hotair--2020-03-25--Contra Andrew Cuomo, while a grim choice, we may have to restart the economy

Let ’ s get ready for this week ’ s edition of our ongoing series , “ Jazz Suggests Awful Things We Should Do.
” This week I ’ d like to focus on the recent stories involving President Trump ’ s hope of “ restarting ” the economy in a few weeks at most .
It ’ s something that one analyst at The Hill described as Trump ’ s “ biggest gamble of his presidency.
” One response that came to that suggestion was politely but firmly stated by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo during his daily update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including me , have been impressed with Cuomo ’ s daily briefings .
They ’ re informative and hopeful .
But when he came to the subject of lifting the lockdowns around the nation , he was firmly against it .
His reason ?
We have to prioritize human life over the economy .
He reiterated that point later on Twitter , saying he wouldn ’ t put a dollar value on any human life , including that of his own mother or yours .
The message is clear .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
But if we pull the lens back a bit and look at our own history as a nation and the bigger picture , that ’ s a lie , isn ’ t it ?
In fact , we do that all the time .
To borrow a much-maligned example being tossed around in the press , look at how many people die in auto accidents each year .
In the United States , we average more than 35,000 .
Globally the figure is over a million .
And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were before we started putting better safety features on cars and trucks .
But it ’ s also even more people than some of the sunnier estimates we ’ ve seen for the death toll from COVID-19 .
And it ’ s also more than die from the flu .
And yet I ’ ve never heard Andrew Cuomo , Donald Trump , Nancy Pelosi or anyone else suggest that we need to shut down all highway traffic because the danger of losing even one precious life to an accident is too great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you decide I ’ m just being cynical or deliberately argumentative , please bear with me and read on .
Why don ’ t we shut down all the roads ?
( And while we ’ re at it , the railways and airlines because people die in crashes of trains and planes also . )
The answer is obvious .
Because it would end the economy and send us back to an early 17th century model of living .
( Though some might argue that wouldn ’ t be such a terrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Look… people die in hurricanes and tornados .
We call such things “ Acts of God.
” Some people die in accidents .
What they have in common is that for the most part , they are all beyond our control without taking impractical and economically ruinous precautions , and even then nothing is certain .
But the other threat on the horizon is neither an accident nor beyond our control .
That is the unavoidable arrival of a great depression like none we ’ ve seen in a century if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long .
And that won ’ t go away on its own in a few weeks based on some executive declaration .
The coronavirus may have resulted from bad decisions by people who didn ’ t understand the consequences of all of that food mixing in the wet markets , but once the genie was out of the bottle , the coronavirus became , for purposes of this discussion an accidental Act of God .
We ’ re fighting it as hard as we can and I partially agree with Governor Cuomo that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not an all or nothing , binary decision .
But half measures ( or far less ) in terms of avoiding another great depression aren ’ t going to do .
I ’ m not talking about economic Darwinism here or saying we should just start digging mass graves for all the senior citizens .
( Including yours truly . )
We can turn the economy on again and do it in a smart way that saves us from a decade of economic despair while minimizing the health risks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again agree with Cuomo that it would be reckless and irresponsible to send everyone back to work at once .
But his plan to send only those who have survived the disease and developed immunity back on the job is far too timid .
It will take too long to get the test kits distributed and identify them all , and even then , we ’ re probably only talking about a few tens of thousands of people at most , at least for now .
Surely there is a way to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying health issues ( making them more vulnerable to death ) isolated at home and eligible for government support .
At the same time , the young and the healthy could return to work , but with better practicing of social distancing and cleanliness at the workplace .
As more people get the disease and survive it , the herd immunity grows and we slow the rate of additional infections until we have either a vaccine or a working antiviral medication .
If we got a significant body of people back to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decreased and shared .
And something has to give soon .
Congress is on the verge of essentially taking two trillion dollars ( roughly 10 % of our GDP ) and setting it on fire .
How many times can we do that before we hit the point of no return ?
If you wouldn ’ t shut down all of the highways to prevent a single person from dying in a car crash , if you wouldn ’ t ban the sale of cleaning products to prevent accidental poisonings , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent anyone from leaping off of them , why would you send the nation ( and the world ) into a great depression to prevent some possible deaths from a disease that was totally beyond our control to prevent and will take time to bring to heel ?
I say this as a person in their sixties who has had respiratory issues .
If I catch the coronavirus , there ’ s a more than fair probability I will die .
Of course , I might get hit by a truck tomorrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually .
I ’ m not saying that the possibility I ’ m suggesting is pleasant .
I ’ m not saying we should be complacent about any preventable deaths .
But the alternative is pretty grim also .
Are you sure that driving the number of COVID-19 deaths down to the absolute , conceivable minimum is worth the price we ’ ll wind up paying ?

Let’s get ready for this week’s edition of our ongoing series, “Jazz Suggests Awful Things We Should Do.”
This week I’d like to focus on the recent stories involving President Trump’s hope of “restarting” the economy in a few weeks at most. It’s something that one analyst at The Hill described as Trump’s “biggest gamble of his presidency.”
One response that came to that suggestion was politely but firmly stated by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo during his daily update on the coronavirus yesterday. Many people, including me, have been impressed with Cuomo’s daily briefings. They’re informative and hopeful. But when he came to the subject of lifting the lockdowns around the nation, he was firmly against it. His reason? We have to prioritize human life over the economy. He reiterated that point later on Twitter, saying he wouldn’t put a dollar value on any human life, including that of his own mother or yours.
My mother is not expendable. Your mother is not expendable. We will not put a dollar figure on human life. We can have a public health strategy that is consistent with an economic one. No one should be talking about social darwinism for the sake of the stock market. — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) March 24, 2020
The message is clear. We can’t prioritize the economy over human life.
