hotair--2020-03-17--Part of the census is already on hold

Part of the census is already on hold

Today ’ s census news ties into the story that we were discussing yesterday .
The decennial count is already being impacted by the threat of the coronavirus in ways that are proving challenging to overcome .
In addition to having difficulty finding enough temporary workers in some regions , there are specific jobs that have been deemed too risky to perform during this era of social distancing even when they have the staff to tackle them .
Chief among those are the assignments to go to college campuses , grocery stores and even churches .
( Boston Herald ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Census Bureau has postponed sending out census takers to count college students in off-campus housing and delayed sending workers to grocery stores and houses of worship where they help people fill out the once-a-decade questionnaire .
The Census Bureau said in a statement Sunday that the deadline for ending the 2020 census at the end of July could be adjusted as needed .
The 2020 census started last week with its website going live and the start of mailings notifying people to start answering the questionnaire .
As of Sunday , 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census , according to the bureau .
Students living in off-campus , temporary housing won ’ t always show up as having a fixed residence in those locations and would likely not be in the system to be counted .
Going door to door is nearly the only way to ensure that you find them all .
Similarly , churches and food pantries are likely places to be able to catch up with the indigent and get them counted as well .
Given the current rules regarding mixing in large groups , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take the risk of sending temporary workers who probably don ’ t have the best health insurance to begin with on assignments like these .
The other factor not mentioned here is that many colleges have simply closed at this point , sending the students home to do their coursework and participate in lectures online .
Some students have apartments in the area and will be able to remain there .
Others are going back home to live with their parents .
In other words , the student population is splintering and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all just became incrementally harder .
So what does that mean ?
The deadline for completing the initial round of counting was supposed to be the end of July , but with estimates of when the coronavirus will have run its course varying wildly , that simply may not be possible .
The Bureau is leaving itself the flexibility to push the date back later in the year .
Fortunately , the census only happens once every ten years and pandemics remain thankfully rare .
But this should still serve as a red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are required in case something like happens again ten years from now .
I hesitate to suggest that even more of the census process be moved online and be made accessible through all mobile devices because of the danger of hackers infiltrating the system .
But at this point , so much of it is already in the cloud that I ’ m not sure it matters .
We received our letter from the Census Bureau on the day after they began going out .
There wasn ’ t even a paper form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to a particular website , enter the code provided and fill it out there .
By 2030 , if everyone doesn ’ t already have a mobile device implanted behind their eyes , perhaps the enumerators will need to go out on the streets and hand out disposable mobile devices so the process can be completed .

Today’s census news ties into the story that we were discussing yesterday. The decennial count is already being impacted by the threat of the coronavirus in ways that are proving challenging to overcome. In addition to having difficulty finding enough temporary workers in some regions, there are specific jobs that have been deemed too risky to perform during this era of social distancing even when they have the staff to tackle them. Chief among those are the assignments to go to college campuses, grocery stores and even churches. (Boston Herald)
Because of the new coronavirus, the U.S. Census Bureau has postponed sending out census takers to count college students in off-campus housing and delayed sending workers to grocery stores and houses of worship where they help people fill out the once-a-decade questionnaire. The Census Bureau said in a statement Sunday that the deadline for ending the 2020 census at the end of July could be adjusted as needed. The 2020 census started last week with its website going live and the start of mailings notifying people to start answering the questionnaire. As of Sunday, 5 million people had already responded to the census, according to the bureau.
Students living in off-campus, temporary housing won’t always show up as having a fixed residence in those locations and would likely not be in the system to be counted. Going door to door is nearly the only way to ensure that you find them all. Similarly, churches and food pantries are likely places to be able to catch up with the indigent and get them counted as well. Given the current rules regarding mixing in large groups, the Census Bureau clearly doesn’t want to take the risk of sending temporary workers who probably don’t have the best health insurance to begin with on assignments like these.
The other factor not mentioned here is that many colleges have simply closed at this point, sending the students home to do their coursework and participate in lectures online. Some students have apartments in the area and will be able to remain there. Others are going back home to live with their parents. In other words, the student population is splintering and scattering to the wind. Counting them all just became incrementally harder.
So what does that mean? The deadline for completing the initial round of counting was supposed to be the end of July, but with estimates of when the coronavirus will have run its course varying wildly, that simply may not be possible. The Bureau is leaving itself the flexibility to push the date back later in the year.
Fortunately, the census only happens once every ten years and pandemics remain thankfully rare. But this should still serve as a red flag indicating that changes to the system are required in case something like happens again ten years from now. I hesitate to suggest that even more of the census process be moved online and be made accessible through all mobile devices because of the danger of hackers infiltrating the system. But at this point, so much of it is already in the cloud that I’m not sure it matters. We received our letter from the Census Bureau on the day after they began going out. There wasn’t even a paper form inside. It just told us to go to a particular website, enter the code provided and fill it out there. By 2030, if everyone doesn’t already have a mobile device implanted behind their eyes, perhaps the enumerators will need to go out on the streets and hand out disposable mobile devices so the process can be completed.


hotair--2020-03-17--Stanford prof: Coronavirus may be less deadly than we think -- and too mild to justify these aggress

Stanford prof: Coronavirus may be less deadly than we think -- and too mild to justify these aggressive countermeasures

I offer this not to encourage complacency , of which there ’ s already been far too much , but as a purgative after feeding you a horse-sized dose of hopelessness this morning .
John Ioannidis is a respected epidemiologist at Stanford .
His specialty is “ metascience , ” i.e .
calling BS on shoddy medical research .
The point of this new piece isn ’ t to declare that the data on coronavirus is shoddy ; the point is to declare that we just don ’ t have enough of it yet to feel confident about how dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot when you ’ re implementing policies with massive social repercussions like shutting down the global economy and passing trillion-dollar stimuluses .
At bottom his argument is the same as Dr. Jeremy Faust ’ s , who I ’ ve written about before .
What if there are a ton more people walking around with asymptomatic COVID-19 than we realize ?
If there are then the death rate is far lower than we ’ re estimating .
If in fact this virus is less deadly than the flu , do we actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population , the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125 % .
But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower ( 0.025 % ) to five times higher ( 0.625 % ) .
It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population .
Adding these extra sources of uncertainty , reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05 % to 1 % .
That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done .
A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05 % is lower than seasonal influenza .
If that is the true rate , locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat .
Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat , the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies .
Calculating the death rate isn ’ t just a “ denominator problem , ” Ionnidis explains .
It ’ s a numerator problem too .
Tens of thousands of Americans die every year during flu season of “ influenza-like illnesses.
” Some of those illnesses are the work of the good ol ’ flu and tests prove it .
But some are due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The common cold is a coronavirus . )
And some of those coronaviruses are known to hit older people harder .
The estimated number of deaths from influenza-like illnesses each year is 22,000 to 55,000 , notes Ionnidis .
What if COVID-19 is just a slightly more lethal coronavirus , the sort of bug that would have gotten lumped into the category of “ influenza-like illnesses ” if we hadn ’ t misunderstood the death rate and begun panicking over it ?
If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1 % of the U.S. population gets infected ( about 3.3 million people ) , this would translate to about 10,000 deaths .
This sounds like a huge number , but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “ influenza-like illness.
” If we had not known about a new virus out there , and had not checked individuals with PCR tests , the number of total deaths due to “ influenza-like illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At most , we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average .
The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams .
The only way to have a reliable sense of how infectious and dangerous COVID-19 is , he says , is to test a sample of the population randomly .
That idea has been suggested by others too .
It ’ s like taking a poll .
Just as you couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump by polling only Democrats or only Republicans , you can ’ t get an accurate sense of what ’ s happening with the new coronavirus by testing only the people with symptoms , especially severe symptoms .
We can ’ t test people randomly right now because , er , we lack the tests needed even to test the sick , which is why Ionnidis is leaning so heavily on the Diamond Princess for evidence .
That ’ s as close to a random sample as we can get , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal there .
Relatedly , a new Chinese study postulates that for every known case of the disease there are five to 10 people walking around who have it but are undetected , and may be only half as likely to transmit as people with more developed symptoms .
There could be many more asymptomatic carriers than we suspect .
All of this matters , says Ionnidis , because we ’ re using the social equivalent of thermonuclear weapons to try to take this disease out .
Massive social distancing .
Forced closings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in federal borrowing .
These “ remedies ” will have a social cost all their own .
Layoffs .
Hungry families .
Drug and alcohol abuse .
Suicide .
“ Generational war.
” Widespread , grinding despair .
And not just here .
People are already gaming out whether the coronavirus epidemic in Iran might lead to revolution .
There ’ s just one wrinkle in Ionnidis ’ s argument : Italy .
Amazingly , the word “ Italy ” never appears in his piece .
If you want to chuck the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , who would be so foolish as to rely heavily on data from China , that ’ s fine .
But Italian hospitals are overwhelmed .
Hundreds of older Italians are still dying every day , although rigid isolation measures are helping to flatten the curve .
Clearly this virus isn ’ t business as usual , even if the death rate is lower in fact than we ’ ve been led to believe .
If only one out of a thousand people dies from COVID-19 with proper treatment but one out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that treatment then we have a major crisis regardless , with lots of indirect deaths among people from other causes ( e.g.
, heart disease ) because there ’ s no longer room at the ER for them .
All Ionnidis has to say about this is that flattening the curve via social distancing could actually prolong the meltdown by dragging it out over a longer period , but I ’ m not sure after reading the piece what he thinks we should do otherwise .
Letting the virus spread unchecked when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death rate and the hospitalization rate are would be the most insanely risky policy gamble of my lifetime .
Surely we already have enough data from Europe to believe with some confidence that the virus is highly contagious and sufficiently severe in a large enough number of cases that we need to do something immediately to slow it down .
He ’ s right about random testing ; that should be done as soon as we have the capability .
But we don ’ t right now .
So what are we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of “ this is a once-in-a-lifetime ” challenge whatever we can do to protect our hospitals ?
I mean , there has to be a middle ground between “ we ’ re all gon na die !
” and this : I ’ m interested to hear how medical pros respond to Ionnidis ’ s piece .
In the meantime , one more ominous fact about this coronavirus that may set it apart from other coronaviruses : It appears to hit front-line health-care workers unusually hard , even if they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with the higher viral load each is absorbing by interacting with multiple patients every day , but if this disease is going to take out doctors and nurses , we ’ re in much more trouble than we knew .

