hotair--2020-03-24--Here we go. China plans to lift the lockdown in Hubei province

The city of Wuhan , the capital of Hubei province in China was , as I ’ m sure everyone knows by now , ground zero for the coronavirus pandemic .
It was the site of the now-infamous “ wet markets ” where bats and other exotic animals were sold as fancy food products and was very likely the spot where the virus initially made the jump from animals to humans .
It was also where the original , massive cluster of original deaths from the COVID-19 took place .
But now , with there having allegedly been no new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can believe anything that the Chinese Communist Party says ) , China plans to lift the lockdown and allow the citizens of most of Hubei province to get back to work and other normal aspects of life .
The lockdown in Wuhan itself is expected to similarly be lifted in two weeks .
This is either a very hopeful sign for everyone else or the beginning of another round of horror show headlines .
( Associated Press ) Chinese authorities announced Tuesday they would end a two-month lockdown of most of virus-hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clean bill of health will be allowed to leave , the provincial government said .
The city of Wuhan , where the outbreak started in late December , will remain locked down until April 8 .
China barred people from leaving or entering Wuhan starting Jan. 23 in a surprise middle-of-the-night announcement and expanded it to most of the province in succeeding days .
Train service and flights were cancelled and checkpoints set up on roads into the central province .
Based on all the warnings we ’ ve been receiving from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re about to see one of two things happen .
Either the resumption of normal activities will open the door to a fresh outbreak of infections and deaths or the remaining population of the province will have “ defeated ” the epidemic and will now be able to mostly get on with their lives .
In the latter case , there will probably be a few more cases to deal with , but by and large , they should be able to handle it .
If the disease comes roaring back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wrote .
That would indicate that the virus is simply too pervasive and persistent to get rid of anywhere else in a reasonable amount of time by simply “ flattening the curve.
” We ’ ll have to stay locked down for a period of time that may be too long to keep the economy on life support .
But at this point , Wuhan might just make it out of this .
There were so many people infected in such a short period of time ( before anyone realized they needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population probably had the disease and survived .
This could leave the citizens of the province with such strong herd immunity among the survivors that they ’ ll be okay .
Even if newly infected people come into the region , the natural immunity developed by those who lived through it should protect them .
This experiment should have implications for what we do next in the United States .
President Trump still seems to think we ’ re going back to work in a couple of weeks .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the people of Hubei province .
They paid one hell of a toll before emerging from that long , dark tunnel of pandemic calamity .
The number of people who died was staggering and their hospitals were overwhelmed .
While I intend no disrespect or lack of sympathy for those affected here in the United States , we haven ’ t paid that kind of toll .
At least not yet .
Travel bans combined with sweeping orders to remain at home have kept the number of people testing positive relatively low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infection .
The rest of us never developed that herd immunity that Wuhan will be relying on .
( Assuming it ’ s enough , which remains to be seen . )
If we just wait two weeks and then go about our normal business , how could the number of infections ( and deaths ) not start shooting up again ?
We need a medical breakthrough in the form of either a working vaccine or an effective antiviral drug before things get back to anything approaching “ normal , ” don @ @ @ @

The city of Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in China was, as I’m sure everyone knows by now, ground zero for the coronavirus pandemic. It was the site of the now-infamous “wet markets” where bats and other exotic animals were sold as fancy food products and was very likely the spot where the virus initially made the jump from animals to humans. It was also where the original, massive cluster of original deaths from the COVID-19 took place.
But now, with there having allegedly been no new deaths in the past week (assuming you can believe anything that the Chinese Communist Party says), China plans to lift the lockdown and allow the citizens of most of Hubei province to get back to work and other normal aspects of life. The lockdown in Wuhan itself is expected to similarly be lifted in two weeks. This is either a very hopeful sign for everyone else or the beginning of another round of horror show headlines. (Associated Press)
Chinese authorities announced Tuesday they would end a two-month lockdown of most of virus-hit Hubei province at midnight. People with a clean bill of health will be allowed to leave, the provincial government said. The city of Wuhan, where the outbreak started in late December, will remain locked down until April 8. China barred people from leaving or entering Wuhan starting Jan. 23 in a surprise middle-of-the-night announcement and expanded it to most of the province in succeeding days. Train service and flights were cancelled and checkpoints set up on roads into the central province.
Based on all the warnings we’ve been receiving from the CDC and other medical authorities, we’re about to see one of two things happen. Either the resumption of normal activities will open the door to a fresh outbreak of infections and deaths or the remaining population of the province will have “defeated” the epidemic and will now be able to mostly get on with their lives. In the latter case, there will probably be a few more cases to deal with, but by and large, they should be able to handle it.
If the disease comes roaring back, that’s pretty much all she wrote. That would indicate that the virus is simply too pervasive and persistent to get rid of anywhere else in a reasonable amount of time by simply “flattening the curve.” We’ll have to stay locked down for a period of time that may be too long to keep the economy on life support.
But at this point, Wuhan might just make it out of this. There were so many people infected in such a short period of time (before anyone realized they needed a lockdown) that a large portion of the population probably had the disease and survived. This could leave the citizens of the province with such strong herd immunity among the survivors that they’ll be okay. Even if newly infected people come into the region, the natural immunity developed by those who lived through it should protect them.
This experiment should have implications for what we do next in the United States. President Trump still seems to think we’re going back to work in a couple of weeks. But we’re in a very different situation than the people of Hubei province. They paid one hell of a toll before emerging from that long, dark tunnel of pandemic calamity. The number of people who died was staggering and their hospitals were overwhelmed.
While I intend no disrespect or lack of sympathy for those affected here in the United States, we haven’t paid that kind of toll. At least not yet. Travel bans combined with sweeping orders to remain at home have kept the number of people testing positive relatively low and confined to a few major centers of infection. The rest of us never developed that herd immunity that Wuhan will be relying on. (Assuming it’s enough, which remains to be seen.)
If we just wait two weeks and then go about our normal business, how could the number of infections (and deaths) not start shooting up again? We need a medical breakthrough in the form of either a working vaccine or an effective antiviral drug before things get back to anything approaching “normal,” don’t we?


hotair--2020-03-24--WaPo: Four Pinocchios for Team Biden's "Trump silenced CDC official!" accusation

It hasn ’ t been a good week for Democrats ’ political messaging on the coronavirus crisis — and it ’ s only Tuesday .
Their normal media cover disappeared when Nancy Pelosi blew up negotiations in the Senate over the CARES Act , with even the New York Times making it clear that Senate Democrats obstructed progress for badly-needed emergency economic relief .
Today , the Washington Post rebukes the Joe Biden campaign for falsely asserting that Donald Trump silenced a CDC official who raised an early alarm on COVID-19 .
The campaign released a video with this claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Biden campaign adviser Ron Klain : “ All the while , anyone who raised an alarm about this — a red flag — was silenced .
Look no further than Dr. Nancy Messonnier , a career official at the Centers for Disease Control who was the first to raise the alarm .
… Starting the next day , Dr. Messonnier no longer appeared at public briefings of the White House coronavirus task force .
The president and the White House sent a clear message to scientists in the government — there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking up.
” Nonsense , writes Glenn Kessler , although the video ended up getting 4 million hits .
What actually happened was that Trump started escalating the seriousness of the briefings by using higher-ranking officials : Messonnier still briefed reporters on behalf of the CDC for at least the next two weeks , as well as on CDC video updates , such as this one a week prior to Klain ’ s video : Kessler doesn ’ t mention it , but on the same day that Messonnier allegedly offered a briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silenced her , Dr. Anthony Fauci was on television telling reporters the same thing .
On MSNBC no less , where Katy Tur used the occasion to take shots at Trump : If Trump was inclined to muzzle Messonnier over her remarks , why is Fauci still appearing on the dais with Trump at White House briefings ?
Fauci hasn ’ t been silenced at all , not even when he disagrees with Trump , at least not yet .
Instead , he ’ s become a rock star of sorts .
Kessler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just stick to criticisms with a more factual basis , rather than simply make stuff up : We concede that news reports indicate Trump was upset by her remarks — and that there are signs he is tired of warnings from scientists and doctors as the economy implodes .
He has certainly lashed out at people who have disagreed with him or given him information that conflicted with his point of view .
We ’ ve documented Trump ’ s many false or misleading claims about the coronavirus outbreak .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video to claim Messonnier was silenced when , in fact , she kept briefing reporters .
Klain would have been on more solid ground to refer to the reporting that Messonnier ’ s message annoyed Trump .
But instead , the video created a false narrative .
The Biden campaign earns Four Pinocchios .
One has to also ask why Biden and his team would want to make up lies in the middle of a national crisis .
There is enough anxiety and stress on Americans as it is without adding to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher-ranking CDC officials who are now speaking from the White House briefing room .
That ’ s exactly what Klain did in his video — imply that those officials are only speaking because they stick to Trump ’ s narrative — and it ’ s unconscionable .
There will be plenty of time to play electoral politics after the crisis has passed and people are less at risk .
If this is a preview of what a Joe Biden presidency would look like , voters should take a hard pass .