But if we pull the lens back a bit and look at our own history as a nation and the bigger picture, that’s a lie, isn’t it? In fact, we do that all the time. To borrow a much-maligned example being tossed around in the press, look at how many people die in auto accidents each year. In the United States, we average more than 35,000. Globally the figure is over a million. And that’s actually a lot lower than the numbers were before we started putting better safety features on cars and trucks. But it’s also even more people than some of the sunnier estimates we’ve seen for the death toll from COVID-19. And it’s also more than die from the flu.
And yet I’ve never heard Andrew Cuomo, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi or anyone else suggest that we need to shut down all highway traffic because the danger of losing even one precious life to an accident is too great of a price to pay. Before you decide I’m just being cynical or deliberately argumentative, please bear with me and read on.
Why don’t we shut down all the roads? (And while we’re at it, the railways and airlines because people die in crashes of trains and planes also.) The answer is obvious. Because it would end the economy and send us back to an early 17th century model of living. (Though some might argue that wouldn’t be such a terrible thing, I’m sure.)
Look… people die in hurricanes and tornados. We call such things “Acts of God.” Some people die in accidents. What they have in common is that for the most part, they are all beyond our control without taking impractical and economically ruinous precautions, and even then nothing is certain. But the other threat on the horizon is neither an accident nor beyond our control. That is the unavoidable arrival of a great depression like none we’ve seen in a century if we leave the economy shut down for too long. And that won’t go away on its own in a few weeks based on some executive declaration.
The coronavirus may have resulted from bad decisions by people who didn’t understand the consequences of all of that food mixing in the wet markets, but once the genie was out of the bottle, the coronavirus became, for purposes of this discussion an accidental Act of God. We’re fighting it as hard as we can and I partially agree with Governor Cuomo that we have to do this intelligently. It’s not an all or nothing, binary decision. But half measures (or far less) in terms of avoiding another great depression aren’t going to do.
I’m not talking about economic Darwinism here or saying we should just start digging mass graves for all the senior citizens. (Including yours truly.) We can turn the economy on again and do it in a smart way that saves us from a decade of economic despair while minimizing the health risks, can’t we? I will again agree with Cuomo that it would be reckless and irresponsible to send everyone back to work at once. But his plan to send only those who have survived the disease and developed immunity back on the job is far too timid. It will take too long to get the test kits distributed and identify them all, and even then, we’re probably only talking about a few tens of thousands of people at most, at least for now.
Surely there is a way to keep the oldest and those with other, underlying health issues (making them more vulnerable to death) isolated at home and eligible for government support. At the same time, the young and the healthy could return to work, but with better practicing of social distancing and cleanliness at the workplace. As more people get the disease and survive it, the herd immunity grows and we slow the rate of additional infections until we have either a vaccine or a working antiviral medication. If we got a significant body of people back to being productive, the total burden would be decreased and shared. And something has to give soon. Congress is on the verge of essentially taking two trillion dollars (roughly 10% of our GDP) and setting it on fire. How many times can we do that before we hit the point of no return?
If you wouldn’t shut down all of the highways to prevent a single person from dying in a car crash, if you wouldn’t ban the sale of cleaning products to prevent accidental poisonings, if you wouldn’t destroy all the bridges to prevent anyone from leaping off of them, why would you send the nation (and the world) into a great depression to prevent some possible deaths from a disease that was totally beyond our control to prevent and will take time to bring to heel?
I say this as a person in their sixties who has had respiratory issues. If I catch the coronavirus, there’s a more than fair probability I will die. Of course, I might get hit by a truck tomorrow. I’m going to die eventually. I’m not saying that the possibility I’m suggesting is pleasant. I’m not saying we should be complacent about any preventable deaths. But the alternative is pretty grim also. Are you sure that driving the number of COVID-19 deaths down to the absolute, conceivable minimum is worth the price we’ll wind up paying?


hotair--2020-03-25--Pompeo, Cotton: You bet we will provide a "reckoning" for China over COVID-19

Lots of pushback on the Left over this shot from Sen. Tom Cotton , but he ’ s not the only one talking about consequences for China over the coronavirus pandemic .
Fox & Friends ’ Steve Doocey asked Cotton this morning about an op-ed he co-wrote at Fox News with Rep. Mike Gallagher about US medical supply lines in China and the need to secure them .
Even without the current pandemic as context , that ’ s a national risk that needs to be resolved by pulling back those supply lines .
In terms of the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for China ’ s role in covering up the coronavirus outbreak after we ’ ve gotten control of it : When Cotton talks about “ reckoning , ” he ’ s talking about an economic reckoning .
That involves far more than just the recent pandemic , Cotton makes clear in his op-ed with Gallagher : We weren ’ t always dependent on China for medicine , but we are now .
For two decades , the CCP has targeted America ’ s domestic drug manufacturers for destruction , using cartelization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flood our hospitals and pharmacies with cheap and dangerous Chinese medicine .
This strategy succeeded in shuttering American factories , robbing our workers of good-paying jobs and our patients of high-quality medicine .
Just years after the United States granted China special trade privileges in 2000 , the last penicillin plant in America closed down .
American factories that made aspirin , vitamin C and other essential medicine closed after that , put out of business by China ’ s predatory pricing .
China has come to dominate the world market for basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share of all generic drugs we import comes from China , including a staggering 93 percent of all imported ibuprofen .
And focusing on direct trade between China and the United States actually understates our reliance , because most of the active ingredients in drugs imported to us from countries like India also come from Chinese superlabs .
Dependence on our chief communist adversary for essential medicine is an obvious threat to national security .
As Rosemary Gibson , author of “ China Rx : Exposing the Risks of America ’ s Dependence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission last year , if the CCP cut the world off from its pharmaceutical ingredients , “ military hospitals and clinics would cease to function within months , if not days.
” Cotton ’ s hardly the only one in Washington warning about the pharmaceutical supply chain .
Marco Rubio introduced a bill in the Senate to disincentivize the use of China as a supplier for medications , a subject about which Rubio had long warned .
Afterward , China threatened retaliation for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a move which did nothing but strengthen the argument for such action .