I offer this not to encourage complacency, of which there’s already been far too much, but as a purgative after feeding you a horse-sized dose of hopelessness this morning.
John Ioannidis is a respected epidemiologist at Stanford. His specialty is “metascience,” i.e. calling BS on shoddy medical research. The point of this new piece isn’t to declare that the data on coronavirus is shoddy; the point is to declare that we just don’t have enough of it yet to feel confident about how dangerous the disease is. And that matters a lot when you’re implementing policies with massive social repercussions like shutting down the global economy and passing trillion-dollar stimuluses.
At bottom his argument is the same as Dr. Jeremy Faust’s, who I’ve written about before. What if there are a ton more people walking around with asymptomatic COVID-19 than we realize? If there are then the death rate is far lower than we’re estimating. If in fact this virus is less deadly than the flu, do we actually want a coast-to-coast shutdown to contain it?
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%. That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.
Calculating the death rate isn’t just a “denominator problem,” Ioannidis explains. It’s a numerator problem too. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year during flu season of “influenza-like illnesses.” Some of those illnesses are the work of the good ol’ flu and tests prove it. But some are due to other coronaviruses that we already know about. (The common cold is a coronavirus.) And some of those coronaviruses are known to hit older people harder. The estimated number of deaths from influenza-like illnesses each year is 22,000 to 55,000, notes Ioannidis. What if COVID-19 is just a slightly more lethal coronavirus, the sort of bug that would have gotten lumped into the category of “influenza-like illnesses” if we hadn’t misunderstood the death rate and begun panicking over it?
If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams.
The only way to have a reliable sense of how infectious and dangerous COVID-19 is, he says, is to test a sample of the population randomly. That idea has been suggested by others too. It’s like taking a poll. Just as you couldn’t get an accurate sense of public opinion about Trump by polling only Democrats or only Republicans, you can’t get an accurate sense of what’s happening with the new coronavirus by testing only the people with symptoms, especially severe symptoms. We can’t test people randomly right now because, er, we lack the tests needed even to test the sick, which is why Ioannidis is leaning so heavily on the Diamond Princess for evidence. That’s as close to a random sample as we can get, and the disease wasn’t all that lethal there. Relatedly, a new Chinese study postulates that for every known case of the disease there are five to 10 people walking around who have it but are undetected, and may be only half as likely to transmit as people with more developed symptoms. There could be many more asymptomatic carriers than we suspect.
All of this matters, says Ioannidis, because we’re using the social equivalent of thermonuclear weapons to try to take this disease out. Massive social distancing. Forced closings of small businesses. A gigantic increase in federal borrowing. These “remedies” will have a social cost all their own. Layoffs. Hungry families. Drug and alcohol abuse. Suicide. “Generational war.” Widespread, grinding despair. And not just here. People are already gaming out whether the coronavirus epidemic in Iran might lead to revolution.
There’s just one wrinkle in Ioannidis’s argument: Italy. Amazingly, the word “Italy” never appears in his piece. If you want to chuck the data from China in the trash because, well, who would be so foolish as to rely heavily on data from China, that’s fine. But Italian hospitals are overwhelmed. Hundreds of older Italians are still dying every day, although rigid isolation measures are helping to flatten the curve. Clearly this virus isn’t business as usual, even if the death rate is lower in fact than we’ve been led to believe. If only one out of a thousand people dies from COVID-19 with proper treatment but one out of every six requires hospitalization to receive that treatment then we have a major crisis regardless, with lots of indirect deaths among people from other causes (e.g., heart disease) because there’s no longer room at the ER for them.
All Ioannidis has to say about this is that flattening the curve via social distancing could actually prolong the meltdown by dragging it out over a longer period, but I’m not sure after reading the piece what he thinks we should do otherwise. Letting the virus spread unchecked when we don’t know with confidence what the death rate and the hospitalization rate are would be the most insanely risky policy gamble of my lifetime. Surely we already have enough data from Europe to believe with some confidence that the virus is highly contagious and sufficiently severe in a large enough number of cases that we need to do something immediately to slow it down. He’s right about random testing; that should be done as soon as we have the capability. But we don’t right now. So what are we supposed to do except err on the side of “this is a once-in-a-lifetime” challenge whatever we can do to protect our hospitals?
I mean, there has to be a middle ground between “we’re all gonna die!” and this:
What a horrible and heartless message for you to share with the younger people who look up to you @VanessaHudgens https://t.co/p0vIekdigP — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) March 17, 2020
I’m interested to hear how medical pros respond to Ioannidis’s piece. In the meantime, one more ominous fact about this coronavirus that may set it apart from other coronaviruses: It appears to hit front-line health-care workers unusually hard, even if they’re younger. I assume that has something do with the higher viral load each is absorbing by interacting with multiple patients every day, but if this disease is going to take out doctors and nurses, we’re in much more trouble than we knew.


hotair--2020-03-17--Today's hot #TEMS topics: COVID shutdown, stimulus showdown, market rebound, VidAngel playground, an