It hasn’t been a good week for Democrats’ political messaging on the coronavirus crisis — and it’s only Tuesday. Their normal media cover disappeared when Nancy Pelosi blew up negotiations in the Senate over the CARES Act, with even the New York Times making it clear that Senate Democrats obstructed progress for badly-needed emergency economic relief. Today, the Washington Post rebukes the Joe Biden campaign for falsely asserting that Donald Trump silenced a CDC official who raised an early alarm on COVID-19.
The campaign released a video with this claim from former Obama administration official and current Team Biden campaign adviser Ron Klain:
Everyone knows that we're facing a real crisis from the coronavirus. But do you know how we got here and what we need to do next? Ron Klain, former White House Ebola Response Coordinator, breaks it down for us: pic.twitter.com/XRkIw2EzM4 — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 21, 2020
“All the while, anyone who raised an alarm about this — a red flag — was silenced. Look no further than Dr. Nancy Messonnier, a career official at the Centers for Disease Control who was the first to raise the alarm. … Starting the next day, Dr. Messonnier no longer appeared at public briefings of the White House coronavirus task force. The president and the White House sent a clear message to scientists in the government — there would be a price for speaking out and speaking up.”
Nonsense, writes Glenn Kessler, although the video ended up getting 4 million hits. What actually happened was that Trump started escalating the seriousness of the briefings by using higher-ranking officials:
At the Feb. 26 news conference, Trump announced that Vice President Pence was taking charge of the task force. (Previously, Azar had run it.) From then on, briefings were held at the White House, not the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump headlines each one. One would presume either the director or deputy director would be onstage with the president, not a lower-ranking official.
Messonnier still briefed reporters on behalf of the CDC for at least the next two weeks, as well as on CDC video updates, such as this one a week prior to Klain’s video:
CDC Briefing Room: Dr. Nancy Messonnier gives an update on #COVID19. For more info visit https://t.co/pMpAwCPFVU. pic.twitter.com/6A8jvnVn0w — CDC (@CDCgov) March 14, 2020
Kessler doesn’t mention it, but on the same day that Messonnier allegedly offered a briefing that angered Trump so much he allegedly silenced her, Dr. Anthony Fauci was on television telling reporters the same thing. On MSNBC no less, where Katy Tur used the occasion to take shots at Trump:
If Trump was inclined to muzzle Messonnier over her remarks, why is Fauci still appearing on the dais with Trump at White House briefings? Fauci hasn’t been silenced at all, not even when he disagrees with Trump, at least not yet. Instead, he’s become a rock star of sorts.
Kessler concludes by wondering why Team Biden didn’t just stick to criticisms with a more factual basis, rather than simply make stuff up:
We concede that news reports indicate Trump was upset by her remarks — and that there are signs he is tired of warnings from scientists and doctors as the economy implodes. He has certainly lashed out at people who have disagreed with him or given him information that conflicted with his point of view. We’ve documented Trump’s many false or misleading claims about the coronavirus outbreak. But that’s no excuse for this video to claim Messonnier was silenced when, in fact, she kept briefing reporters. Klain would have been on more solid ground to refer to the reporting that Messonnier’s message annoyed Trump. But instead, the video created a false narrative. The Biden campaign earns Four Pinocchios.
One has to also ask why Biden and his team would want to make up lies in the middle of a national crisis. There is enough anxiety and stress on Americans as it is without adding to it by falsely undermining the credibility of those higher-ranking CDC officials who are now speaking from the White House briefing room. That’s exactly what Klain did in his video — imply that those officials are only speaking because they stick to Trump’s narrative — and it’s unconscionable. There will be plenty of time to play electoral politics after the crisis has passed and people are less at risk. If this is a preview of what a Joe Biden presidency would look like, voters should take a hard pass.


hotair--2020-03-24--The latest study is surprisingly encouraging

This would be fantastic news if true , although I ’ m having trouble squaring the observed reality here and in the UK with the thesis .
Remember this study , from Britain ’ s Imperial College ?
That ’ s the one that convinced Boris Johnson to abandon his plan to ask older people to stay home while letting younger , healthier people essentially go about their business and infect each other .
Johnson ’ s hope was that , because younger adults are better able to weather infection without hospitalization , Britain ’ s health-care system wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then , once more than half of the healthy population had been infected and “ herd immunity ” had begun to develop , it would gradually become safer to let the older people out of self-quarantine .
The problem with that strategy according to the Imperial College is that there would be many thousands of deaths even among the younger , healthier group .
Johnson quickly scrapped the plan and turned to aggressive social distancing measures .
Now here comes a study at the University of Oxford that poses a mind-boggling question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population is already infected with coronavirus ?
What if the percentage of infected people who need hospitalization for COVID-19 is actually teeny tiny because , unbeknownst to us , the overall infected population is actually enormously large ?
If half of Great Britain is already infected , the country is already well on its way to acquiring herd immunity , which means they may be seeing the worst of the epidemic right now .
There ’ s no true “ mass casualty ” scenario as the virus spreads .
It ’ s already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s harmless in virtually everyone who gets it .
If the results are confirmed , they imply that fewer than one in a thousand of those infected with Covid-19 become ill enough to need hospital treatment , said Sunetra Gupta , professor of theoretical epidemiology , who led the study .
The vast majority develop very mild symptoms or none at all… The research presents a very different view of the epidemic to the modelling at Imperial College London , which has strongly influenced government policy .
“ I am surprised that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Imperial model , ” said Prof Gupta… The Oxford study is based on a what is known as a “ susceptibility-infected-recovered model ” of Covid-19 , built up from case and death reports from the UK and Italy .
The researchers made what they regard as the most plausible assumptions about the behaviour of the virus… If the findings are confirmed by testing , then the current restrictions could be removed much sooner than ministers have indicated .
Gupta didn ’ t criticize Johnson or his government for locking Britain down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wrong , after all , and if it is , the consequences of letting the disease spread unchecked would be dire .
Plus , social distancing measures are helping to limit the spread of the illness at a moment when it may be peaking , which is important to lighten the load on hospitals .
Even if the virus only hits one in a thousand infected people hard , an enormous number will need hospitalization at a moment when half the population or so is infected .
Locking the country down right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do even if the Oxford model is correct .
But it would also mean the lockdowns could end relatively soon and normalcy could return .
There wouldn ’ t be many months to come of “ managing ” the epidemic .
Essentially , Britain would already be near or at the top of the first , steep curve in this now famous graph : Social distancing will help flatten that curve a *little .
* But the UK is already getting over the hump , per the Oxford theory .
What do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The theory , I suppose , would be that this graph doesn ’ t show infections rapidly beginning to take off , which is how it ’ s normally interpreted : What it actually shows , assuming the Oxford model is correct , is the UK line approaching the top of the steep curve before it begins to descend .
Or , better yet , it doesn ’ t show anything useful at all .
If half the population is infected then the number of infections that ’ s being detected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we know if the Oxford study is right or wrong ?
We take a “ poll ” of sorts .
Head out into the field and perform serological tests on a *random* sample of the population .
Those tests will show who has coronavirus antibodies in their system , the telltale sign of a person who ’ s been infected and fought the infection off .
If half the sample turns out to have those antibodies , there you go .
That ’ s the smoking gun that many , many , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we realized and just shook off the disease without having had much of an inkling that they had it .
Two obvious questions , though .
Is it realistically possible for the virus to have infected 30 million Brits in the two or three months since it made its way from China to the UK ?
Time imposes limits even on exponential growth .
Unless , of course , COVID-19 is also more contagious than anyone has fully realized .
Second , if half the public is infected , why are so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s widespread infection in the UK , presumably there ’ s also widespread infection in Seattle and Washington state , the site of the first major outbreak in the U.S .
Testing at the University of Washington ’ s Virology Lab , though , shows a positive rate of 7.8 percent in testing , not anything like 50 .
Why so low if herd immunity is already well on its way towards being established ?
The answer , I take it , would be that most infected people have already recovered from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus from this system .
It ’ s not going to show up in a swab ; there ’ s nothing left of it in a recovered person ’ s mouth and nasal passages .
The only evidence left in the patient is antibodies in the blood , which no one is testing right now .
But if that ’ s what ’ s going on , where exactly is Seattle — and the UK — on the proverbial curve at this moment ?
If half or so of the population is infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus be present and detectable in half of the nasal/mouth swabs collected ?
( Or more , since it tends to be sick people who are tested ? )
How is it that hospitalizations in New York are beginning to crest , a sign that we ’ re not yet at the top of the curve , and yet “ only ” 28 percent or so of tests are turning out positive ?
Via New York mag , here ’ s how one reporter who specializes in covering disease outbreaks explained the importance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things we would love to know right now is how many people who have had pneumonia since January were actually COVID cases ?
Having answers to that question would make a difference on a policy level .
If we were suddenly seeing a surge in hidden pneumonia cases since mid-February , that would tell us we ’ re in deep , deep doo-doo ; that this thing is like Italy ; that we ’ re going to suddenly skyrocket and our hospitals are going to be overwhelmed .
But if , by contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found in the historic samples going back to the first of January , that would tell us , “ Okay , it ’ s gradually unfolding , we don ’ t have to go down to lockdown every single person in New York , we may be able to flatten the curve.
” And that makes a big difference in terms of how drastic our policies need to be .
There ’ s a reason that the governor and the mayor and the mayor ’ s own department advisers are arguing .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid data to work with .
We ’ re flying blind in New York City .
They ’ re even blinder outside the city because the population ’ s more scattered .
Okay , but … if we find the same number of cases in blood samples from early January as we find in more recent samples , how would we explain the crunch in NYC emergency rooms right now ?
Something has changed in terms of severity in the last week or so .
If the Oxford model is right , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already infected and we ’ re simply approaching the top of the first steep curve , with New York soon to see a peak that won ’ t be replicated again .
If the Oxford model is wrong , hoo boy .
I sure hope it ’ s right , because these numbers are frightening .
I ’ ll leave you with this .