Today , Mike Pompeo hinted that the administration might act soon to redirect supply lines back to the US , at least in part as a rebuke to Beijing that hits them squarely in their pockets .
Pompeo also might have used it as a threat for China over its active “ disinformation ” campaign over COVID-19 : “ This is an ongoing global crisis , and we need to make sure that every country today is being transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , so that the global community , the global health care , infectious disease community can begin to work on this in a holistic way.
” Pompeo , a persistent critic of Beijing and the Communist Party , said “ very important decisions ” would have to be made in future about how the U.S.-China relationship was structured .
He added that supply-chain challenges faced in the United States were due to companies “ operating their supply chains out of China but not here in the United States.
” Pompeo did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week the White House was preparing an executive order to help relocate medical supply chains from China and elsewhere overseas to the United States amid the coronavirus outbreak .
That might have prompted another move by China , although this one appears intended to dial down the hostility .
For the first time in almost two years , China has begun buying liquid petroleum gas ( LPG ) from the US without tariffs .
The move was an expected part of the earlier Phase I trade agreement , but recent events had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun buying U.S. liquefied petroleum gas ( LPG ) again after a hiatus of nearly 20 months as Beijing waived punitive tariffs to boost imports of U.S. goods as part of the Sino-U.S .
Phase 1 trade deal , industry sources said .
Importers have rushed to apply for waivers for the 25 % tariff to buy the fuel , a by-product from U.S. shale gas production , after Beijing started granting exemptions this month for nearly 700 U.S. goods .
About a dozen firms – including China Gas Holdings ( 0384.HK ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trader , and Oriental Energy ( 002221.SZ ) , a manufacturer using LPG to make petrochemicals – have been granted the tariff waivers , according to two veteran LPG traders , an investment officer and analysts at IHS Markit .
With the exemptions , U.S. LPG is subject only to a 1 % import duty , same as rival supplies from the Middle East .
Regardless of whether it ’ s done for punitive measures or not , the world has to rethink its trade with China anyway .
Their lack of controls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and their dishonesty about it led to its wide distribution into a pandemic .
Supply chains that rely on China are simply too high of an economic risk , let alone a national security risk , especially on critical-use items like pharmaceuticals .
It might cost more to produce those in the US , but at least we can secure those supply chains in an emergency .

Lots of pushback on the Left over this shot from Sen. Tom Cotton, but he’s not the only one talking about consequences for China over the coronavirus pandemic. Fox & Friends’ Steve Doocey asked Cotton this morning about an op-ed he co-wrote at Fox News with Rep. Mike Gallagher about US medical supply lines in China and the need to secure them. Even without the current pandemic as context, that’s a national risk that needs to be resolved by pulling back those supply lines.
In terms of the pandemic, however, Cotton wants “a reckoning” for China’s role in covering up the coronavirus outbreak after we’ve gotten control of it:
.@SenTomCotton on Fox & Friends: "China unleashed this plague on the world and there will be a reckoning when we're on the backside of it." pic.twitter.com/dKEry9Z7Jx — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 25, 2020
When Cotton talks about “reckoning,” he’s talking about an economic reckoning. That involves far more than just the recent pandemic, Cotton makes clear in his op-ed with Gallagher:
We weren’t always dependent on China for medicine, but we are now. For two decades, the CCP has targeted America’s domestic drug manufacturers for destruction, using cartelization, state subsidies and lax safety standards to flood our hospitals and pharmacies with cheap and dangerous Chinese medicine. This strategy succeeded in shuttering American factories, robbing our workers of good-paying jobs and our patients of high-quality medicine. Just years after the United States granted China special trade privileges in 2000, the last penicillin plant in America closed down. American factories that made aspirin, vitamin C and other essential medicine closed after that, put out of business by China’s predatory pricing. China has come to dominate the world market for basic drugs as a result. A substantial share of all generic drugs we import comes from China, including a staggering 93 percent of all imported ibuprofen. And focusing on direct trade between China and the United States actually understates our reliance, because most of the active ingredients in drugs imported to us from countries like India also come from Chinese superlabs. Dependence on our chief communist adversary for essential medicine is an obvious threat to national security. As Rosemary Gibson, author of “China Rx: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine,” said in testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission last year, if the CCP cut the world off from its pharmaceutical ingredients, “military hospitals and clinics would cease to function within months, if not days.”
Cotton’s hardly the only one in Washington warning about the pharmaceutical supply chain. Marco Rubio introduced a bill in the Senate to disincentivize the use of China as a supplier for medications, a subject about which Rubio had long warned. Afterward, China threatened retaliation for the debate by cutting off those supply lines, a move which did nothing but strengthen the argument for such action.
Today, Mike Pompeo hinted that the administration might act soon to redirect supply lines back to the US, at least in part as a rebuke to Beijing that hits them squarely in their pockets. Pompeo also might have used it as a threat for China over its active “disinformation” campaign over COVID-19:
“This is an ongoing global crisis, and we need to make sure that every country today is being transparent, sharing what’s really going on, so that the global community, the global health care, infectious disease community can begin to work on this in a holistic way.” Pompeo, a persistent critic of Beijing and the Communist Party, said “very important decisions” would have to be made in future about how the U.S.-China relationship was structured. He added that supply-chain challenges faced in the United States were due to companies “operating their supply chains out of China but not here in the United States.” Pompeo did not elaborate, but U.S. administration officials said last week the White House was preparing an executive order to help relocate medical supply chains from China and elsewhere overseas to the United States amid the coronavirus outbreak.