Today's hot #TEMS topics: COVID shutdown, stimulus showdown, market rebound, VidAngel playground, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Is the Afghan War coming to a close soon ?
And how will we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Andrew and I will share our expertise on social distancing , and more !
• Speaking of social distancing , we ’ ll talk with Neal Harmon about this deal from VidAngel.com : ‘ ” Stuck at home ?
Get VidAngel for free .
VidAngel is offering families stuck at home free access to our entire offering during this two week shutdown.
” The streaming service provides family-friendly entertainment that you can scale for yourself , including some original content .
• If the virus hasn ’ t made you ill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion sickness .
Peter Grandich joins us again to make sense out of what ’ s happening , tells us what to watch for , and talks more at length about his desire to return to Biblical precepts in investing and in life .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. Is the Afghan War coming to a close soon? And how will we all cope in the First Coronavirus War? Andrew and I will share our expertise on social distancing, and more!
Speaking of social distancing, we’ll talk with Neal Harmon about this deal from VidAngel.com: ‘”Stuck at home? Get VidAngel for free. VidAngel is offering families stuck at home free access to our entire offering during this two week shutdown.” The streaming service provides family-friendly entertainment that you can scale for yourself, including some original content.
If the virus hasn’t made you ill, then the markets might have given you motion sickness. Peter Grandich joins us again to make sense out of what’s happening, tells us what to watch for, and talks more at length about his desire to return to Biblical precepts in investing and in life.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-03-17--China expels American journalists from five publications including the NY Times and Washington Post

China has announced plans to expel American journalists from five publications today including the NY Times , Wall Street Journal , Washington Post , Time and Voice of America .
The journalists will also not be allowed to report from Hong Kong : China instructed American journalists “ whose press credentials are due to expire before the end of 2020 ” to “ notify the Department of Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within four calendar days starting from today and hand back their press cards within ten calendar days.
” It went on to specify that the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be allowed to continue working as journalists in the People ’ s Republic of China , including its Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions.
” So is this a response to China ’ s frustration over being blamed for the coronavirus outbreak ?
The Times points out this back and forth has been building for several weeks and coronavirus was definitely part of it : Tensions between Washington and Beijing over news organizations started to escalate last month .
On Feb. 18 , the Trump administration declared that employees of five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CGTN , China Radio , China Daily and The People ’ s Daily — were not practitioners of journalism , but government operatives .
As such , the State Department announced , they would be treated as foreign government functionaries .
The next day , China demanded that The Journal apologize for a Feb. 3 opinion article headlined “ China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia , ” which criticized the Chinese government ’ s handling of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan .
That same day , the Journal publisher William Lewis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an apology… On March 2 , it was the U.S. government ’ s turn : The State Department announced that it would limit to 100 the number of Chinese citizens working for five state-controlled Chinese news organizations .
The letter explaining the Chinese decision frames it as a response to a US mandate , which began in 2018 , requiring five Chinese media outlets to register as foreign agents .
This is an English version of the Chinese statement which is titled “ China Takes Countermeasures Against US Suppression of Chinese Media Organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , the US government has placed unwarranted restrictions on Chinese media agencies and personnel in the US , purposely made things difficult for their normal reporting assignments , and subjected them to growing discrimination and politically-motivated oppression .
For instance , in December 2018 , the US ordered certain Chinese media organizations in the US to register as “ foreign agents ” ; in February 2020 , it designated five Chinese media entities in the US as “ foreign missions ” and imposed a cap on the number of their employees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US .
Such outrageous treatment prompted strong representations from China , in which China firmly objected to and strongly condemned the US move , and stressed its reserved right to respond and take actions .
So is this mostly about coronavirus ?
There ’ s good reason to think China is particularly agitated about being blamed for mishandling the coronavirus outbreak .
Chinese officials are actively promoting a conspiracy theory , both at home and abroad , that U.S. soldiers spread the virus in Wuhan .
The NY Times reported this week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been seen more than 160 million times on Chinese social media .
That sort of propaganda seems like a pretty extreme reaction so you can probably gauge from that how worked up the Chinese are about this issue .
But let ’ s face it , China has also been upset fairly recently about coverage of Hong Kong protests and coverage of the re-education camps in Xinjiang .
The NY Times in particular published leaked Chinese documents about the camps back in November .
I have no doubt there was a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene in China when that story came out .
So there are really any number of reasons China might want to take this opportunity to kick out journalists who continue to embarrass the Communist Party .
Coronavirus is just the latest moment where China ’ s inability to control foreign media has presented a problem .
Generally speaking , it ’ s tough to run a communist dictatorship in a world full of free people who won ’ t do what they are told .
As for China ’ s equivalence between state-run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s nonsense .
Xinhua is China ’ s largest news agency .
It ’ s also a creature of the Communist Party .
Every story they put out is run through a filter controlled by the party .
Here ’ s how Reporters Without Borders described it in a report : In the service of the communist party , the agency produces two types of news : that intended for the general public and news destined for the regime leaders .
The general public receives only superficial and distorted news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every structure in China .
Each administrative body is replicated by a party structure .
At Xinhua the administration and the party are so alike that they are hard to separate .
The members of the editorial board are the same as those of the agency Party committee .
Each section is controlled by a Party cell ( just as in the factories and neighbourhoods ) .
The strength of the CCP rests on this ubiquitous surveillance .
The agency ’ s first priority is to handle news produced by the Propaganda Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that comes under the CCP Central Committee .
The various ministries , particularly the foreign affairs ministry , can also send Xinhua news that is picked up and sent to the country ’ s various media .
The Propaganda Department controls Xinhua , defining the orientation and subjects of reporting .
Each article or report has to fulfill a number of ideological and journalistic criteria before being released for publication .
It could be a case of general ideas ( ban on criticising a member of the government or the CCP , benefiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
Problems of syntax arise or the correct way to describe places , “ Chinese province of Taiwan ” , “ Taiwanese of China ” , “ autonomous region of Tibet ” and so on… Xinhua is de facto run by the Propaganda Department .
The agency gets its editorial line from this organ of the CCP and sticks to it slavishly .
The U.S. is absolutely correct to treat these “ journalists ” as foreign agents .
If the Communist Party of China wants to pretend that ’ s an outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @

China has announced plans to expel American journalists from five publications today including the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Time and Voice of America. The journalists will also not be allowed to report from Hong Kong:
China instructed American journalists “whose press credentials are due to expire before the end of 2020” to “notify the Department of Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within four calendar days starting from today and hand back their press cards within ten calendar days.” It went on to specify that the American journalists now working in China “will not be allowed to continue working as journalists in the People’s Republic of China, including its Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions.”
So is this a response to China’s frustration over being blamed for the coronavirus outbreak? The Times points out this back and forth has been building for several weeks and coronavirus was definitely part of it:
Tensions between Washington and Beijing over news organizations started to escalate last month. On Feb. 18, the Trump administration declared that employees of five state-controlled Chinese news organizations — Xinhua, CGTN, China Radio, China Daily and The People’s Daily — were not practitioners of journalism, but government operatives. As such, the State Department announced, they would be treated as foreign government functionaries. The next day, China demanded that The Journal apologize for a Feb. 3 opinion article headlined “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia,” which criticized the Chinese government’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. That same day, the Journal publisher William Lewis offered a statement that did not include an apology… On March 2, it was the U.S. government’s turn: The State Department announced that it would limit to 100 the number of Chinese citizens working for five state-controlled Chinese news organizations.
The letter explaining the Chinese decision frames it as a response to a US mandate, which began in 2018, requiring five Chinese media outlets to register as foreign agents. This is an English version of the Chinese statement which is titled “China Takes Countermeasures Against US Suppression of Chinese Media Organizations in the United States.”
In recent years, the US government has placed unwarranted restrictions on Chinese media agencies and personnel in the US, purposely made things difficult for their normal reporting assignments, and subjected them to growing discrimination and politically-motivated oppression. For instance, in December 2018, the US ordered certain Chinese media organizations in the US to register as “foreign agents”; in February 2020, it designated five Chinese media entities in the US as “foreign missions” and imposed a cap on the number of their employees, in effect expelling Chinese journalists from the US. Such outrageous treatment prompted strong representations from China, in which China firmly objected to and strongly condemned the US move, and stressed its reserved right to respond and take actions.
So is this mostly about coronavirus? There’s good reason to think China is particularly agitated about being blamed for mishandling the coronavirus outbreak. Chinese officials are actively promoting a conspiracy theory, both at home and abroad, that U.S. soldiers spread the virus in Wuhan. The NY Times reported this week that the message from a foreign ministry spokesman had been seen more than 160 million times on Chinese social media. That sort of propaganda seems like a pretty extreme reaction so you can probably gauge from that how worked up the Chinese are about this issue.
But let’s face it, China has also been upset fairly recently about coverage of Hong Kong protests and coverage of the re-education camps in Xinjiang. The NY Times in particular published leaked Chinese documents about the camps back in November. I have no doubt there was a great deal of panic and anger behind the scene in China when that story came out. So there are really any number of reasons China might want to take this opportunity to kick out journalists who continue to embarrass the Communist Party. Coronavirus is just the latest moment where China’s inability to control foreign media has presented a problem. Generally speaking, it’s tough to run a communist dictatorship in a world full of free people who won’t do what they are told.
As for China’s equivalence between state-run news outlets like Xinhua and U.S. outlets, that’s nonsense. Xinhua is China’s largest news agency. It’s also a creature of the Communist Party. Every story they put out is run through a filter controlled by the party. Here’s how Reporters Without Borders described it in a report:
In the service of the communist party, the agency produces two types of news: that intended for the general public and news destined for the regime leaders. The general public receives only superficial and distorted news. The same double system applies to every structure in China. Each administrative body is replicated by a party structure. At Xinhua the administration and the party are so alike that they are hard to separate. The members of the editorial board are the same as those of the agency Party committee. Each section is controlled by a Party cell (just as in the factories and neighbourhoods). The strength of the CCP rests on this ubiquitous surveillance. The agency’s first priority is to handle news produced by the Propaganda Department, now named the Publicity Department, that comes under the CCP Central Committee. The various ministries, particularly the foreign affairs ministry, can also send Xinhua news that is picked up and sent to the country’s various media. The Propaganda Department controls Xinhua, defining the orientation and subjects of reporting. Each article or report has to fulfill a number of ideological and journalistic criteria before being released for publication. It could be a case of general ideas (ban on criticising a member of the government or the CCP, benefiting countries that are “friends” of China. Problems of syntax arise or the correct way to describe places, “Chinese province of Taiwan”, “Taiwanese of China”, “autonomous region of Tibet” and so on… Xinhua is de facto run by the Propaganda Department. The agency gets its editorial line from this organ of the CCP and sticks to it slavishly.
The U.S. is absolutely correct to treat these “journalists” as foreign agents. If the Communist Party of China wants to pretend that’s an outrage, that’s their problem.


hotair--2020-03-17--"We are going big": Trump, Dems, GOP working on trillion-plus COVID-19 stimulus package

Question : What do Democrats and Republicans do when pushing competing spending proposals , even without a crisis at hand ?
Answer : Addition .
And in this case , with an economic disaster staring the US in its face , there may not be many complaints about it , either .
In his press conference this morning to brief the nation on the COVID-19 response , Donald Trump told reporters , “ We are going big ” while Americans largely stay home : President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced they ’ re working on a “ big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address the coronavirus crisis , as the president put it .
That includes “ looking at sending checks to Americans immediately , ” Mnuchin announced during a White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing Tuesday morning .
Mnuchin said the goal would be to get checks to Americans in two weeks to help workers cope with the economic effects of the crisis .
The president wouldn ’ t say exactly how much those checks might be — Republican Senators Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney have suggested $ 1,000 per adult .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president told reporters in the White House Briefing Room .
Declaring that “ Americans need cash now , ” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced that part of the package would be direct stimulus : The eventual bill will end up well north of a trillion dollars , Politico predicts , because it ’ s likely to combine the proposals from both parties rather than divide them for better fiscal discipline .
That ’ s simply not the priority at the moment : Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will meet with Senate Republicans behind closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options for aid for airlines , hotels , casinos and small-to-medium-sized businesses .
The White House was pushing for a package of more than $ 800 billion , POLITICO reported Monday , and on Tuesday the Treasury Department was preparing to unveil a package of $ 850 billion including more than $ 50 billion for the airline industry , $ 250 billion for small-business support and $ 500 billion for a payroll tax holiday .
A senior administration official acknowledged the proposal could climb above that Tuesday by the time it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package of provisions that don ’ t overlap entirely with the GOP pitch .
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and other Democrats are pitching a package of “ at least ” $ 750 billion that is expected to include more emergency aid for hospitals , expanded unemployment insurance , more funds for small business , help with child care , and food assistance for seniors .
The size and scope of the package are morphing rapidly as the economic and market damage mounts .
Senate Republicans and the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the upcoming stimulus packages .
With the public demanding action on all these fronts , and with markets signaling panic , the safest course would be to take an all-of-the-above approach .
As Trump says in the clip above , that would provide a comprehensive plan that didn ’ t keep requiring Congress to continually update the stimulus planning .
The all-in strategy would put the latest stimulus bill well over a trillion dollars , on top of the $ 100 billion that has already been passed by the House — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until early this morning .
Of course , all this addition requires a lessening of division .
The prospects for that didn ’ t look terribly bright yesterday and this morning .
House Democrats had chided Mitch McConnell for allowing the Senate to leave on Thursday , but they returned yesterday without a bill to consider .
Chuck Grassley ripped House Democrats for playing politics rather than buckling down : Perhaps more bipartisanship can be found in the strategy rather than the execution .
Most of the incentives will be aimed at businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next few weeks , Tom Cotton said today on the Senate floor , in order to flatten the curve of transmission : In the end , the healing power of addition will solve all these problems .
It will also leave us with a whopping fiscal hangover , but if we can survive the next few weeks without cratering the economy and sending millions to virtual unemployment lines , we can predict that few will mind .

Question: What do Democrats and Republicans do when pushing competing spending proposals, even without a crisis at hand?
Answer: Addition. And in this case, with an economic disaster staring the US in its face, there may not be many complaints about it, either. In his press conference this morning to brief the nation on the COVID-19 response, Donald Trump told reporters, “We are going big” while Americans largely stay home:
"We don't want people losing their jobs or not having money to live when they were doing very well just four weeks ago." President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin announce they want to send money to Americans "now" and plan to be "going big." pic.twitter.com/fooupdo3ha — MRCTV (@mrctv) March 17, 2020
President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced they’re working on a “big” and “bold” legislative package to address the coronavirus crisis, as the president put it. That includes “looking at sending checks to Americans immediately,” Mnuchin announced during a White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing Tuesday morning. Mnuchin said the goal would be to get checks to Americans in two weeks to help workers cope with the economic effects of the crisis. The president wouldn’t say exactly how much those checks might be — Republican Senators Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney have suggested $1,000 per adult. “We’re going big,” the president told reporters in the White House Briefing Room.
Declaring that “Americans need cash now,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced that part of the package would be direct stimulus:
NEW: Treasury Sec. Steve Mnuchin: "We're looking at sending checks to Americans immediately…and I mean now, in the next two weeks." Mnuchin declined to name an amount. https://t.co/fGuwrsbtfV pic.twitter.com/n8vtFOlZv9 — ABC News (@ABC) March 17, 2020
The eventual bill will end up well north of a trillion dollars, Politico predicts, because it’s likely to combine the proposals from both parties rather than divide them for better fiscal discipline. That’s simply not the priority at the moment:
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will meet with Senate Republicans behind closed doors on Tuesday to present lawmakers with options for aid for airlines, hotels, casinos and small-to-medium-sized businesses. The White House was pushing for a package of more than $800 billion, POLITICO reported Monday, and on Tuesday the Treasury Department was preparing to unveil a package of $850 billion including more than $50 billion for the airline industry, $250 billion for small-business support and $500 billion for a payroll tax holiday. A senior administration official acknowledged the proposal could climb above that Tuesday by the time it’s unveiled. Democrats are pushing their own package of provisions that don’t overlap entirely with the GOP pitch. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats are pitching a package of “at least” $750 billion that is expected to include more emergency aid for hospitals, expanded unemployment insurance, more funds for small business, help with child care, and food assistance for seniors. The size and scope of the package are morphing rapidly as the economic and market damage mounts. Senate Republicans and the White House are exploring how to fast-track existing legislation with the upcoming stimulus packages.
With the public demanding action on all these fronts, and with markets signaling panic, the safest course would be to take an all-of-the-above approach. As Trump says in the clip above, that would provide a comprehensive plan that didn’t keep requiring Congress to continually update the stimulus planning. The all-in strategy would put the latest stimulus bill well over a trillion dollars, on top of the $100 billion that has already been passed by the House — but didn’t get to the Senate until early this morning.
Of course, all this addition requires a lessening of division. The prospects for that didn’t look terribly bright yesterday and this morning. House Democrats had chided Mitch McConnell for allowing the Senate to leave on Thursday, but they returned yesterday without a bill to consider. Chuck Grassley ripped House Democrats for playing politics rather than buckling down:
The Senate can’t pass a House bill until the House passes it first. Dems misled Americans by blaming @senatemajldr for not holding a vote over the weekend. We received the Families First Coronavirus Response Act TODAY at 9:48 AM. This is no time for partisan politics. — Sen. Grassley Press (@GrassleyPress) March 17, 2020
Perhaps more bipartisanship can be found in the strategy rather than the execution. Most of the incentives will be aimed at businesses and employees to make good decisions over the next few weeks, Tom Cotton said today on the Senate floor, in order to flatten the curve of transmission:
Our top priority: suppress the virus by making sure no one—not a single person in this country—has to go to work when they're sick, or when they even may be feeling sick, because they can't get support from the government. pic.twitter.com/CVi5uZZCf0 — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) March 17, 2020
In the end, the healing power of addition will solve all these problems. It will also leave us with a whopping fiscal hangover, but if we can survive the next few weeks without cratering the economy and sending millions to virtual unemployment lines, we can predict that few will mind.