This would be fantastic news if true, although I’m having trouble squaring the observed reality here and in the UK with the thesis.
Remember this study, from Britain’s Imperial College? That’s the one that convinced Boris Johnson to abandon his plan to ask older people to stay home while letting younger, healthier people essentially go about their business and infect each other. Johnson’s hope was that, because younger adults are better able to weather infection without hospitalization, Britain’s health-care system wouldn’t be overtaxed as they got sick. Then, once more than half of the healthy population had been infected and “herd immunity” had begun to develop, it would gradually become safer to let the older people out of self-quarantine. The problem with that strategy according to the Imperial College is that there would be many thousands of deaths even among the younger, healthier group. Johnson quickly scrapped the plan and turned to aggressive social distancing measures.
Now here comes a study at the University of Oxford that poses a mind-boggling question: What if half of the British population is already infected with coronavirus? What if the percentage of infected people who need hospitalization for COVID-19 is actually teeny tiny because, unbeknownst to us, the overall infected population is actually enormously large? If half of Great Britain is already infected, the country is already well on its way to acquiring herd immunity, which means they may be seeing the worst of the epidemic right now. There’s no true “mass casualty” scenario as the virus spreads. It’s already spread. And it turns out it’s harmless in virtually everyone who gets it.
If the results are confirmed, they imply that fewer than one in a thousand of those infected with Covid-19 become ill enough to need hospital treatment, said Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology, who led the study. The vast majority develop very mild symptoms or none at all… The research presents a very different view of the epidemic to the modelling at Imperial College London, which has strongly influenced government policy. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” said Prof Gupta… The Oxford study is based on a what is known as a “susceptibility-infected-recovered model” of Covid-19, built up from case and death reports from the UK and Italy. The researchers made what they regard as the most plausible assumptions about the behaviour of the virus… If the findings are confirmed by testing, then the current restrictions could be removed much sooner than ministers have indicated.
Gupta didn’t criticize Johnson or his government for locking Britain down. It’s possible that her model is wrong, after all, and if it is, the consequences of letting the disease spread unchecked would be dire. Plus, social distancing measures are helping to limit the spread of the illness at a moment when it may be peaking, which is important to lighten the load on hospitals. Even if the virus only hits one in a thousand infected people hard, an enormous number will need hospitalization at a moment when half the population or so is infected. Locking the country down right now might be the prudent thing to do even if the Oxford model is correct.
But it would also mean the lockdowns could end relatively soon and normalcy could return. There wouldn’t be many months to come of “managing” the epidemic. Essentially, Britain would already be near or at the top of the first, steep curve in this now famous graph:
Social distancing will help flatten that curve a *little.* But the UK is already getting over the hump, per the Oxford theory.
What do we make of this actual data, then? The theory, I suppose, would be that this graph doesn’t show infections rapidly beginning to take off, which is how it’s normally interpreted:
Latest case trajectories for major countries and outbreaks: • US case count continues to set the pace
• Record new number of UK cases. No sign of slowing here
• Turkey joins this chart, cases rising alarmingly fast • Read about flattening the curve: https://t.co/7A0ICnzEVm pic.twitter.com/0NBOdgkK5h — John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) March 24, 2020
What it actually shows, assuming the Oxford model is correct, is the UK line approaching the top of the steep curve before it begins to descend. Or, better yet, it doesn’t show anything useful at all. If half the population is infected then the number of infections that’s being detected by laboratory testing is practically meaningless.
How do we know if the Oxford study is right or wrong? We take a “poll” of sorts. Head out into the field and perform serological tests on a *random* sample of the population. Those tests will show who has coronavirus antibodies in their system, the telltale sign of a person who’s been infected and fought the infection off. If half the sample turns out to have those antibodies, there you go. That’s the smoking gun that many, many, many more people have been infected than we realized and just shook off the disease without having had much of an inkling that they had it.
Two obvious questions, though. Is it realistically possible for the virus to have infected 30 million Brits in the two or three months since it made its way from China to the UK? Time imposes limits even on exponential growth. Unless, of course, COVID-19 is also more contagious than anyone has fully realized.
Second, if half the public is infected, why are so many people testing negative? If there’s widespread infection in the UK, presumably there’s also widespread infection in Seattle and Washington state, the site of the first major outbreak in the U.S. Testing at the University of Washington’s Virology Lab, though, shows a positive rate of 7.8 percent in testing, not anything like 50. Why so low if herd immunity is already well on its way towards being established?
The answer, I take it, would be that most infected people have already recovered from their very minor infections and have purged the virus from this system. It’s not going to show up in a swab; there’s nothing left of it in a recovered person’s mouth and nasal passages. The only evidence left in the patient is antibodies in the blood, which no one is testing right now. But if that’s what’s going on, where exactly is Seattle — and the UK — on the proverbial curve at this moment? If half or so of the population is infected right now, shouldn’t the virus be present and detectable in half of the nasal/mouth swabs collected? (Or more, since it tends to be sick people who are tested?) How is it that hospitalizations in New York are beginning to crest, a sign that we’re not yet at the top of the curve, and yet “only” 28 percent or so of tests are turning out positive?
Via New York mag, here’s how one reporter who specializes in covering disease outbreaks explained the importance of serological testing:
One of the things we would love to know right now is how many people who have had pneumonia since January were actually COVID cases? Having answers to that question would make a difference on a policy level. If we were suddenly seeing a surge in hidden pneumonia cases since mid-February, that would tell us we’re in deep, deep doo-doo; that this thing is like Italy; that we’re going to suddenly skyrocket and our hospitals are going to be overwhelmed. But if, by contrast, the same number of cases are found in the historic samples going back to the first of January, that would tell us, “Okay, it’s gradually unfolding, we don’t have to go down to lockdown every single person in New York, we may be able to flatten the curve.” And that makes a big difference in terms of how drastic our policies need to be. There’s a reason that the governor and the mayor and the mayor’s own department advisers are arguing. We just don’t have good, solid data to work with. We’re flying blind in New York City. They’re even blinder outside the city because the population’s more scattered.
Okay, but … if we find the same number of cases in blood samples from early January as we find in more recent samples, how would we explain the crunch in NYC emergency rooms right now? Something has changed in terms of severity in the last week or so. If the Oxford model is right, it may be that much of the city is already infected and we’re simply approaching the top of the first steep curve, with New York soon to see a peak that won’t be replicated again. If the Oxford model is wrong, hoo boy.
I sure hope it’s right, because these numbers are frightening. I’ll leave you with this.


hotair--2020-03-24--Help Wanted: Companies hiring in the time of a pandemic

Who ’ s ready for some good news ?
It ’ s easy to get bogged down in the sad stories , the scary stories coming out of the news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic , isn ’ t it ?
There is a little bit of a silver lining out there , though , as we move forward and do our part to mitigate the crisis .
Some companies are hiring now to keep up with the demands of consumers .
Times are different now and so are our purchasing habits .
Retailers are scrambling to hire new employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be .
From stockers working overnight to keep the shelves replenished with food and cleaning products , to drivers tasked with delivering food and other essentials to your doorstep , the demand is real .
When consumers are told to stay at home to avoid coming in contact with others who may be COVID-19 positive , it is only logical that online purchasing is the way to go for a large part of the American population .
Even during a stay at home order , businesses deemed as essential are allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pharmacies , food establishments offering take-out and delivery service , all make that cut .
For younger , healthy people without underlying health conditions , as long as they practice social distancing , a quick trip to pick up necessities is possible .
As we worry about small businesses coping with the economic shutdown , larger retailers are announcing plans to hire thousands of people .
Perhaps some of those who are unemployed through no fault of their own will find work to tide them over and pay the bills until the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills , always the most economically vulnerable , transitioning from a job with a non-essential company to one with growing employment needs , this can be a godsend .
Some of the companies hiring in the coronavirus economy include Instacart , CVS , and Dollar General stores .
That makes sense , right ?
Instacart offers delivery service from grocery stores , drug stores , and even a liquor store chain in my area .
I use the service myself and it makes grocery shopping easy , peasy .
All the shopper has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chose the store from which you wish to order , build your grocery list and a shopper fulfills the order .
A time is set for delivery – pre-COVID-19 , choosing a time was your personal choice .
Now it is determined according to the demand .
Then , voila , your order is at your door .
I ’ m a big fan .
CVS is planning to hire 50,000 employees .
It is also giving bonuses up to $ 500.00 to employees working on-site during the pandemic .
Dollar General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company will hire 50,000 additional employees by the end of April , covering 16,300 locations in 45 states .
Walmart CEO Doug McMillon posted on Instagram that the company will hire 150,000 more workers for its stores , clubs and distribution centers .
Its current workers will receive a special bonus and early payment of Q1 bonuses .
That should help the Easter Bunny fill a lot of baskets this year .
In an attempt to match similar moves by competitors , Walmart announced Monday it is temporarily raising entry wages for workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here are more job opportunities coming down the pike : Postings for the job “ warehouse handler ” and “ warehouse attendant ” —the fastest growing jobs on the job marketplace ZipRecruiter—have increased 2,736 % and 2,009 % , respectively from the first week of January to this week .
Amazon , Costco , Raley ’ s , Save Mart , KeHE , Dollar General , FedEx are the companies driving this job demand , says ZipRecruiter .
Shopper jobs +293 % , Telemedicine jobs +125 % , Cleaning service jobs +49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the first to second week of March on the platform .
7-Eleven adds 20,000 jobs across their 11,800 U.S. convenience stores .
On Indeed , warehouse jobs like warehouse worker , stocker and forklift driver are up 6 % , pharmacy postings are up 9 % , childcare postings are up 8 % year-over-year , though overall postings are down 2.6 % .
Domino ’ s , the largest pizza company in the world by retail sales , is hiring for many roles globally : delivery people , pizza makers , customer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a press release .
Do these numbers compensate for the thousands of Americans finding themselves without a paycheck coming in this Friday ?
No , of course not but it ’ s a lifeline to those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time in order to snag one of these jobs .
Hope is at a premium for those feeling overwhelmed and stressed-out during uncertain times .
None of us know where the economy will bottom out , nor do we know when the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do is reach out and give a friend or loved one in need a bit of encouragement and information that may be exactly what they need right now .