That might have prompted another move by China, although this one appears intended to dial down the hostility. For the first time in almost two years, China has begun buying liquid petroleum gas (LPG) from the US without tariffs. The move was an expected part of the earlier Phase I trade agreement, but recent events had put that in doubt:
China has begun buying U.S. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) again after a hiatus of nearly 20 months as Beijing waived punitive tariffs to boost imports of U.S. goods as part of the Sino-U.S. Phase 1 trade deal, industry sources said. Importers have rushed to apply for waivers for the 25% tariff to buy the fuel, a by-product from U.S. shale gas production, after Beijing started granting exemptions this month for nearly 700 U.S. goods. About a dozen firms – including China Gas Holdings (0384.HK), a piped gas distributor and LPG trader, and Oriental Energy (002221.SZ), a manufacturer using LPG to make petrochemicals – have been granted the tariff waivers, according to two veteran LPG traders, an investment officer and analysts at IHS Markit. With the exemptions, U.S. LPG is subject only to a 1% import duty, same as rival supplies from the Middle East.
Regardless of whether it’s done for punitive measures or not, the world has to rethink its trade with China anyway. Their lack of controls on food production led to this outbreak, and their dishonesty about it led to its wide distribution into a pandemic. Supply chains that rely on China are simply too high of an economic risk, let alone a national security risk, especially on critical-use items like pharmaceuticals. It might cost more to produce those in the US, but at least we can secure those supply chains in an emergency.


hotair--2020-03-25--Cuomo's New York branded hand-sanitizer isn't being made by inmates after all

Earlier this month , Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that New York would be producing its own hand-sanitizer called “ NYS Clean.
” He explained that the new hand-sanitizer would be “ made ” by Corcraft which is the name for New York ’ s prison industries .
But according to a report published today by Vice , prison inmates aren ’ t “ making ” the sanitizer so much as putting the stuff , which is made elsewhere , into jugs and bottles .
According to a NYSDOCCS spokesperson , the hand sanitizer itself is being produced by an outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Meadow Facility is only bottling and labeling it .
Neither NYSDOCCS nor the governor ’ s office would respond to repeated questions about why the state would need to use prison labor to bottle hand sanitizer , nor did the governor ’ s office respond to questions about Cuomo ’ s pitch that this was a cheaper , more effective option than buying bottled hand sanitizer outright .
According to an inmate who spoke to VICE under the condition of anonymity , who we ’ ll call Michael , rollout of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 7 .
( The sanitizer is also being handled at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Wallkill , New York . )
That was when he said that he and a group of randomly chosen volunteers were offered the chance to work in what used to be the prison ’ s soap shop… The work , according to Michael , is relatively simple .
He stands along an assembly line , turns a nozzle , and uses a hose to squirt sanitizer into gallon-sized bottles .
He said other employees also stand or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of various sizes , but that the focus largely remains on filling the gallon-sized containers .
Before , during , and after every shift , the workers are searched to ensure they do not bring anything into the workroom or take any sanitizer , which they are not even allowed to touch , with them when they leave .
Looking back at his big announcement two weeks ago , Cuomo did say , “ Corcraft makes glass cleaner , floor cleaner , degreasers , laundry detergent , vehicle fluids , hand cleaner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alcohol.
” But I ’ m guessing the inmates don ’ t actually make any of that other stuff either .
They are just packaging pre-made chemicals for sale .
Hand sanitizer is mostly alcohol , which is why in the past week or two you ’ ve probably seen reports about various distilleries around the country offering to produce it instead of their usual beverage .
In retrospect , it seems pretty obvious that no one would be running a distillery in a prison .
That said , I do think Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was happening .
Here ’ s how one local channel reported the announcement at the time : Cheaper to make it than to buy it ?
But it sounds like he ’ s just buying it in bulk and using prison labor to package it .
One thing Cuomo was clear about was that the stuff was being “ made ” in New York .
So if it turns out this is actually being made in another state that would be potentially embarrassing .
Does any of this matter in the midst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the one hand providing a source of cheap hand sanitizer seems like a good thing .
On the other hand , the presentation of all of this was such a spectacle , complete with a curtain being pulled back and Cuomo going on about the lovely floral smell .
You can ’ t ignore the fact this was about politics as well as public health .
And it worked .
Cuomo is getting a lot of positive attention right now for his daily coronavirus briefings .
As Jazz pointed out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great nominee he would make ( in place of Joe Biden ) .
Anything that tarnishes Cuomo ’ s halo right now might put a damper on all of that .
So if , for instance , we find out that New York ’ s hand sanitizer is actually being trucked in from Jersey , I think he takes a hit to his reputation .
We don ’ t know that ’ s the case at this point but now I ’ m curious .
Here are some highlights from the big hand-sanitizer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to see the full press conference from that day , it ’ s here .

Earlier this month, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that New York would be producing its own hand-sanitizer called “NYS Clean.” He explained that the new hand-sanitizer would be “made” by Corcraft which is the name for New York’s prison industries. But according to a report published today by Vice, prison inmates aren’t “making” the sanitizer so much as putting the stuff, which is made elsewhere, into jugs and bottles.
According to a NYSDOCCS spokesperson, the hand sanitizer itself is being produced by an outside vendor he would not name; the Great Meadow Facility is only bottling and labeling it. Neither NYSDOCCS nor the governor’s office would respond to repeated questions about why the state would need to use prison labor to bottle hand sanitizer, nor did the governor’s office respond to questions about Cuomo’s pitch that this was a cheaper, more effective option than buying bottled hand sanitizer outright. According to an inmate who spoke to VICE under the condition of anonymity, who we’ll call Michael, rollout of the hand sanitizer initiative in Great Meadow began on March 7. (The sanitizer is also being handled at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Wallkill, New York.) That was when he said that he and a group of randomly chosen volunteers were offered the chance to work in what used to be the prison’s soap shop… The work, according to Michael, is relatively simple. He stands along an assembly line, turns a nozzle, and uses a hose to squirt sanitizer into gallon-sized bottles. He said other employees also stand or sit along the line, filling bottles of various sizes, but that the focus largely remains on filling the gallon-sized containers. Before, during, and after every shift, the workers are searched to ensure they do not bring anything into the workroom or take any sanitizer, which they are not even allowed to touch, with them when they leave.