hotair--2020-03-17--There's no need to panic over TP shortages (sorry socialists)

Last night I wrote about the online socialists who are eager to wring some advantage from images of empty grocery store shelves .
Stuff like this : One of the items that has become the subject of the most panic buying is toilet paper .
So are we in danger of running out ?
Not really .
The Wall Street Journal reports that there ’ s plenty of toilet paper in the pipeline ( so to speak ) : Charmin maker Procter & Gamble Co. and Cottonelle maker Kimberly-Clark Corp. say they have ramped up toilet-paper production and are able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kimberly-Clark has started posting pictures of warehouses full of toilet paper in some markets .
The problem , the manufacturers say , is getting the product shipped to warehouses and retailers , and then onto store shelves , quickly enough to keep up with sales… Restocking inventory can take several hours or days as goods work their way from the factory to the warehouse to shelves .
The consumer-products industry , including suppliers , manufacturers and retailers , have overhauled supply chains over the past two decades to be more profitable and flexible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to stocked up in warehouses .
The more cost-effective system means that when demand spikes unexpectedly , supplies run short .
Toilet paper is relatively easy to make .
It is produced in the U.S. , involves few materials and doesn ’ t require parts imported for packaging .
U.S. industry sales were roughly $ 9 billion last year , according to Nielsen .
So we probably don ’ t want to flush capitalism because of a brief shortage .
Unlike in socialist countries , the market is responding and there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That doesn ’ t mean that it ’ s smart to be out panic buying the stuff .
At some point a lot of people are going to be stocked up for a year and will realize they can relax .
But the market will adjust to that too .
Another item that has been cleaned out at many stores is hand sanitizer .
Producers are ramping up to make more of that too .
Purell has experienced a “ substantial increase ” in demand for its line of sanitizing products , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleaning spray , said a spokeswoman for Purell parent company Gojo Industries Inc. Consumer demand online and at retailers has been especially pronounced , while businesses and health facilities have stepped up orders more incrementally .
She said the company has significantly increased production to meet expected demand , adding shifts and having employees work overtime .
The latest rise in demand , she said , is “ not unprecedented , ” but is more pronounced than outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome , or SARS , in 2002-03 and the H1N1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a slate of cleaning products that includes disinfectant sprays and wipes , has also stepped up production , a company spokeswoman said .
The company is prepared if there is a surge in demand , she said .
The run on sanitizer has been much heavier than the run on TP so keeping up with demand will be harder , but we ’ ll get there .
Once some of the panic buying settles down we should see it back on shelves too .

Last night I wrote about the online socialists who are eager to wring some advantage from images of empty grocery store shelves. Stuff like this:
But but but but there would be shortages in a socialist economy pic.twitter.com/vnYEFUaIVq — Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) March 14, 2020
One of the items that has become the subject of the most panic buying is toilet paper. So are we in danger of running out? Not really. The Wall Street Journal reports that there’s plenty of toilet paper in the pipeline (so to speak):
Charmin maker Procter & Gamble Co. and Cottonelle maker Kimberly-Clark Corp. say they have ramped up toilet-paper production and are able to make enough to meet demand. Kimberly-Clark has started posting pictures of warehouses full of toilet paper in some markets. The problem, the manufacturers say, is getting the product shipped to warehouses and retailers, and then onto store shelves, quickly enough to keep up with sales… Restocking inventory can take several hours or days as goods work their way from the factory to the warehouse to shelves. The consumer-products industry, including suppliers, manufacturers and retailers, have overhauled supply chains over the past two decades to be more profitable and flexible by keeping limited inventory on hand as opposed to stocked up in warehouses. The more cost-effective system means that when demand spikes unexpectedly, supplies run short. Toilet paper is relatively easy to make. It is produced in the U.S., involves few materials and doesn’t require parts imported for packaging. U.S. industry sales were roughly $9 billion last year, according to Nielsen.
So we probably don’t want to flush capitalism because of a brief shortage. Unlike in socialist countries, the market is responding and there will be plenty of TP for everyone. That doesn’t mean that it’s smart to be out panic buying the stuff. At some point a lot of people are going to be stocked up for a year and will realize they can relax. But the market will adjust to that too. Another item that has been cleaned out at many stores is hand sanitizer. Producers are ramping up to make more of that too.
Purell has experienced a “substantial increase” in demand for its line of sanitizing products, particularly for hand sanitizer and hand-sanitizing wipes and cleaning spray, said a spokeswoman for Purell parent company Gojo Industries Inc. Consumer demand online and at retailers has been especially pronounced, while businesses and health facilities have stepped up orders more incrementally. She said the company has significantly increased production to meet expected demand, adding shifts and having employees work overtime. The latest rise in demand, she said, is “not unprecedented,” but is more pronounced than outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, in 2002-03 and the H1N1 influenza virus in 2009. Clorox Co., with a slate of cleaning products that includes disinfectant sprays and wipes, has also stepped up production, a company spokeswoman said. The company is prepared if there is a surge in demand, she said.
The run on sanitizer has been much heavier than the run on TP so keeping up with demand will be harder, but we’ll get there. Once some of the panic buying settles down we should see it back on shelves too.