Who’s ready for some good news? It’s easy to get bogged down in the sad stories, the scary stories coming out of the news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, isn’t it? There is a little bit of a silver lining out there, though, as we move forward and do our part to mitigate the crisis.
Some companies are hiring now to keep up with the demands of consumers. Times are different now and so are our purchasing habits. Retailers are scrambling to hire new employees to handle our needs, whatever they may be. From stockers working overnight to keep the shelves replenished with food and cleaning products, to drivers tasked with delivering food and other essentials to your doorstep, the demand is real. When consumers are told to stay at home to avoid coming in contact with others who may be COVID-19 positive, it is only logical that online purchasing is the way to go for a large part of the American population.
Even during a stay at home order, businesses deemed as essential are allowed to continue to operate. Grocery stores, pharmacies, food establishments offering take-out and delivery service, all make that cut. For younger, healthy people without underlying health conditions, as long as they practice social distancing, a quick trip to pick up necessities is possible. As we worry about small businesses coping with the economic shutdown, larger retailers are announcing plans to hire thousands of people. Perhaps some of those who are unemployed through no fault of their own will find work to tide them over and pay the bills until the crisis subsides. Especially for those with limited skills, always the most economically vulnerable, transitioning from a job with a non-essential company to one with growing employment needs, this can be a godsend.
Some of the companies hiring in the coronavirus economy include Instacart, CVS, and Dollar General stores. That makes sense, right? Instacart offers delivery service from grocery stores, drug stores, and even a liquor store chain in my area. I use the service myself and it makes grocery shopping easy, peasy. All the shopper has to do is go to the website, chose the store from which you wish to order, build your grocery list and a shopper fulfills the order. A time is set for delivery – pre-COVID-19, choosing a time was your personal choice. Now it is determined according to the demand. Then, voila, your order is at your door. I’m a big fan.
Instacart, online grocery deliver behemoth, announced plans to 300,000 new shoppers across North America in the next three months, as they’ve seen year-over-year order volume increase by 150% in the last few weeks, according to a press release.
CVS is planning to hire 50,000 employees. It is also giving bonuses up to $500.00 to employees working on-site during the pandemic.
“Our colleagues have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to providing essential goods and services at a time when they’re needed most,” CVS CEO Larry Merlo said in a statement. “As they continue to be there for the individuals and families we serve, we’re taking extra steps to provide some peace of mind and help them navigate these uncertain times.” The company plans to immediately hire 50,000 people for full-time, part-time and temporary jobs, including store positions, home delivery drivers, distribution workers and customer service representatives.
Dollar General stores are hiring, too. The company will hire 50,000 additional employees by the end of April, covering 16,300 locations in 45 states.
Walmart CEO Doug McMillon posted on Instagram that the company will hire 150,000 more workers for its stores, clubs and distribution centers. Its current workers will receive a special bonus and early payment of Q1 bonuses. That should help the Easter Bunny fill a lot of baskets this year. In an attempt to match similar moves by competitors, Walmart announced Monday it is temporarily raising entry wages for workers in its e-commerce warehouses by $2.00.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B979AZXgr6Q/?utm_source=ig_embed
Here are more job opportunities coming down the pike:
Postings for the job “warehouse handler” and “warehouse attendant”—the fastest growing jobs on the job marketplace ZipRecruiter—have increased 2,736% and 2,009%, respectively from the first week of January to this week. Amazon, Costco, Raley’s, Save Mart, KeHE, Dollar General,FedEx are the companies driving this job demand, says ZipRecruiter.
Shopper jobs +293%, Telemedicine jobs +125%, Cleaning service jobs +49%, EMT jobs climbed 23% from the first to second week of March on the platform. 7-Eleven adds 20,000 jobs across their 11,800 U.S. convenience stores. Zoom, 2,400-person video conferencing company has 235 open roles in sales, support, marketing, HR, Finance, engineering. On Indeed, warehouse jobs like warehouse worker, stocker and forklift driver are up 6%, pharmacy postings are up 9%, childcare postings are up 8% year-over-year, though overall postings are down 2.6%. Domino’s, the largest pizza company in the world by retail sales, is hiring for many roles globally: delivery people, pizza makers, customer service representatives, managers and assistant managers, according to a press release.
Do these numbers compensate for the thousands of Americans finding themselves without a paycheck coming in this Friday? No, of course not but it’s a lifeline to those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time in order to snag one of these jobs. Hope is at a premium for those feeling overwhelmed and stressed-out during uncertain times. None of us know where the economy will bottom out, nor do we know when the economy will begin to improve. What we can do is reach out and give a friend or loved one in need a bit of encouragement and information that may be exactly what they need right now.


hotair--2020-03-24--Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine: Trump is right that we have to save our economy -- which we'll do by saving l

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine: Trump is right that we have to save our economy -- which we'll do by saving lives

I don ’ t know whether to laugh or cry that DeWine feels he has to humor Trump by framing his argument here as a case of him agreeing with the president when he ’ s actually disagreeing with him strongly .
Trump ’ s position is that an economic freeze of one or two months might exact a steeper human cost than a runaway coronavirus epidemic and a health-care meltdown would .
Therefore , we need people to get back to work soon .
Whether that means next week or three weeks from now , think in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position : That ’ s goofy .
We ’ re not going to tell people to get to work until we have a handle on the spread of this disease .
To do otherwise would invite a human catastrophe and an economic catastrophe even greater than the one we ’ re enduring right now .
But he can ’ t say that in so many words .
It might jeopardize Ohio ’ s ability to get resources like ventilators from the federal government ; the president is plenty vindictive enough to punish Ohioans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But even if he weren ’ t , DeWine still couldn ’ t speak plainly or else he ’ d risk hardcore Trump fans feeling like they have to choose between his directives and the president ’ s .
If Trump says “ go to work ” and DeWine says “ you ’ re going to get people killed if you go to work , ” some people will go to work if only to show solidarity with Trump against the libs and RINOs .
But if DeWine says “ you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work even if he says ‘ go to work , ' ” well , maybe that makes it a little easier for them to stay home .
We all want the economy to start humming again ASAP , says DeWine .
We ’ re all on the same page !
If only : How many Republican politicians have taken Trump ’ s side in this developing argument ?
I ’ ve seen Trump fans on social media echoing the president that it ’ ll be time to go back to work soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisors like Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore are dutifully repeating his message .
But it occurred to me after writing this post that there aren ’ t many GOP officials backing Trump up .
The lieutenant governor of Texas went full death cult on Fox News last night and apparently John Kennedy has been heard grumbling that poverty kills people too , you know .
But none of the people in the House and Senate whom you ’ d normally expect to rush to Trump ’ s aid when he ’ s under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe they ’ re too busy with the fiscal relief package .
Or maybe they regard this as a level of Trump insanity even they can ’ t condone .
I was encouraged by his statement to Fox this afternoon that he ’ s hoping to have the country back to work by Easter , for two reasons .
First , he didn ’ t set it as a deadline .
It ’ s aspirational .
Second , Easter is several weeks out , which means he ’ s already backing off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more he delays this very bad decision , the harder politically it ’ ll be for him to make it .
If New York looks like this today , imagine what it ’ ll look like in three weeks : Density , it seems , is what ’ s cursed NYC to 10 times the number of infections that California is suffering .
By Easter , it may be that there are well over 100,000 infected people there ; assuming a death rate of one percent , that ’ ll be 1,000 dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curve will already be flattening by then .
Meanwhile , in Florida , Ron DeSantis is already getting shredded by Democrats and the media for moving too slowly to lock the state down .
He ’ s the most visible proponent of Trump ’ s “ don ’ t let the cure be worse than the disease ” approach .
If Florida ends up being overrun with infection in the next few weeks , he ’ ll be lambasted and every governor in the country will view him as a cautionary tale about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s much more likely that the mood of the country on Easter will be “ We did far too little , too late ” than “ We overreacted.
” And Trump really needs the mood to be “ We overreacted ” to get people excited to get out there , get back to work , and start passing that virus around again .
The lingering question in this debate is how he can believe that the human toll from an economic freeze of one or two months could be worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing measures before the spread of the virus has been meaningfully reduced .
He ’ s right that the freeze will exact a toll : There will be suicides due to lost jobs , there ’ ll be alcoholism and drug addiction by people trying to cope , there ’ ll be nest eggs lost , on and on .
It ’ s a genuine calamity .
It ’ s just that we get all of that same misery in the “ go back to work ” scenario where the virus spreads , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease itself , plus a mountain of additional deaths from people who can ’ t get treatment at overwhelmed hospitals for non-COVID ailments .
It ’ s an even bigger calamity .
By what logical process does he arrive at a preference for the first option over the second ?
Charlie Sykes has a theory : But Trump ’ s calculation may be different : he may feel that his reelection bid will be hurt more by a recession than by many thousands of deaths .
Those tragedies can be blamed on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in blue states .
He may think that he can create his own reality and shift responsibility for American deaths .
But the economy , he owns .
It is entirely possible that Trump may calculate that he can survive your grandmother ’ s death , but not another 10,000 point drop in the Dow .
Maybe .
Although if he orders everyone back to work and everyone ( or mostly everyone ) ignores him , then he ’ ll say that he no longer owns the economy .
Mike DeWine owns it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foolishly and selfishly insisted on avoiding a cataclysmic national epidemic by keeping people at home when Trump wanted them back to work .
The sluggish growth in GDP once we ’ re past the first wave of this is therefore on them , not him .
I don ’ t know if Trump feels that he owns the economy so much as that he ’ s spent three years focused on “ scoreboard ” metrics like monthly job growth and the state of the Dow as yardsticks for his effectiveness as president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
He wants to be able to tell people again that the Dow is at its highest point ever and it ’ s all thanks to him .
So he ’ s going to set whatever policies he needs to set in order to make that happen .
If we all go back to work soon , some older ( and younger ) people may die but the Dow will begin growing again , won ’ t it ?
And it ’ ll keep growing even after millions of Americans are too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t it ?