Looking back at his big announcement two weeks ago, Cuomo did say, “Corcraft makes glass cleaner, floor cleaner, degreasers, laundry detergent, vehicle fluids, hand cleaner, and now they make hand sanitizer with alcohol.” But I’m guessing the inmates don’t actually make any of that other stuff either. They are just packaging pre-made chemicals for sale.
Hand sanitizer is mostly alcohol, which is why in the past week or two you’ve probably seen reports about various distilleries around the country offering to produce it instead of their usual beverage. In retrospect, it seems pretty obvious that no one would be running a distillery in a prison. That said, I do think Cuomo certainly gave the impression that’s what was happening. Here’s how one local channel reported the announcement at the time:
Gov. Cuomo announced today that New York State is producing hand sanitizer. The governor says it is cheaper to make ourselves than purchase it. He says they will give it to schools, jails, government agencies, etc. If price gouging continues, Cuomo says they will start selling it pic.twitter.com/NtLSU54Km5 — WGRZ (@WGRZ) March 9, 2020
Cheaper to make it than to buy it? But it sounds like he’s just buying it in bulk and using prison labor to package it.
One thing Cuomo was clear about was that the stuff was being “made” in New York. So if it turns out this is actually being made in another state that would be potentially embarrassing.
Does any of this matter in the midst of a crisis? Yes and no. On the one hand providing a source of cheap hand sanitizer seems like a good thing. On the other hand, the presentation of all of this was such a spectacle, complete with a curtain being pulled back and Cuomo going on about the lovely floral smell. You can’t ignore the fact this was about politics as well as public health.
And it worked. Cuomo is getting a lot of positive attention right now for his daily coronavirus briefings. As Jazz pointed out, there are even rumblings about what a great nominee he would make (in place of Joe Biden). Anything that tarnishes Cuomo’s halo right now might put a damper on all of that. So if, for instance, we find out that New York’s hand sanitizer is actually being trucked in from Jersey, I think he takes a hit to his reputation. We don’t know that’s the case at this point but now I’m curious.
Here are some highlights from the big hand-sanitizer announcement two weeks ago. If you want to see the full press conference from that day, it’s here.


hotair--2020-03-25--Thought experiment: Would the DNC dump Biden and draft Andrew Cuomo?

As crazy as the title question might sound , hear me out .
This is something that was brought up on Twitter today by our friend and long-time Ed Morrissey Show participant , The Monster .
And he seemed to be posing the question seriously .
“ No joke : What do you think the odds are that DNC drafts Cuomo ?
” Would the DNC actually move to take out Biden , ignore Sanders and do something like this ?
Could they ?
The two primary aspects to consider when weighing the question are why and how .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” first .
It ’ s no secret that Joe Biden is looking more and more like he ’ s well past his sell-by date .
After his disastrous brain freeze the other day when giving his first “ shadow administration ” update on the pandemic , I made the case , writing , “ Let ’ s just say it , shall we ?
Joe Biden is probably not okay.
” I obviously wasn ’ t the only person who noticed and many liberals have already lowered the bar on Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can climb over it .
This is an actual headline and sub-title from The Atlantic just yesterday .
Stay Alive , Joe Biden : Democrats need little from the front-runner beyond his corporeal presence .
For many Democrats , keeping Joe Biden hidden from the public as much as possible while making sure he ’ s still breathing is all that ’ s required .
But if the DNC gets too nervous and feels they have to make a move , who would be the replacement ?
Bernie Sanders ?
Don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all their forces to keep the nomination away from Bernie once again .
But the other contenders have already officially dropped out .
You can ’ t just scoop one of them up , right ?
Enter New York Governor Andrew Cuomo .
He ’ s been doing daily updates on the coronavirus pandemic in New York for quite a while now and drawing rave reviews .
Heck , even I ’ ve been tipping my hat to him on Twitter .
He ’ s been handling the crisis as efficiently as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for that .
But while I have been perhaps reluctantly praising the Governor , most of the media has been fawning , if not outright swooning over Cuomo ’ s daily briefings and his “ presidential ” appearance .
The New York Times is already talking about him like it ’ s the Second Coming .
Maddow has fallen in love with him .
( Well , not that way .
They don ’ t play on the same team .
But you get my drift . )
And it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t proposed the idea .
He was teasing a 2020 presidential run for quite a while until he finally abandoned it in November of 2018 .
The hashtag # PresidentCuomo has been trending on Twitter .
So we ’ ve identified the “ why ” and identified a possible contender for “ who.
” But that still leaves the nagging question of “ how ” it could be accomplished .
The most obvious route ( without Biden ’ s cooperation , which seems unlikely ) would be to do it at the convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defection of Biden delegates to keep him below 50 % without putting Sanders over that benchmark .
Then , in the second round , the Superdelegates could flood the field and all vote for Cuomo if they could be sold on the idea .
During our social media discussion , The Monster asked if there isn ’ t some method for either party to remove a nominee similar to the provisions of the 25th Amendment that would allow you to remove a president .
I looked but could find no such provision in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something .
The closest thing I could find is a never-used codicil in the DNC bylaws .
Article 2 , section 1 says that if the nominee dies , resigns or is otherwise unable to continue , the DNC Chair must call a meeting of the members of the committee and they can elect a replacement nominee .
But there is no provision for forcibly removing the nominee if they don ’ t wish to go .
So it ’ s technically possible to do at the convention or even later if Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t continue .
But both paths are complicated could lead to even worse results for the Democrats if things go totally pear-shaped on them .
The last thing I ’ ll offer is a warning to Democrats that Cuomo ’ s moment in the sun recently doesn ’ t erase his very problematic past , so even if they were inclined to tank Uncle Joe , they might want to consider someone else .
Let ’ s not forget that there are more skeletons in Cuomo ’ s closet than in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as governor , Cuomo has been involved in so many campaign finance , fundraising and appropriation scandals that books could be written on the subject .
So many of his associates , cronies and former aides are either currently in prison or avoided jail time with plea deals on things like bid-rigging that they could start their own prison baseball team .