hotair--2020-03-17--Uh oh. German brothels latest victims of pandemic

All sorts of businesses are being negatively impacted by emergency orders shutting down various social activities .
This is particularly true of bars and restaurants , and operations ranging from veterinary offices to theaters are feeling the pinch .
But what about sex workers ?
It turns out that brothels are seeing a massive drop street traffic ( if you ’ ll pardon the pun ) as people hunker down in their homes to wait out the COVID-19 storm .
And that ’ s particularly true in Germany , where brothels are both legal and numerous in the larger cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 7 p.m. on a Friday night , a time when Aurel Johannes Marx ’ s three-room brothel on the edge of Berlin would normally be preparing for its first customers .
Sex for sale has long been a staple part of the German capital ’ s freewheeling nightlife .
But amid concerns over the new coronavirus , even the world ’ s supposedly oldest profession is suffering a sudden slump .
At the “ Lankwitzer 7 ” brothel , with its soft red light and bawdy paintings on the wall , disinfectant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ washbasins .
Marx say he ’ s ordered staff to hot-wash all towels and sheets , and open the windows more often to let the warm , sticky air escape .
“ Over the past week business has gone down by 50 % , ” Marx said , blaming the decline on the general drop in nightlife that ’ s occurred since the virus arrived in Berlin .
Regardless of what your personal feelings about legal prostitution may be , the middle of a viral pandemic is probably not the best time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking for something to define the exact opposite of social distancing , going out and paying to have sex with a stranger who has probably provided similar “ services ” to multiple other strangers that same day would have to be near the top of the list .
The report includes a quote from Susanne Bleier Wilp , spokeswoman for the Association of Erotic and Sexual Services Providers .
( They apparently have a union .
Who knew ? )
She describes an air of “ fear and uncertainty ” among the up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Germany .
She goes on to describe how some of the women have taken to requiring customers to “ disinfect themselves ” before services are rendered .
Look , I ’ m no doctor , but I ’ m fairly sure that bathing yourself in Purell isn ’ t going to do much good if you ’ re just going to turn around and do the deed with an infected prostitute .
Even condoms aren ’ t going to help you stave off the coronavirus under those conditions .
Currently , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is only legal in eight primarily rural counties in Nevada .
This story got me to wondering how American brothels are holding up during the pandemic .
Sure enough , their business is off as well and all of them are taking extra precautions .
Customers are required to wear surgical masks as soon as they enter the facility and keep them on during sex .
( The ladies do not wear masks . )
They are also slathering the sanitizer around and the famous Mustang Ranch is requiring customers to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the “ precautions ” being taken in Germany , this really doesn ’ t sound like any sort of effective pandemic containment strategy .
State and municipal governments around the nation are already ordering all manner of businesses to shut down or at least reduce hours to help contain the spread of the virus .
How is it that such rules aren ’ t being applied to brothels ?
Then again , if you can ’ t manage to control your impulses enough to avoid going to a prostitute in the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 was always destined to be in your future anyway .

All sorts of businesses are being negatively impacted by emergency orders shutting down various social activities. This is particularly true of bars and restaurants, and operations ranging from veterinary offices to theaters are feeling the pinch. But what about sex workers? It turns out that brothels are seeing a massive drop street traffic (if you’ll pardon the pun) as people hunker down in their homes to wait out the COVID-19 storm. And that’s particularly true in Germany, where brothels are both legal and numerous in the larger cities. (Associated Press)
It’s 7 p.m. on a Friday night, a time when Aurel Johannes Marx’s three-room brothel on the edge of Berlin would normally be preparing for its first customers. Sex for sale has long been a staple part of the German capital’s freewheeling nightlife. But amid concerns over the new coronavirus, even the world’s supposedly oldest profession is suffering a sudden slump. At the “Lankwitzer 7” brothel, with its soft red light and bawdy paintings on the wall, disinfectant dispensers have been installed next to the washbasins. Marx say he’s ordered staff to hot-wash all towels and sheets, and open the windows more often to let the warm, sticky air escape. Still, customers just aren’t coming round anymore. “Over the past week business has gone down by 50%,” Marx said, blaming the decline on the general drop in nightlife that’s occurred since the virus arrived in Berlin.
Regardless of what your personal feelings about legal prostitution may be, the middle of a viral pandemic is probably not the best time to patronize such establishments. If you were looking for something to define the exact opposite of social distancing, going out and paying to have sex with a stranger who has probably provided similar “services” to multiple other strangers that same day would have to be near the top of the list.
The report includes a quote from Susanne Bleier Wilp, spokeswoman for the Association of Erotic and Sexual Services Providers. (They apparently have a union. Who knew?) She describes an air of “fear and uncertainty” among the up to 200,000 prostitutes (!?) in Germany. She goes on to describe how some of the women have taken to requiring customers to “disinfect themselves” before services are rendered.
Look, I’m no doctor, but I’m fairly sure that bathing yourself in Purell isn’t going to do much good if you’re just going to turn around and do the deed with an infected prostitute. Even condoms aren’t going to help you stave off the coronavirus under those conditions.
Currently, the operation of a brothel in the United States is only legal in eight primarily rural counties in Nevada. This story got me to wondering how American brothels are holding up during the pandemic. Sure enough, their business is off as well and all of them are taking extra precautions. Customers are required to wear surgical masks as soon as they enter the facility and keep them on during sex. (The ladies do not wear masks.) They are also slathering the sanitizer around and the famous Mustang Ranch is requiring customers to have their temperature taken upon arrival.
As with the “precautions” being taken in Germany, this really doesn’t sound like any sort of effective pandemic containment strategy. State and municipal governments around the nation are already ordering all manner of businesses to shut down or at least reduce hours to help contain the spread of the virus. How is it that such rules aren’t being applied to brothels? Then again, if you can’t manage to control your impulses enough to avoid going to a prostitute in the middle of an epidemic, maybe a case of COVID-19 was always destined to be in your future anyway.


hotair--2020-03-17--"We are at war": France, Germany declare Schengen zone closed over coronavirus, national borders bac

"We are at war": France, Germany declare Schengen zone closed over coronavirus, national borders back up

Last week , when Donald Trump imposed travel restrictions on the Schengen zone , the EU protested that it was an overreaction and protested that Trump hadn ’ t consulted them first .
Today , France ’ s president announced that the Schengen zone is closed due to the “ war ” against the coronavirus , apparently without consulting Brussels .
Likewise , Germany has put border restrictions in place to prevent entry as national borders have become a key asset in the fight against COVID-19 .
The EU has tried to push back against the unilateral actions from both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to play along : The European Union is considering the drastic step of suspending nearly all incoming travel to the 27-member bloc to combat not only the coronavirus but also the “ every country for itself ” ethos spreading rapidly through member states .
The EU ’ s 27 leaders will hold a teleconference on Tuesday to discuss the proposal , which would cover 30 European countries — all EU member states except Ireland , plus the four non-EU countries that are part of the Schengen border-free zone .
But at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into their own hands , unilaterally shutting out foreign nationals or partially closing their borders to one or more neighboring country .
They include the EU ’ s biggest state , founder-member Germany .
Those decisions have left Schengen , a pillar of European free movement for 35 years , in tatters , for now at least .
This crisis puts an age-old truth in stark relief : border controls exist for good reasons .
The West has not had to deal with a serious pandemic for a century , and one outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to vastly improved medicine and science .
In times of relative peace and a lack of outside pressure , open borders between relatively similarly situated countries work pretty well , but those are only the most optimal conditions .
What happens when less-than-optimal conditions arise ?
We saw a preview of this in the lead-up to the Brexit push .
The US and its European NATO partners decided to conduct a disastrous intervention to decapitate the previously cooperative dictatorship in Libya , leaving a failed state in its wake .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , leading to a massive refugee flood into the Schengen zone , which created cultural and political stress that finally convinced Britons that they needed to regain control of their borders .
That was the driving force behind Brexit , with trade policy a close second .
Now that a pandemic has broken out , the need for restricting movement across national borders has become apparent enough to reinstitute them , at least temporarily .
This should not surprise anyone , but it does demonstrate that open borders are at best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and when the relative economics across those borders are generally equal .
Fortifying borders is a common-sense reaction to pandemics , and only our relative inexperience at dealing with these crises kept us from seeing that .
It might be a little late for that now in Europe , which means governments might now have to use more forceful measures to impede the transmission of the pandemic .
In France , Emmanuel Macron has all but imposed martial law to prevent movement : The movement of French citizens will be tightly restricted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through at least the end of the month , with people expected to stay home , leaving only for essential activities like food shopping .
Anyone violating the order faces punishment .
“ We are at war , ’ ’ Mr. Macron said in an address to the nation Monday night .
“ The enemy is invisible and it requires our general mobilization.
” The French army will deploy to transport the sick to hospitals , and a military hospital with 30 intensive care beds will be set up in the eastern region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest infection clusters has erupted .
Mr. Macron was responding to severe warnings from doctors about an increasingly dire situation .
Jérôme Salomon , a top official at France ’ s health ministry , told France Inter radio on Monday that the situation in France was “ deteriorating very quickly.
” Macron also left open the possibility of nationalizing industries to cope with the pandemic , but that would be a colossal mistake .
Private enterprise is far more dynamic and able to adjust around such crises ; the problem is usually that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way of production .
That was the case here in the US with COVID-19 testing .
Finally , this points up something else worth noting about super-national governmental bodies .
Those also work mainly in relatively normal times , to the extent they function well at all .
When crises emerge , member nations will always act to defend their own interests and do so with much greater alacrity than multilateral organizations .
That ’ s why the Common Market was a brilliant idea , but the EU less so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repudiate it and Brussels is only able to catch up to it , one has to wonder whether Schengen and the EU will ever really return in their previous forms .