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that DeWine feels he has to humor Trump by framing his argument here as a case of him agreeing with the president when he’s actually disagreeing with him strongly. Trump’s position is that an economic freeze of one or two months might exact a steeper human cost than a runaway coronavirus epidemic and a health-care meltdown would. Therefore, we need people to get back to work soon. Whether that means next week or three weeks from now, think in terms of a few weeks.
DeWine’s position: That’s goofy. We’re not going to tell people to get to work until we have a handle on the spread of this disease. To do otherwise would invite a human catastrophe and an economic catastrophe even greater than the one we’re enduring right now.
But he can’t say that in so many words. It might jeopardize Ohio’s ability to get resources like ventilators from the federal government; the president is plenty vindictive enough to punish Ohioans as a means of punishing DeWine. But even if he weren’t, DeWine still couldn’t speak plainly or else he’d risk hardcore Trump fans feeling like they have to choose between his directives and the president’s. If Trump says “go to work” and DeWine says “you’re going to get people killed if you go to work,” some people will go to work if only to show solidarity with Trump against the libs and RINOs. But if DeWine says “you’re doing what Trump wants by not going to work even if he says ‘go to work,'” well, maybe that makes it a little easier for them to stay home.
We all want the economy to start humming again ASAP, says DeWine. We’re all on the same page! If only:
I've been asked if I had a reaction to the President's statements yesterday. I think we are aligned. We want to get this over with ASAP. We want people back at work. The frustration he has, I share it. Each day we can't move forward is frustrating. We're all in this together. — Governor Mike DeWine (@GovMikeDeWine) March 24, 2020
If our hospitals are overwhelmed thousands of Ohioans will not get the care they need. If our nurses and doctors get sick, if they die because we do not have facilities to protect them, that is a personal tragedy for them and for all of us. — Governor Mike DeWine (@GovMikeDeWine) March 24, 2020
We are going to get our economy back, but we have to get through it, protect as many lives as we can, and then move forward. I'm looking forward to that day, but it's not yet here. — Governor Mike DeWine (@GovMikeDeWine) March 24, 2020
How many Republican politicians have taken Trump’s side in this developing argument? I’ve seen Trump fans on social media echoing the president that it’ll be time to go back to work soon, and of course his own economic advisors like Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore are dutifully repeating his message. But it occurred to me after writing this post that there aren’t many GOP officials backing Trump up. The lieutenant governor of Texas went full death cult on Fox News last night and apparently John Kennedy has been heard grumbling that poverty kills people too, you know. But none of the people in the House and Senate whom you’d normally expect to rush to Trump’s aid when he’s under fire are rushing in this case. Maybe they’re too busy with the fiscal relief package. Or maybe they regard this as a level of Trump insanity even they can’t condone.
I was encouraged by his statement to Fox this afternoon that he’s hoping to have the country back to work by Easter, for two reasons. First, he didn’t set it as a deadline. It’s aspirational. Second, Easter is several weeks out, which means he’s already backing off the “next week” timetable. The more he delays this very bad decision, the harder politically it’ll be for him to make it. If New York looks like this today, imagine what it’ll look like in three weeks:
NEW: Coronavirus cases in US now surpass 50,000, with 637 deaths. Highest state case totals: • New York: 25,665
• New Jersey: 2,844
• California: 2,229
• Washington: 2,221
• Florida: 1,412
• Louisiana: 1,388
• Michigan: 1,328
• Illinois: 1,285
• Georgia: 1,026 — NBC News (@NBCNews) March 24, 2020
Density, it seems, is what’s cursed NYC to 10 times the number of infections that California is suffering. By Easter, it may be that there are well over 100,000 infected people there; assuming a death rate of one percent, that’ll be 1,000 dead per day, although hopefully the proverbial curve will already be flattening by then. Meanwhile, in Florida, Ron DeSantis is already getting shredded by Democrats and the media for moving too slowly to lock the state down. He’s the most visible proponent of Trump’s “don’t let the cure be worse than the disease” approach. If Florida ends up being overrun with infection in the next few weeks, he’ll be lambasted and every governor in the country will view him as a cautionary tale about half-measures. All of that being so, it’s much more likely that the mood of the country on Easter will be “We did far too little, too late” than “We overreacted.” And Trump really needs the mood to be “We overreacted” to get people excited to get out there, get back to work, and start passing that virus around again.
The lingering question in this debate is how he can believe that the human toll from an economic freeze of one or two months could be worse than the human toll from lifting social distancing measures before the spread of the virus has been meaningfully reduced. He’s right that the freeze will exact a toll: There will be suicides due to lost jobs, there’ll be alcoholism and drug addiction by people trying to cope, there’ll be nest eggs lost, on and on. It’s a genuine calamity. It’s just that we get all of that same misery in the “go back to work” scenario where the virus spreads, plus a mountain of deaths from the disease itself, plus a mountain of additional deaths from people who can’t get treatment at overwhelmed hospitals for non-COVID ailments. It’s an even bigger calamity. By what logical process does he arrive at a preference for the first option over the second? Charlie Sykes has a theory:
But Trump’s calculation may be different: he may feel that his reelection bid will be hurt more by a recession than by many thousands of deaths. Those tragedies can be blamed on the Chinese and they may take place predominately in blue states. He may think that he can create his own reality and shift responsibility for American deaths. But the economy, he owns. It is entirely possible that Trump may calculate that he can survive your grandmother’s death, but not another 10,000 point drop in the Dow.
Maybe. Although if he orders everyone back to work and everyone (or mostly everyone) ignores him, then he’ll say that he no longer owns the economy. Mike DeWine owns it. Andrew Cuomo owns it. They foolishly and selfishly insisted on avoiding a cataclysmic national epidemic by keeping people at home when Trump wanted them back to work. The sluggish growth in GDP once we’re past the first wave of this is therefore on them, not him.
I don’t know if Trump feels that he owns the economy so much as that he’s spent three years focused on “scoreboard” metrics like monthly job growth and the state of the Dow as yardsticks for his effectiveness as president and now he can’t see past them. He wants to be able to tell people again that the Dow is at its highest point ever and it’s all thanks to him. So he’s going to set whatever policies he needs to set in order to make that happen. If we all go back to work soon, some older (and younger) people may die but the Dow will begin growing again, won’t it? And it’ll keep growing even after millions of Americans are too sick to keep working. Won’t it?


hotair--2020-03-25--UK plans to have a home blood test for coronavirus available soon on Amazon

Nearly a week ago Allahpundit pointed out some tweets from a Seattle researcher named Trevor Bedford who suggested one way we could start to see the end of the current lockdown is through the widespread use of home testing for the virus .
He was talking about nasal testing but he did say that eventually the goal would be widespread serological testing to determine who can return to work without danger of a ) getting sick or b ) spreading the virus .
Today , there are reports from the UK that this is what they hope to have up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to provide a home blood test which can be ordered on Amazon .
Apparently these tests would just require a drop of blood and you ’ d be able to find out if you have recovered from the virus : Millions of people will soon be able to order a home finger-prick test from Amazon that will tell them if they have had Covid-19 , health chiefs have promised .
People could be allowed back to work if they have recovered and tests show they are now immune , Sharon Peacock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Health England , said .
About 3.5 million antibody tests have been bought and millions more are being ordered with the aim of selling them to the public within days , she told MPs .
However , government sources cautioned that the timetable was likely to slip as they decided who should get priority .
Boris Johnson has described the tests as a “ total game-changer ” , allowing people to know once they are no longer at risk of catching or passing on the virus .
The Guardian adds that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test .
One of them is designed to be as simple as a pregnancy test : The home test , which looks like a pregnancy test , involves pricking a finger to produce a drop of blood , which is then analysed by the device .
“ Several million tests have been purchased for use .
These are brand new products .
We have to be clear they work as they are claimed to do , ” Peacock said .
“ Once they have been tested this week and the bulk of tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community.
” … The test detects the presence of IGM , an antibody that arises very early on in the infection , and IGG , which is increased in the body ’ s response to the virus .
The results of some of the tests on order can be read by anyone , but others would need to be interpreted by healthcare professionals .
The only hitch here is that the test hasn ’ t been evaluated for accuracy yet .
That ’ s what the health service will be trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the tests , the UK ’ s chief medical officer tamped down the enthusiasm a bit saying that if the the tests prove accurate they will be released , but if not then they will be not be .
What appears to be the same test could be coming to the U.S. soon .
Earlier this week , Time magazine reported a California company has already licensed the test from a Chinese company : Scanwell Health , an at-home test company based in California , licensed the rights to a test developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used extensively at the height of country ’ s epidemic earlier this year… Scanwell ’ s request for FDA emergency authorization could take six to eight weeks , says company founder and CEO Stephen Chen .
If approved , it would be the first at-home test for the disease in the world—in China , because of government regulations , the test was only administered by doctors and health officials .
Chen says at-home testing is more common in the U.S. , and federal regulators are more comfortable approving properly designed kits , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways for people to connect with doctors about the results .
The UK stories don ’ t mention the name of the company that developed the test but it appears to be the same one and tests for the same two antibodies .
The US version of the test would also be mailed out but only after people pass an online pre-screening which is intended to establish that someone actually has relevant symptoms before requesting a test .
Prior to the run on toilet paper I might have said the pre-screening wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who aren ’ t sick hoarding these the moment they became available on Amazon , so maybe the pre-screening is a good idea .
I guess the one remaining question I have is why the UK is hoping to have this evaluated in a matter of days while the FDA is saying 6-8 weeks .
According to the Time story , this test was used extensively in China , including in some hospitals .
With the peak of the New York infection 2-3 weeks away , and other states potentially following close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA approval seems unwise .
I ’ m not saying they should throw this out there without testing but maybe they could coordinate with the UK on a quicker timeline to evaluate this ?