Others were convicted of bribing judges and one of his longest-serving aides who he frequently described as being “ more like a brother ” got six years for lining his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed “ stimulus ” scheme known as the Buffalo Billion .
Somehow , despite all of the corruption that ’ s been dredged up in the Cuomo administration , the Governor himself has always somehow managed to slip the noose and not be hauled in front of a judge himself .
Granted , if he suddenly became the nominee , I have no doubt that CNN , MSNBC , the New York Times and the Washington Post would do their best to provide cover for him and rarely if ever , mention any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Trump advertising fodder aplenty and the word would eventually get out .
That ’ s why I don ’ t think Cuomo would survive a prolonged , hard-fought campaign .
The only way he might be able to win would be in a very short , ambush-style race where he showed up as the nominee at the last minute and raced to the finish line before the opposition had a chance to catch their breath .

As crazy as the title question might sound, hear me out. This is something that was brought up on Twitter today by our friend and long-time Ed Morrissey Show participant, The Monster. And he seemed to be posing the question seriously.
“No joke: What do you think the odds are that DNC drafts Cuomo?”
Would the DNC actually move to take out Biden, ignore Sanders and do something like this? Could they? The two primary aspects to consider when weighing the question are why and how. Let’s start with the “why” first.
It’s no secret that Joe Biden is looking more and more like he’s well past his sell-by date. After his disastrous brain freeze the other day when giving his first “shadow administration” update on the pandemic, I made the case, writing, “Let’s just say it, shall we? Joe Biden is probably not okay.”
I obviously wasn’t the only person who noticed and many liberals have already lowered the bar on Biden’s viability to a level where ants can climb over it. This is an actual headline and sub-title from The Atlantic just yesterday.
Stay Alive, Joe Biden: Democrats need little from the front-runner beyond his corporeal presence.
For many Democrats, keeping Joe Biden hidden from the public as much as possible while making sure he’s still breathing is all that’s required. But if the DNC gets too nervous and feels they have to make a move, who would be the replacement? Bernie Sanders? Don’t be silly. They just finished exhausting all their forces to keep the nomination away from Bernie once again. But the other contenders have already officially dropped out. You can’t just scoop one of them up, right?
Enter New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. He’s been doing daily updates on the coronavirus pandemic in New York for quite a while now and drawing rave reviews. Heck, even I’ve been tipping my hat to him on Twitter. He’s been handling the crisis as efficiently as possible and producing results and he deserves some credit for that.
But while I have been perhaps reluctantly praising the Governor, most of the media has been fawning, if not outright swooning over Cuomo’s daily briefings and his “presidential” appearance. The New York Times is already talking about him like it’s the Second Coming. Maddow has fallen in love with him. (Well, not that way. They don’t play on the same team. But you get my drift.) And it’s not as if Cuomo himself hasn’t proposed the idea. He was teasing a 2020 presidential run for quite a while until he finally abandoned it in November of 2018.
The hashtag #PresidentCuomo has been trending on Twitter. So we’ve identified the “why” and identified a possible contender for “who.” But that still leaves the nagging question of “how” it could be accomplished.
The most obvious route (without Biden’s cooperation, which seems unlikely) would be to do it at the convention. But that would require a massive defection of Biden delegates to keep him below 50% without putting Sanders over that benchmark. Then, in the second round, the Superdelegates could flood the field and all vote for Cuomo if they could be sold on the idea.
During our social media discussion, The Monster asked if there isn’t some method for either party to remove a nominee similar to the provisions of the 25th Amendment that would allow you to remove a president. I looked but could find no such provision in their rules, though perhaps I missed something. The closest thing I could find is a never-used codicil in the DNC bylaws. Article 2, section 1 says that if the nominee dies, resigns or is otherwise unable to continue, the DNC Chair must call a meeting of the members of the committee and they can elect a replacement nominee. But there is no provision for forcibly removing the nominee if they don’t wish to go.
So it’s technically possible to do at the convention or even later if Biden agrees to drop out or otherwise can’t continue. But both paths are complicated could lead to even worse results for the Democrats if things go totally pear-shaped on them.
The last thing I’ll offer is a warning to Democrats that Cuomo’s moment in the sun recently doesn’t erase his very problematic past, so even if they were inclined to tank Uncle Joe, they might want to consider someone else. Let’s not forget that there are more skeletons in Cuomo’s closet than in your average Halloween haunted house. During his time as governor, Cuomo has been involved in so many campaign finance, fundraising and appropriation scandals that books could be written on the subject. So many of his associates, cronies and former aides are either currently in prison or avoided jail time with plea deals on things like bid-rigging that they could start their own prison baseball team. Others were convicted of bribing judges and one of his longest-serving aides who he frequently described as being “more like a brother” got six years for lining his own pockets out of a massive, failed “stimulus” scheme known as the Buffalo Billion.
Somehow, despite all of the corruption that’s been dredged up in the Cuomo administration, the Governor himself has always somehow managed to slip the noose and not be hauled in front of a judge himself. Granted, if he suddenly became the nominee, I have no doubt that CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post would do their best to provide cover for him and rarely if ever, mention any of these stories. But there would be Trump advertising fodder aplenty and the word would eventually get out. That’s why I don’t think Cuomo would survive a prolonged, hard-fought campaign. The only way he might be able to win would be in a very short, ambush-style race where he showed up as the nominee at the last minute and raced to the finish line before the opposition had a chance to catch their breath.


hotair--2020-03-25--WaPo: Trump doesn't have the authority to reopen the economy from the COVID-19 shutdown, you know

Technically true , politically somewhat true , and essentially meaningless anyway .
Donald Trump repeatedly suggested a goal of having America back to work and growing economically by Easter , but Trump didn ’ t close the businesses in the first place , as Amber Phillips points out at the Washington Post .