Last week, when Donald Trump imposed travel restrictions on the Schengen zone, the EU protested that it was an overreaction and protested that Trump hadn’t consulted them first. Today, France’s president announced that the Schengen zone is closed due to the “war” against the coronavirus, apparently without consulting Brussels. Likewise, Germany has put border restrictions in place to prevent entry as national borders have become a key asset in the fight against COVID-19.
The EU has tried to push back against the unilateral actions from both France and Germany, but might be forced to play along:
The European Union is considering the drastic step of suspending nearly all incoming travel to the 27-member bloc to combat not only the coronavirus but also the “every country for itself” ethos spreading rapidly through member states. The EU’s 27 leaders will hold a teleconference on Tuesday to discuss the proposal, which would cover 30 European countries — all EU member states except Ireland, plus the four non-EU countries that are part of the Schengen border-free zone. But at least eight EU states have already taken matters into their own hands, unilaterally shutting out foreign nationals or partially closing their borders to one or more neighboring country. They include the EU’s biggest state, founder-member Germany. Those decisions have left Schengen, a pillar of European free movement for 35 years, in tatters, for now at least.
This crisis puts an age-old truth in stark relief: border controls exist for good reasons. The West has not had to deal with a serious pandemic for a century, and one outside of war for longer than that, thanks to vastly improved medicine and science. In times of relative peace and a lack of outside pressure, open borders between relatively similarly situated countries work pretty well, but those are only the most optimal conditions.
What happens when less-than-optimal conditions arise? We saw a preview of this in the lead-up to the Brexit push. The US and its European NATO partners decided to conduct a disastrous intervention to decapitate the previously cooperative dictatorship in Libya, leaving a failed state in its wake. It also encouraged an uprising in Syria at the same time, leading to a massive refugee flood into the Schengen zone, which created cultural and political stress that finally convinced Britons that they needed to regain control of their borders. That was the driving force behind Brexit, with trade policy a close second.
Now that a pandemic has broken out, the need for restricting movement across national borders has become apparent enough to reinstitute them, at least temporarily. This should not surprise anyone, but it does demonstrate that open borders are at best only useful in the absence of crisis and when the relative economics across those borders are generally equal. Fortifying borders is a common-sense reaction to pandemics, and only our relative inexperience at dealing with these crises kept us from seeing that.
It might be a little late for that now in Europe, which means governments might now have to use more forceful measures to impede the transmission of the pandemic. In France, Emmanuel Macron has all but imposed martial law to prevent movement:
The movement of French citizens will be tightly restricted, starting from midday on Tuesday and lasting through at least the end of the month, with people expected to stay home, leaving only for essential activities like food shopping. Anyone violating the order faces punishment. “We are at war,’’ Mr. Macron said in an address to the nation Monday night. “The enemy is invisible and it requires our general mobilization.” The French army will deploy to transport the sick to hospitals, and a military hospital with 30 intensive care beds will be set up in the eastern region of Alsace, where one of the largest infection clusters has erupted. Mr. Macron was responding to severe warnings from doctors about an increasingly dire situation. Jérôme Salomon, a top official at France’s health ministry, told France Inter radio on Monday that the situation in France was “deteriorating very quickly.”
Macron also left open the possibility of nationalizing industries to cope with the pandemic, but that would be a colossal mistake. Private enterprise is far more dynamic and able to adjust around such crises; the problem is usually that government regulation passed in easier times gets in the way of production. That was the case here in the US with COVID-19 testing.
Finally, this points up something else worth noting about super-national governmental bodies. Those also work mainly in relatively normal times, to the extent they function well at all. When crises emerge, member nations will always act to defend their own interests and do so with much greater alacrity than multilateral organizations. That’s why the Common Market was a brilliant idea, but the EU less so. Now that France and Germany are acting to repudiate it and Brussels is only able to catch up to it, one has to wonder whether Schengen and the EU will ever really return in their previous forms.


hotair--2020-03-17--The latest study isn't good

The latest study isn't good

So that ’ s why Trump sounded so different at yesterday ’ s press conference .
Per the Times , researchers at the Imperial College in Britain shared their model of the epidemic with the White House task force over the weekend .
Scott Gottlieb , the former FDA commissioner who ’ s served as a sort of “ shadow czar ” on social media for coronavirus , has used most of his public comments to focus on glimmers of hope .
Every time a vaccine takes an early halting step , every time some pharma company touts progress on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a measurable increase in U.S. testing , he highlights it .
He ’ s trying to reassure people while also warning them that there ’ s rough sledding ahead : Expect a bad six weeks at a minimum , he ’ s been saying , before hopefully some sort of temporary reprieve .
But even he called the Imperial College report “ disturbing.
” From the summary : Two fundamental strategies are possible : ( a ) mitigation , which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk of severe disease from infection , and ( b ) suppression , which aims to reverse epidemic growth , reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely .
Each policy has major challenges .
We find that that optimal mitigation policies ( combining home isolation of suspect cases , home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases , and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease ) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems ( most notably intensive care units ) being overwhelmed many times over .
For countries able to achieve it , this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option .
We show that in the UK and US context , suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population , home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members .
This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures , though it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism .
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available ( potentially 18 months or more ) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed .
We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows , but measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when case numbers rebound .
Last , while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term , it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term , and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced .
“ Mitigation ” is what the UK was planning to do until this study made the rounds within Boris Johnson ’ s team and caused eyeballs to pop .
They ’ ve now switched to a “ suppression ” strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtually every other country .
If the Imperial College ’ s model of the disease is right , though — and that ’ s a big “ if ” — then suppression doesn ’ t hold the disease at bay once it ’ s lifted .
We ’ d need an indefinite lockdown , a.k.a .
economic suicide , until an effective treatment is available , which could be more than a year away .
Social death by contagion or social death by economic depression : It seems like the task for policymakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” balance between those two that ’ ll result in the least possible amount of human misery , knowing that the misery will be incredibly vast no matter what they do .
Bear in mind , this is how things look with some suppression measures already ( belatedly ) instituted : You could theoretically stamp out the disease entirely if you had perfect suppression for , say , a month .
If everyone in the world stayed home , the disease couldn ’ t spread .
Those infected before the lockdown would get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or go to the hospital and be isolated while they recover , and at the end of the period the virus would be extinguished in all carriers .
We … do not have perfect suppression , needless to say .
Perfect mitigation could also work , I suppose : If some small fraction of the population were able to go on as usual while the rest , including and especially the vulnerable , were perfectly isolated , that small fraction could be treated without crushing the health-care system .
Then they ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other small fraction would be allowed to go on as usual while the remainder stayed isolated .
Britain was planning to try some variation of that with younger , healthy people , but the volume of sick even among that less vulnerable group would overload the medical system according to the Imperial College study .
And needless to say , we don ’ t have perfect mitigation either .
My mental picture of the choice we ’ re facing right now is standing on a train track with a train about 1,000 feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you don ’ t think ; you jump off that track before you ’ re creamed .
So we ’ ve jumped by instituting social distancing — but now we ’ ve landed on a new train track with a second train coming at us around 2,000 feet away .
That ’ s the epidemic once “ suppression ” measures are lifted .
And now we have a broken leg in the form of a massive economic slowdown via our “ jump.
” What do we do now ?
We can jump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train too by keeping the suppression measures in place ( assuming people agree to continue to follow them ) , but that ’ ll land us on a third track with a third train 3,000 feet away .
And now we ’ ll have another broken leg in the form of even more economic pain .
The White House is already talking about an $ 850 billion ( ! )
aid package to prop up failing businesses .
How big will the package be when we ’ re on track two ?
Track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the midst of a major global depression , which will kill a lot of people even if the virus hasn ’ t by that point ?
At some point in this thought experiment we ’ re maimed and dead either way .
The only thing that ’ ll save us is derailing the train .
Gottlieb is suddenly calling for a “ Manhattan Project ” to develop drug treatments before the onslaught this fall , when any respite we get from summer weather ( assuming we get any respite at all ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are three layers of potential treatment .
One is the “ antibody prophylaxis ” Gottlieb mentions , which is where antibodies are taken from the plasma of people who ’ ve fought off the disease and developed into a treatment that will provide short-term immunity , first and foremost for health-care workers .
Regeneron is planning to start human trials on that by early summer .
The next layer is antiviral drugs , medicine that can be administered to critically ill patients to squelch the virus after they ’ re hospitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remdesivir and chloroquine , a drug developed to fight malaria .
( Apparently favipiravir also looks promising . )
The third layer , of course , is the holy grail , a vaccine .
That ’ s in the works too .
But all of these things take time and we don ’ t have time .
How do we speed up development and distribution ?
Is it chiefly a logistical problem , which may be intractable , or a regulatory problem , which can be addressed ?
If the Imperial College study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a point of such despair in containing this that people will beg for drugs like remdesivir regardless of what unknown side effects they might bring .
What do the feds do then ?
Maybe Regeneron will be ready with its prophylaxis by fall .
Maybe we ’ ll have the masks , protective gear , and ventilators we need by then .
More importantly , maybe we ’ ll have the scale of testing we need nationwide to quickly identify coronavirus patients as they present themselves at the hospital in October and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a nationwide lockdown but it won ’ t solve it completely because the disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers .
If we don ’ t have this stuff , we get hit by the train .
Even if we do have it , we end up with one or more broken limbs .
There ’ s no time to waste .