Nearly a week ago Allahpundit pointed out some tweets from a Seattle researcher named Trevor Bedford who suggested one way we could start to see the end of the current lockdown is through the widespread use of home testing for the virus. He was talking about nasal testing but he did say that eventually the goal would be widespread serological testing to determine who can return to work without danger of a) getting sick or b) spreading the virus.
Today, there are reports from the UK that this is what they hope to have up and running fairly soon. The idea is to provide a home blood test which can be ordered on Amazon. Apparently these tests would just require a drop of blood and you’d be able to find out if you have recovered from the virus:
Millions of people will soon be able to order a home finger-prick test from Amazon that will tell them if they have had Covid-19, health chiefs have promised. People could be allowed back to work if they have recovered and tests show they are now immune, Sharon Peacock, director of the national infection service at Public Health England, said. About 3.5 million antibody tests have been bought and millions more are being ordered with the aim of selling them to the public within days, she told MPs. However, government sources cautioned that the timetable was likely to slip as they decided who should get priority. Boris Johnson has described the tests as a “total game-changer”, allowing people to know once they are no longer at risk of catching or passing on the virus.
The Guardian adds that there are two different varieties of this new test. One of them is designed to be as simple as a pregnancy test:
The home test, which looks like a pregnancy test, involves pricking a finger to produce a drop of blood, which is then analysed by the device. “Several million tests have been purchased for use. These are brand new products. We have to be clear they work as they are claimed to do,” Peacock said. “Once they have been tested this week and the bulk of tests arrive, they will be distributed into the community.”… The test detects the presence of IGM, an antibody that arises very early on in the infection, and IGG, which is increased in the body’s response to the virus. The results of some of the tests on order can be read by anyone, but others would need to be interpreted by healthcare professionals.
The only hitch here is that the test hasn’t been evaluated for accuracy yet. That’s what the health service will be trying to establish this week. After the announcement about the tests, the UK’s chief medical officer tamped down the enthusiasm a bit saying that if the the tests prove accurate they will be released, but if not then they will be not be.
What appears to be the same test could be coming to the U.S. soon. Earlier this week, Time magazine reported a California company has already licensed the test from a Chinese company:
Scanwell Health, an at-home test company based in California, licensed the rights to a test developed by Chinese company Innovita, which was used extensively at the height of country’s epidemic earlier this year… Scanwell’s request for FDA emergency authorization could take six to eight weeks, says company founder and CEO Stephen Chen. If approved, it would be the first at-home test for the disease in the world—in China, because of government regulations, the test was only administered by doctors and health officials. Chen says at-home testing is more common in the U.S., and federal regulators are more comfortable approving properly designed kits, as long as the companies behind them provide ways for people to connect with doctors about the results.
The UK stories don’t mention the name of the company that developed the test but it appears to be the same one and tests for the same two antibodies. The US version of the test would also be mailed out but only after people pass an online pre-screening which is intended to establish that someone actually has relevant symptoms before requesting a test. Prior to the run on toilet paper I might have said the pre-screening wasn’t necessary but I can absolutely imagine people who aren’t sick hoarding these the moment they became available on Amazon, so maybe the pre-screening is a good idea.
I guess the one remaining question I have is why the UK is hoping to have this evaluated in a matter of days while the FDA is saying 6-8 weeks. According to the Time story, this test was used extensively in China, including in some hospitals. With the peak of the New York infection 2-3 weeks away, and other states potentially following close behind, a 6-8 week delay for FDA approval seems unwise. I’m not saying they should throw this out there without testing but maybe they could coordinate with the UK on a quicker timeline to evaluate this?
Update: Hmmm. This is from a Czeck news site I’ve never heard of but it sounds like the rapid tests they received from China are giving false readings 80% of the time compared to lab testing:
“We checked them on Saturday at the University Hospital Ostrava, but unfortunately the error rate was quite high, so now we are waiting for the results of further testing across the country, they have never been tested positively because it works with antibodies, ”said Svrčinová. She added that the tests showed false positive and false negative results.
I don’t know if this is the same test but it is a quick antibody test from China. Maybe that’s why the UK’s chief medical officer wanted to tone down the anticipation about this?


hotair--2020-03-25--"A massive drafting error": Three GOP senators pledge to block relief bill unless unemployment benef

"A massive drafting error": Three GOP senators pledge to block relief bill unless unemployment benefits fixed

Legislate in haste , repent at leisure .
The rush to get a $ 2 trillion coronavirus relief package to a vote hit its first major road bump this afternoon after three Republican senators objected to language regarding the expanded unemployment benefits .
The provision is so generous , they claim about the existing language , that it would incentivize employers to lay off employees — the exact opposite effect the bill intends .
Is this just an excuse to oppose a massive cash dispersal ?
“ None of what we ’ re here to talk about today , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ is about a price tag.
” “ If this is not a drafting error then this is the worst idea I ’ ve seen in a long time , ” Graham said .
Under the deal worked out with Democrats , jobless individuals would receive $ 600 a week for four months on top of their regular unemployment compensation , which varies by state .
In South Carolina , the maximum benefit is $ 326 per week , so for four months an individual could get paid the equivalent of about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an hour , Graham said .
“ I think we ’ ve done absolutely the worst thing we can do to stabilize the economy .
We ’ ve incentivized people not to go back to work , ” he said .
“ Every employer in the state has to compete with a $ 24 an hour minimum wage now I guess.
” The good news would be that this was indeed a drafting error .
If so , it would be easy to fix it , either in the text of the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sasse suggested .
Unfortunately , this does not appear to be a drafting error , but instead a deliberate choice in order to make benefit assignment more efficient : But a Senate Finance Committee Democratic aide not authorized to speak on the record about the issue said trying to limit a benefit increase to a worker ’ s full salary presented logistical problems .
“ The administration made clear that state unemployment offices did not have the technological capability to calculate wage replacement on an individual basis , which is how we came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 increase per week in benefits , ” the aide said .
Businesses taking special forgivable Small Business Administration loans under the aid package would find themselves with a shortage of workers to rehire when they open back up , critics said .
And Graham argued it could actually remove health care workers like nurses from the frontlines because they ’ d be better off financially taking unemployment .
Wait a minute , some might object , you can ’ t get unemployment if you quit your job voluntarily .
Actually , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can — as long as you “ self-certify ” that you quit because of the coronavirus : And that ’ s one of the big problems with this approach .
If people can draw unemployment after quitting on their own , not only will that drain people from the workforce , it will make employers leery about hiring any new workers to replace them .
Providing those incentives promises to create chaos over the next four months that they will be in effect .
So why not just fix them ?
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed right now , Mitt Romney argues : As I said … legislate in haste , repent at leisure , although that ’ s meant as a warning rather than a recommendation .
For another , changing this will create opposition on the other side of the aisle .
Bernie Sanders pledged to block the bill if the language got changed : This threatens to extend the fight over the bill for days , perhaps with Nancy Pelosi holding it up in the House if these changes get made , too .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just another example of how Congress can ’ t handle its business , either under normal circumstances nor even a crisis when the economy might crash around them .
In my column at The Week , I argue that the credibility crisis for self-governance and legislating might be even more acute than the pandemic or the economic disaster fast approaching : In this situation , the parameters of this massive relief package matters less than Congress ’ credibility in dealing with a crisis .
Thus far , the response has been far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate whose faith in institutions had fallen sharply over the previous few years .
Voters expect Congress to act in a crisis , not get stalled by partisan bickering and then literal absence .
A failure to act here could have enormous political as well as economic consequences and call the whole idea of a co-equal legislature into question .
… At this point , the nation needs to take action to prevent panic and despair from turning a short-term problem into a long-term disaster .
A functional Congress and White House can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding to what works and shifting resources away from what does not .
In order for that to succeed , Congress has to become functional again and re-instill confidence in its ability to deal with crises .
This agreement may not be perfect , and it may not even be great , but inaction and gridlock would be far worse than whatever problems this agreement might cause down the road .
Voters are watching intently to see whether they can trust our public institutions at all , and the consequences of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the virus or the economic damage it does .
Thus far , their performance to these metrics has not been impressive .