Those decisions came from governors — at least to the extent that businesses closed by mandates : Trump is the most powerful figure in the U.S. coronavirus response , and large swath of the country supports him and will stand by him , no matter what .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in how seriously all Americans treat social distancing , since it ’ s hard .
But he alone can ’ t push Americans back to work and restart the economy .
That ’ s for three reasons : 1 .
Governors are the ones ordering people to stay at home .
Already , 19 have ordered or announced they ’ re about to order residents to stay at home , according to the nonpartisan National Governor ’ s Association .
( See which states here . )
Trump doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their states .
… 2 .
In many states , schools are closed .
So are day-care centers and shops .
So even if people want to get back to work , a lot wouldn ’ t be able to .
Parents wouldn ’ t have child care , and governors in a number of states have ordered nonessential businesses closed , so workers in , say , a boutique wouldn ’ t be able to go back to work .
3 .
Trump ’ s request that people avoid groups of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request .
He made the social-distancing request at the advice of health experts for a 15-day period , which ends March 30 .
But this was never a rule or law , just a set of guidelines .
All this is true , as is Aaron Blake ’ s follow-up that even Republican governors aren ’ t inclined to follow Trump ’ s lead by dropping their restrictions in time for Easter : “ I will base my decision as governor of the state of Texas on what physicians say , ” Abbott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get the economy going , the best thing we can do to get the economy going is to get covid-19 behind us.
” President Trump has leaned hard into the idea of reopening the economy in recent days , but as has been noted , he only has so much power to do so .
It ’ s the governors who issue stay-at-home orders and decide what opens and what doesn ’ t in their states .
… “ We don ’ t think that we ’ re going to be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this in five or six days , or whenever this 15 days is up from the time that they started this imaginary clock , ” Hogan said on CNN .
“ Most people think that we ’ re weeks away from the peak , if not months.
” South Dakota Gov .
Kristi L. Noem ( R ) , whose state matches the description of less-affected areas that Trump has suggested could see reopenings in relatively short order , also indicated she ’ s looking at a longer time frame .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a week , ” said Noem , whose state has just more than two dozen cases .
“ … We have another eight weeks until we see our peak infection rate.
” She added : “ Any changes we make for how we conduct our daily lives have to be sustained.
” It ’ s not just the question of peaking coronavirus cases that has governors of both parties looking at weeks and months rather than days .
It ’ s also that the original goal of the “ flatten the curve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That intended to build up massive health-care resources up front in order to deal with the inevitable high level of cases by stringing them out further .
We haven ’ t had time to produce those resources , however .
Even those companies that have switched production lines to produce those resources won ’ t have them ready for a couple of months , at least when it comes to short-supply ventilators : Businesses large and small have recalibrated as the public health and economic crises have raged , moving outside their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with other businesses to fill supply chain and product holes .
And though corporate partnerships can concentrate expertise to solve some problems , many of these efforts are nascent — commercial metamorphoses that require different production and supply chain mechanisms , and skilled workers .
In the Ford collaboration , for instance , the first ventilators or respirators to roll off the line are still months away .
But the automaker has been able to pivot more quickly on the plastic face shields ; it expects to deliver the first batch of 1,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford Health Systems and Detroit Medical Center Sinai-Grace hospitals for testing .
Eventually , it expects to produce 100,000 a week .
“ This is like bringing in the cavalry to say , ‘ Okay , where can we double down to make things go faster and bigger ?
’ ” Mike Kesti , global technical director of 3M ’ s personal safety division , said in a phone interview .
… The companies do not have a timeline for when they ’ ll be able to scale up production , and any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear regulatory hurdles , Kesti said .
In other words , we ’ ve only just begun to flatten the curve .
That ’ s why the stimulus bill was so critical to that effort .
We haven ’ t yet done two trillion dollars of damage to the economy , but we will if we stick to the original plan .
New York City ’ s extremis in hospitals is a warning sign to those who don ’ t take that curve seriously enough early on , and governors around the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump offer Easter as a goal in the first place ?
There are three potential explanations , none of which are mutually exclusive but which serve different political goals .
Let ’ s go in order of decreasing cynicism : • Trump needs to pass the blame on economic damage — By endorsing a return-to-normal policy without being able to effect it himself , Trump has made the governors directly responsible for any economic consequences of shelter-in-place orders .
That only works partially , though , especially with the CDC openly skeptical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disconnect between Trump and the mindset of voters who are still worried about the virus of the kind that initially damaged his polling numbers .
However , as the economic pain increases , which it will , Trump ’ s optimism might resonate more with voters than governors ’ cautious approaches to the pandemic spread .
Trump has no legal authority to override governors , but the more Trump talks about returning to normal , the more he undermines governors ’ political standing to keep those restrictions in place .
• Trump wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped this message right after Democrats began blocking action on the CARES Act , which is designed in large part to deal with the economic consequences of the “ flatten the curve ” effort .
By suggesting that the administration would instead encourage a full-throated return to public interaction without the rescue , perhaps the White House hoped to pressure both sides to act quickly .
However , the White House never publicly positioned this message in that way .
Perhaps they did in private , but it would have needed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure .
• Trump wants to keep spirits up with public expressions of optimism — This is at least a part of the explanation no matter what other motives are in play .
And it is necessary to keep spirits up in this crisis , because despair can literally kill people .
Picking a specific date is an overstep , but emphasizing that this period can not go on forever is an important way to settle nerves in the Great Hunkering Down .
Trump ’ s correct about the potentially fatal consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s necessary to ramp up production of health-care resources so most people can get back to normal sooner rather than later .
It can only go on for weeks , not several months or a year , not even with this rescue package .
To that end , expect more robust use of the Defense Production Act over the next few days .
The only way to get governors to back off these restrictions is to deliver massive amounts of ventilators , masks , gowns , medications , and other health-care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Using executive authority in a crisis never did any damage to a sitting president in the short term , and if it succeeds in getting people out of lockdown more quickly , it won ’ t hurt in the long term either .