So that’s why Trump sounded so different at yesterday’s press conference. Per the Times, researchers at the Imperial College in Britain shared their model of the epidemic with the White House task force over the weekend.
It’s not great.
Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner who’s served as a sort of “shadow czar” on social media for coronavirus, has used most of his public comments to focus on glimmers of hope. Every time a vaccine takes an early halting step, every time some pharma company touts progress on an antiviral drug, every time there’s a measurable increase in U.S. testing, he highlights it. He’s trying to reassure people while also warning them that there’s rough sledding ahead: Expect a bad six weeks at a minimum, he’s been saying, before hopefully some sort of temporary reprieve.
But even he called the Imperial College report “disturbing.” From the summary:
Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely. Each policy has major challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option. We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognised that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced.
“Mitigation” is what the UK was planning to do until this study made the rounds within Boris Johnson’s team and caused eyeballs to pop. They’ve now switched to a “suppression” strategy, in line with the U.S. and virtually every other country. If the Imperial College’s model of the disease is right, though — and that’s a big “if” — then suppression doesn’t hold the disease at bay once it’s lifted. We’d need an indefinite lockdown, a.k.a. economic suicide, until an effective treatment is available, which could be more than a year away. Social death by contagion or social death by economic depression: It seems like the task for policymakers right now is finding the “optimal” balance between those two that’ll result in the least possible amount of human misery, knowing that the misery will be incredibly vast no matter what they do.
Bear in mind, this is how things look with some suppression measures already (belatedly) instituted:
NEW: NY Gov. Cuomo says expert projections show expected peak of coronavirus cases in New York in 45 days. Cuomo says state will need 55,000-110,000 hospital beds and 18,600-37,200 ICU beds at projected peak, and that state currently has 53,000 hospital beds and 3,000 ICU beds. pic.twitter.com/PiaQ8IOHqI — NBC News (@NBCNews) March 17, 2020
You could theoretically stamp out the disease entirely if you had perfect suppression for, say, a month. If everyone in the world stayed home, the disease couldn’t spread. Those infected before the lockdown would get sick during it, would either recover or go to the hospital and be isolated while they recover, and at the end of the period the virus would be extinguished in all carriers. We … do not have perfect suppression, needless to say. Perfect mitigation could also work, I suppose: If some small fraction of the population were able to go on as usual while the rest, including and especially the vulnerable, were perfectly isolated, that small fraction could be treated without crushing the health-care system. Then they’d be immune — hopefully — and some other small fraction would be allowed to go on as usual while the remainder stayed isolated. Britain was planning to try some variation of that with younger, healthy people, but the volume of sick even among that less vulnerable group would overload the medical system according to the Imperial College study. And needless to say, we don’t have perfect mitigation either.
My mental picture of the choice we’re facing right now is standing on a train track with a train about 1,000 feet away. At a moment like that, you don’t think; you jump off that track before you’re creamed. So we’ve jumped by instituting social distancing — but now we’ve landed on a new train track with a second train coming at us around 2,000 feet away. That’s the epidemic once “suppression” measures are lifted. And now we have a broken leg in the form of a massive economic slowdown via our “jump.” What do we do now? We can jump out of the way of the second train too by keeping the suppression measures in place (assuming people agree to continue to follow them), but that’ll land us on a third track with a third train 3,000 feet away. And now we’ll have another broken leg in the form of even more economic pain. The White House is already talking about an $850 billion(!) aid package to prop up failing businesses. How big will the package be when we’re on track two? Track three? At what point are we in the midst of a major global depression, which will kill a lot of people even if the virus hasn’t by that point?
At some point in this thought experiment we’re maimed and dead either way. The only thing that’ll save us is derailing the train. Gottlieb is suddenly calling for a “Manhattan Project” to develop drug treatments before the onslaught this fall, when any respite we get from summer weather (assuming we get any respite at all) is over:
We must get a drug and eventually vaccine. We can have treatments, antibody prophylaxis, point of care diagnostics for early detection by fall. That must be focus. #COVID19 doesn't go away. Initial wave will run course into summer but it'll be back until our technology stops it. https://t.co/N4QRTBrdJe — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 17, 2020
Government leaders should launch major effort to get therapeutic to #COVID19. Where is sense of urgency we need? This isn't ordinary moment. An antibody prophylaxis that protects healthcare workers, elderly, immunocompromised has lot of near term promise. https://t.co/3tijyjF0q6 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 17, 2020
As I understand it, there are three layers of potential treatment. One is the “antibody prophylaxis” Gottlieb mentions, which is where antibodies are taken from the plasma of people who’ve fought off the disease and developed into a treatment that will provide short-term immunity, first and foremost for health-care workers. Regeneron is planning to start human trials on that by early summer. The next layer is antiviral drugs, medicine that can be administered to critically ill patients to squelch the virus after they’re hospitalized. The leading candidates for that are remdesivir and chloroquine, a drug developed to fight malaria. (Apparently favipiravir also looks promising.) The third layer, of course, is the holy grail, a vaccine. That’s in the works too. But all of these things take time and we don’t have time. How do we speed up development and distribution? Is it chiefly a logistical problem, which may be intractable, or a regulatory problem, which can be addressed? If the Imperial College study is accurate, we may shortly reach a point of such despair in containing this that people will beg for drugs like remdesivir regardless of what unknown side effects they might bring. What do the feds do then?
Maybe Regeneron will be ready with its prophylaxis by fall. Maybe we’ll have the masks, protective gear, and ventilators we need by then. More importantly, maybe we’ll have the scale of testing we need nationwide to quickly identify coronavirus patients as they present themselves at the hospital in October and beyond. That’ll reduce the pressure for a nationwide lockdown but it won’t solve it completely because the disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. If we don’t have this stuff, we get hit by the train. Even if we do have it, we end up with one or more broken limbs. There’s no time to waste.