legislature is teeming with geriatrics, the people most vulnerable to serious complications from infection. There are no gubernatorial appointments to fill vacant House seats; special elections would need to be held at a most inopportune time. If members are merely incapacitated and not killed by the disease, that would potentially affect Congress’s ability to act legislatively by impairing its ability to form a quorum. How will they deal with that? Read this and this for some ideas.
Exit question: Why can’t Congress just vote from home? It’s an archaic tradition in an age of teleconferencing that they congregate to do business. Let ’em spend more time in their home districts, closer to the people they represent and safer from infecting each other in the Capitol. It’ll be good for federalism and helpful going forward in preventing them from becoming native creatures of the Washington swamp.