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. The rush to get a $2 trillion coronavirus relief package to a vote hit its first major road bump this afternoon after three Republican senators objected to language regarding the expanded unemployment benefits. The provision is so generous, they claim about the existing language, that it would incentivize employers to lay off employees — the exact opposite effect the bill intends.
Is this just an excuse to oppose a massive cash dispersal? “None of what we’re here to talk about today,” Sen. Ben Sasse told reporters this afternoon, “is about a price tag.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhoKZ1xzDyg
INBOX: Scott, Sasse and Graham oppose fast-tracking coronavirus bill over provision they say incentivizes workers to be laid off. pic.twitter.com/GOdNqVFsP7 — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 25, 2020
“If this is not a drafting error then this is the worst idea I’ve seen in a long time,” Graham said. Under the deal worked out with Democrats, jobless individuals would receive $600 a week for four months on top of their regular unemployment compensation, which varies by state. In South Carolina, the maximum benefit is $326 per week, so for four months an individual could get paid the equivalent of about $49,000 a year or $24 an hour, Graham said. “I think we’ve done absolutely the worst thing we can do to stabilize the economy. We’ve incentivized people not to go back to work,” he said. “Every employer in the state has to compete with a $24 an hour minimum wage now I guess.”
The good news would be that this was indeed a drafting error. If so, it would be easy to fix it, either in the text of the bill now or in an amendment, as Sasse suggested. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a drafting error, but instead a deliberate choice in order to make benefit assignment more efficient:
But a Senate Finance Committee Democratic aide not authorized to speak on the record about the issue said trying to limit a benefit increase to a worker’s full salary presented logistical problems. “The administration made clear that state unemployment offices did not have the technological capability to calculate wage replacement on an individual basis, which is how we came to the bipartisan agreement on a $600 increase per week in benefits,” the aide said. Businesses taking special forgivable Small Business Administration loans under the aid package would find themselves with a shortage of workers to rehire when they open back up, critics said. And Graham argued it could actually remove health care workers like nurses from the frontlines because they’d be better off financially taking unemployment.
Wait a minute, some might object, you can’t get unemployment if you quit your job voluntarily. Actually, according to the language in one draft, you can — as long as you “self-certify” that you quit because of the coronavirus:
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1242905012566663170
And that’s one of the big problems with this approach. If people can draw unemployment after quitting on their own, not only will that drain people from the workforce, it will make employers leery about hiring any new workers to replace them. Providing those incentives promises to create chaos over the next four months that they will be in effect.
So why not just fix them? For one thing, the money’s needed right now, Mitt Romney argues:
We can't afford to wait any longer to send relief to those who need it. The Senate’s #COVID19 relief package supports workers, families, and businesses across the country. The Senate and House should pass this bill now and get it to the President’s desk. https://t.co/hXc3Auv0Zp — Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) March 25, 2020
As I said … legislate in haste, repent at leisure, although that’s meant as a warning rather than a recommendation. For another, changing this will create opposition on the other side of the aisle. Bernie Sanders pledged to block the bill if the language got changed:
Unless Republican Senators drop their objections to the coronavirus legislation, I am prepared to put a hold on this bill until stronger conditions are imposed on the $500 billion corporate welfare fund. pic.twitter.com/7X0o9C4BoO — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 25, 2020
This threatens to extend the fight over the bill for days, perhaps with Nancy Pelosi holding it up in the House if these changes get made, too. For everyone outside the Beltway, it’s just another example of how Congress can’t handle its business, either under normal circumstances nor even a crisis when the economy might crash around them. In my column at The Week, I argue that the credibility crisis for self-governance and legislating might be even more acute than the pandemic or the economic disaster fast approaching:
In this situation, the parameters of this massive relief package matters less than Congress’ credibility in dealing with a crisis. Thus far, the response has been far from confidence building, especially with an electorate whose faith in institutions had fallen sharply over the previous few years. Voters expect Congress to act in a crisis, not get stalled by partisan bickering and then literal absence. A failure to act here could have enormous political as well as economic consequences and call the whole idea of a co-equal legislature into question. … At this point, the nation needs to take action to prevent panic and despair from turning a short-term problem into a long-term disaster. A functional Congress and White House can fine tune the approach as it goes, adding to what works and shifting resources away from what does not. In order for that to succeed, Congress has to become functional again and re-instill confidence in its ability to deal with crises. This agreement may not be perfect, and it may not even be great, but inaction and gridlock would be far worse than whatever problems this agreement might cause down the road. Voters are watching intently to see whether they can trust our public institutions at all, and the consequences of their failure at this junction might be far worse than the virus or the economic damage it does.
Thus far, their performance to these metrics has not been impressive.


hotair--2020-03-25--Biden: Sorry, Bernie, but I think I'm done with primary debates

Ah , watching this clip made me think back to a time decades ago when I was young and carefree .
I used to write posts about Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders for this site all the time .
That was … early March of this year , if memory serves .
It ’ s nice to tackle some Before Times content again .
Seems risky .
He ’ s got the nomination wrapped up ; what he needs to do now is deprive Bernie fans of any additional pretexts to justify doing what they instinctively want to do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Snubbing Sanders ’ s latest demand for another debate is a pretext .
Agreeing to another debate also carries risk , though .
Every sustained appearance at a microphone before a large audience gives Biden a new opportunity to commit a major “ he ’ s lost a step ” gaffe .
Even if he ’ s cogent , new debates will be little more than an exercise in Bernie ranting about socialism and attacking Biden on his record , neither of which does Joe any good this fall .
Short-circuiting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and forget might be the less risky play .
It ’ s not like Biden needs more debates because he needs to continue to make the sale to Democratic voters .
The race is as good as over : Read that second part again .
Biden could lose every remaining primary by 10 and still clinch .
That ’ s how durable his advantage is now .
Here ’ s one reason why he might want to do another debate with Bernie , though : It ’ s one of the few opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look “ presidential ” and get millions of voters to pay attention to him .
Team Biden is in a quandary about how to keep him in front of the public at a moment when the entire electorate is consumed with urgent business and getting daily doses of Trump on TV as the head of the federal rescue operation .
He can ’ t even hold fundraisers .
It ’ s too risky .
He ’ s been doing these remote interviews from his home office lately as a means of staying visible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an Andy Rooney vibe to them .
He looks and sounds like an old man just spoutin ’ off from the comfort of his La-Z-Boy .
I think they need to build him a little TV studio that ’ ll allow him to communicate more stature .
Or he and Bernie can just keep on debating .
A more traditional second-place Democratic rival who was woefully behind in delegates might agree to that as a favor to the party , colluding with Biden to use the debate as an opportunity for each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis .
Bernie ’ s not a team player , though .
If Biden grants him another debate , he ’ ll use it to try to win .
Even though , realistically , he has no chance .
Biden ’ s conundrum on how to get face time with voters right now is part of the reason there ’ s chatter about swapping in Andrew Cuomo as nominee .
Not only has Cuomo been praised for his handling of the crisis in New York , he ’ s on TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an event .
He ’ s building stature every day as the most prominent Democrat in America at the precise moment Biden needs to be doing that .
My question for the switcheroo crowd , though , is : How ?
How do you get Biden out and Cuomo in ?
If Biden withdrew “ voluntarily , ” Berniebros would demand that their guy receive the nomination as the second-place finisher in delegates over a neoliberal like Cuomo who didn ’ t even run .
And black voters might resent seeing Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophe in South Carolina , summarily cast aside by the DNC in favor of a governor who ’ s held some effective press conferences while his state and its biggest city drown in illness .
There ’ s another challenge in nominating Cuomo .
If it ’ s Biden vs. Trump , many voters will consider it a referendum on Trump .
They ’ ll look at how he handled the coronavirus crisis , of course , but they ’ ll look at the previous three years of his presidency too in weighing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Cuomo vs. Trump , voters are more likely to compare the two specifically on how they handled the coronavirus crisis ( since that ’ s the only reference point most Democrats nationally will have for Cuomo ’ s performance as governor ) .
And the trick there for Cuomo is that Trump is likely to take credit or blame as the case may be depending heavily on how things go in Cuomo ’ s own state .
If New York avoids the worst-case scenario , Cuomo will take a bow — as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of deaths , Trump will be blamed — and he ’ ll turn around and blame Cuomo .
Cuomo ’ s actually gone out of his way to praise lately Trump where possible , knowing that the speed and size of the aid New York receives from the feds may depend in part on staying on the president ’ s good side .
At what point would Cuomo shift from “ The president ’ s been helpful ” to “ The president sucks ” if he ’ s the nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s last coronavirus case ?
What ’ s he going to say — “ Everything I said about Trump for the past three months was a lie ” ?
I think they ’ re stuck with Joe .
Here he is in another Andy Rooney interview , pandering to the left .

Ah, watching this clip made me think back to a time decades ago when I was young and carefree. I used to write posts about Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders for this site all the time.
That was … early March of this year, if memory serves.
It’s nice to tackle some Before Times content again.
NEW: “My focus is just dealing with this crisis right now. I haven’t thought about any more debates,. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this,” Joe Biden says when asked if there should be more Democratic debates. https://t.co/cZA4ORLjNb pic.twitter.com/4fryw6GhTf — ABC News (@ABC) March 25, 2020
Seems risky. He’s got the nomination wrapped up; what he needs to do now is deprive Bernie fans of any additional pretexts to justify doing what they instinctively want to do, which is boycott the election this fall. Snubbing Sanders’s latest demand for another debate is a pretext.
Agreeing to another debate also carries risk, though. Every sustained appearance at a microphone before a large audience gives Biden a new opportunity to commit a major “he’s lost a step” gaffe. Even if he’s cogent, new debates will be little more than an exercise in Bernie ranting about socialism and attacking Biden on his record, neither of which does Joe any good this fall. Short-circuiting the debates and trusting Sanders fans to forgive and forget might be the less risky play. It’s not like Biden needs more debates because he needs to continue to make the sale to Democratic voters. The race is as good as over:
Sanders would need 63% the remaining delegates to claim a majority, which is roughly equivalent to winning the remaining contests by ~25 points. Biden would need 45% of remaining delegates for a majority, equivalent to *losing* remaining contests by ~10 points. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 18, 2020
Read that second part again. Biden could lose every remaining primary by 10 and still clinch. That’s how durable his advantage is now.
Here’s one reason why he might want to do another debate with Bernie, though: It’s one of the few opportunities he’ll have anytime soon to look “presidential” and get millions of voters to pay attention to him. Team Biden is in a quandary about how to keep him in front of the public at a moment when the entire electorate is consumed with urgent business and getting daily doses of Trump on TV as the head of the federal rescue operation. He can’t even hold fundraisers. It’s too risky. He’s been doing these remote interviews from his home office lately as a means of staying visible, but there’s too much of an Andy Rooney vibe to them. He looks and sounds like an old man just spoutin’ off from the comfort of his La-Z-Boy. I think they need to build him a little TV studio that’ll allow him to communicate more stature.
Or he and Bernie can just keep on debating. A more traditional second-place Democratic rival who was woefully behind in delegates might agree to that as a favor to the party, colluding with Biden to use the debate as an opportunity for each to attack Trump’s management of the coronavirus crisis. Bernie’s not a team player, though. If Biden grants him another debate, he’ll use it to try to win. Even though, realistically, he has no chance.
Biden’s conundrum on how to get face time with voters right now is part of the reason there’s chatter about swapping in Andrew Cuomo as nominee. Not only has Cuomo been praised for his handling of the crisis in New York, he’s on TV every morning. His pressers have become an event. He’s building stature every day as the most prominent Democrat in America at the precise moment Biden needs to be doing that. My question for the switcheroo crowd, though, is: How? How do you get Biden out and Cuomo in? If Biden withdrew “voluntarily,” Berniebros would demand that their guy receive the nomination as the second-place finisher in delegates over a neoliberal like Cuomo who didn’t even run. And black voters might resent seeing Biden, whom they rescued from the brink of catastrophe in South Carolina, summarily cast aside by the DNC in favor of a governor who’s held some effective press conferences while his state and its biggest city drown in illness.
There’s another challenge in nominating Cuomo. If it’s Biden vs. Trump, many voters will consider it a referendum on Trump. They’ll look at how he handled the coronavirus crisis, of course, but they’ll look at the previous three years of his presidency too in weighing him against Biden. If it’s Cuomo vs. Trump, voters are more likely to compare the two specifically on how they handled the coronavirus crisis (since that’s the only reference point most Democrats nationally will have for Cuomo’s performance as governor). And the trick there for Cuomo is that Trump is likely to take credit or blame as the case may be depending heavily on how things go in Cuomo’s own state. If New York avoids the worst-case scenario, Cuomo will take a bow — as will Trump. If New York sees tens of thousands of deaths, Trump will be blamed — and he’ll turn around and blame Cuomo. Cuomo’s actually gone out of his way to praise lately Trump where possible, knowing that the speed and size of the aid New York receives from the feds may depend in part on staying on the president’s good side. At what point would Cuomo shift from “The president’s been helpful” to “The president sucks” if he’s the nominee? The day after New York’s last coronavirus case? What’s he going to say — “Everything I said about Trump for the past three months was a lie”?
I think they’re stuck with Joe. Here he is in another Andy Rooney interview, pandering to the left.


hotair--2020-03-25--Iran's coronavirus death toll passes 2,000, new travel restrictions are put in place

Iran has belatedly put in place travel restrictions which amount to a stay-at-home order for the entire country .
This comes as the country announced Wednesday that the death toll from the virus had reached 2,077 : The strict new measures come after weeks of cajoling largely failed to prevent hundreds of thousands of Iranians taking to the roads to visit family for the two-week Persian New Year holiday .
“ New journeys will be banned , leaving towns and cities will be banned , ” government spokesman Ali Rabii announced , hours after President Hassan Rouhani revealed the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new measures against the outbreak .
“ People should return to their home towns as quickly as possible , ” Rabii said… Iran had long resisted imposing any lockdown , choosing instead to rely on verbal appeals for people to stay home .
The appeals for people to stay home have clearly not worked and today ’ s announcement came with the warning that the country could expect a “ second wave ” of infections because they ignored those appeals : Last week the Associated Press reported that many businesses in Iran were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to be heeding warnings by health officials to stay home and avoid crowds.
” Even as Iran continues to issue daily updates on infection rates and death tolls , there is reason to think the actual rates are much higher than reported .
Earlier this month the Washington Post reported that mass graves large enough to be seen from space were being dug in Qom , the city where the virus first spread .
And just last week a doctor appeared on state TV and warned that , if people continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 3.5 million could die .
Yesterday , Foreign Policy published a piece attempting to explain how Iran wound up in this dire situation .
It notes that even after President Rouhani took initial steps to deal with the virus that were strong opposition to quarantine to slow the virus : When Iran finally did take concerted action to contain the spread , domestic politics and religious ideology impaired its effectiveness .
On the one hand , the administration of President Hassan Rouhani set up a “ national headquarters for fighting the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme National Security Council and its endorsement by the supreme leader .
For all its efforts to limit the outbreak , the headquarters notoriously resisted organized quarantine measures from the very beginning .
In a press conference on Feb. 24 , Iran ’ s Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi publicly opposed the sort of wide-scale quarantining China had enforced and stressed that “ quarantines belong to [ the period ] before World War I for [ diseases like ] plague and cholera , and even the Chinese are not satisfied with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Ironically , Harirchi was making these comments while sweating profusely and coughing repeatedly .
He later tested positive for the coronavirus .
On the other hand , Khamenei ordered the Iranian military , led by the Revolutionary Guards , to establish Imam Reza Base as part of state efforts to combat the pandemic .
Headed by Gen. Mohammad Bagheri , armed forces chief of staff and one of Iran ’ s most seasoned strategists , this military contingent proposed a set of preventive measures in its first meeting on March 13 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected and those suspected of infection , provision by the military of 1,000 mobile and stationary clinics for screening and examining the cases , and organization of a national campaign to “ de-crowd stores , streets , and roads.
” These proposal , however , mostly fell on deaf ears among military officers and other officials who shunned the quarantines and shutdowns for fear of their economic fallout .
The story also points out that as early as Feb. 15th , Iran was already preventing people from kissing the Ayatollah ’ s hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country was taking some social distancing steps for the Ayatollah but was rejecting quarantine measures for everyone else more than a week later .
Update : Not exactly related to the subject of this post but I wanted to mention it anyway .
Iranian hostage Robert Levinson has died while still in captivity in Iran .
His death apparently came before the coronavirus spread in Iran but his family has only just learned of it .

Iran has belatedly put in place travel restrictions which amount to a stay-at-home order for the entire country. This comes as the country announced Wednesday that the death toll from the virus had reached 2,077:
The strict new measures come after weeks of cajoling largely failed to prevent hundreds of thousands of Iranians taking to the roads to visit family for the two-week Persian New Year holiday. “New journeys will be banned, leaving towns and cities will be banned,” government spokesman Ali Rabii announced, hours after President Hassan Rouhani revealed the government was poised to introduce “difficult” new measures against the outbreak. “People should return to their home towns as quickly as possible,” Rabii said… Iran had long resisted imposing any lockdown, choosing instead to rely on verbal appeals for people to stay home.
The appeals for people to stay home have clearly not worked and today’s announcement came with the warning that the country could expect a “second wave” of infections because they ignored those appeals:
“Unfortunately some Iranians have ignored advice from health ministry officials and traveled during the New Year holidays … This could cause a second wave of the coronavirus,” spokesman Ali Rabiei said, according to state TV.
Last week the Associated Press reported that many businesses in Iran were shuttered but that, “Iranians appear not to be heeding warnings by health officials to stay home and avoid crowds.”
Even as Iran continues to issue daily updates on infection rates and death tolls, there is reason to think the actual rates are much higher than reported. Earlier this month the Washington Post reported that mass graves large enough to be seen from space were being dug in Qom, the city where the virus first spread. And just last week a doctor appeared on state TV and warned that, if people continue to ignore warnings to stay home, up to 3.5 million could die.
Yesterday, Foreign Policy published a piece attempting to explain how Iran wound up in this dire situation. It notes that even after President Rouhani took initial steps to deal with the virus that were strong opposition to quarantine to slow the virus:
When Iran finally did take concerted action to contain the spread, domestic politics and religious ideology impaired its effectiveness. On the one hand, the administration of President Hassan Rouhani set up a “national headquarters for fighting the coronavirus” in February following a decision by the Supreme National Security Council and its endorsement by the supreme leader. For all its efforts to limit the outbreak, the headquarters notoriously resisted organized quarantine measures from the very beginning. In a press conference on Feb. 24, Iran’s Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi publicly opposed the sort of wide-scale quarantining China had enforced and stressed that “quarantines belong to [the period] before World War I for [diseases like] plague and cholera, and even the Chinese are not satisfied with the quarantine that has been put in place.” Ironically, Harirchi was making these comments while sweating profusely and coughing repeatedly. He later tested positive for the coronavirus. On the other hand, Khamenei ordered the Iranian military, led by the Revolutionary Guards, to establish Imam Reza Base as part of state efforts to combat the pandemic. Headed by Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, armed forces chief of staff and one of Iran’s most seasoned strategists, this military contingent proposed a set of preventive measures in its first meeting on March 13: a national monitoring program to identify the infected and those suspected of infection, provision by the military of 1,000 mobile and stationary clinics for screening and examining the cases, and organization of a national campaign to “de-crowd stores, streets, and roads.” These proposal, however, mostly fell on deaf ears among military officers and other officials who shunned the quarantines and shutdowns for fear of their economic fallout.
The story also points out that as early as Feb. 15th, Iran was already preventing people from kissing the Ayatollah’s hand, as was customary. So the country was taking some social distancing steps for the Ayatollah but was rejecting quarantine measures for everyone else more than a week later.
Update: Not exactly related to the subject of this post but I wanted to mention it anyway. Iranian hostage Robert Levinson has died while still in captivity in Iran. His death apparently came before the coronavirus spread in Iran but his family has only just learned of it.