Technically true, politically somewhat true, and essentially meaningless anyway. Donald Trump repeatedly suggested a goal of having America back to work and growing economically by Easter, but Trump didn’t close the businesses in the first place, as Amber Phillips points out at the Washington Post. Those decisions came from governors — at least to the extent that businesses closed by mandates:
Trump is the most powerful figure in the U.S. coronavirus response, and large swath of the country supports him and will stand by him, no matter what. And his voice certainly will play a role in how seriously all Americans treat social distancing, since it’s hard. But he alone can’t push Americans back to work and restart the economy. That’s for three reasons: 1. Governors are the ones ordering people to stay at home. Already, 19 have ordered or announced they’re about to order residents to stay at home, according to the nonpartisan National Governor’s Association. (See which states here.) Trump doesn’t have the authority to order governors to reopen their states. … 2. In many states, schools are closed. So are day-care centers and shops. So even if people want to get back to work, a lot wouldn’t be able to. Parents wouldn’t have child care, and governors in a number of states have ordered nonessential businesses closed, so workers in, say, a boutique wouldn’t be able to go back to work. 3. Trump’s request that people avoid groups of more than 10 was just that — a request. He made the social-distancing request at the advice of health experts for a 15-day period, which ends March 30. But this was never a rule or law, just a set of guidelines.
All this is true, as is Aaron Blake’s follow-up that even Republican governors aren’t inclined to follow Trump’s lead by dropping their restrictions in time for Easter:
“I will base my decision as governor of the state of Texas on what physicians say,” Abbott said. “If the goal is to get the economy going, the best thing we can do to get the economy going is to get covid-19 behind us.” President Trump has leaned hard into the idea of reopening the economy in recent days, but as has been noted, he only has so much power to do so. It’s the governors who issue stay-at-home orders and decide what opens and what doesn’t in their states. … “We don’t think that we’re going to be in any way ready to be out of this in five or six days, or whenever this 15 days is up from the time that they started this imaginary clock,” Hogan said on CNN. “Most people think that we’re weeks away from the peak, if not months.” South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R), whose state matches the description of less-affected areas that Trump has suggested could see reopenings in relatively short order, also indicated she’s looking at a longer time frame. “This situation is not going to be over in a week,” said Noem, whose state has just more than two dozen cases. “ … We have another eight weeks until we see our peak infection rate.” She added: “Any changes we make for how we conduct our daily lives have to be sustained.”
It’s not just the question of peaking coronavirus cases that has governors of both parties looking at weeks and months rather than days. It’s also that the original goal of the “flatten the curve” effort hasn’t been met. That intended to build up massive health-care resources up front in order to deal with the inevitable high level of cases by stringing them out further. We haven’t had time to produce those resources, however. Even those companies that have switched production lines to produce those resources won’t have them ready for a couple of months, at least when it comes to short-supply ventilators:
Businesses large and small have recalibrated as the public health and economic crises have raged, moving outside their lanes to produce new products or partner with other businesses to fill supply chain and product holes. And though corporate partnerships can concentrate expertise to solve some problems, many of these efforts are nascent — commercial metamorphoses that require different production and supply chain mechanisms, and skilled workers. In the Ford collaboration, for instance, the first ventilators or respirators to roll off the line are still months away. But the automaker has been able to pivot more quickly on the plastic face shields; it expects to deliver the first batch of 1,000 this week to Detroit Mercy, Henry Ford Health Systems and Detroit Medical Center Sinai-Grace hospitals for testing. Eventually, it expects to produce 100,000 a week. “This is like bringing in the cavalry to say, ‘Okay, where can we double down to make things go faster and bigger?’” Mike Kesti, global technical director of 3M’s personal safety division, said in a phone interview. … The companies do not have a timeline for when they’ll be able to scale up production, and any expanded manufacturing processes would still have to clear regulatory hurdles, Kesti said.
In other words, we’ve only just begun to flatten the curve. That’s why the stimulus bill was so critical to that effort. We haven’t yet done two trillion dollars of damage to the economy, but we will if we stick to the original plan. New York City’s extremis in hospitals is a warning sign to those who don’t take that curve seriously enough early on, and governors around the country are heeding it.
So why did Trump offer Easter as a goal in the first place? There are three potential explanations, none of which are mutually exclusive but which serve different political goals. Let’s go in order of decreasing cynicism:
Trump needs to pass the blame on economic damage — By endorsing a return-to-normal policy without being able to effect it himself, Trump has made the governors directly responsible for any economic consequences of shelter-in-place orders. That only works partially, though, especially with the CDC openly skeptical of that approach. It also risks a disconnect between Trump and the mindset of voters who are still worried about the virus of the kind that initially damaged his polling numbers. However, as the economic pain increases, which it will, Trump’s optimism might resonate more with voters than governors’ cautious approaches to the pandemic spread. Trump has no legal authority to override governors, but the more Trump talks about returning to normal, the more he undermines governors’ political standing to keep those restrictions in place. Trump wanted leverage over the relief-bill negotiations — Trump dropped this message right after Democrats began blocking action on the CARES Act, which is designed in large part to deal with the economic consequences of the “flatten the curve” effort. By suggesting that the administration would instead encourage a full-throated return to public interaction without the rescue, perhaps the White House hoped to pressure both sides to act quickly. However, the White House never publicly positioned this message in that way. Perhaps they did in private, but it would have needed to be a public message to create the necessary pressure. Trump wants to keep spirits up with public expressions of optimism — This is at least a part of the explanation no matter what other motives are in play. And it is necessary to keep spirits up in this crisis, because despair can literally kill people. Picking a specific date is an overstep, but emphasizing that this period cannot go on forever is an important way to settle nerves in the Great Hunkering Down. Trump’s correct about the potentially fatal consequences of an economic collapse, which is why it’s necessary to ramp up production of health-care resources so most people can get back to normal sooner rather than later. It can only go on for weeks, not several months or a year, not even with this rescue package.
To that end, expect more robust use of the Defense Production Act over the next few days. The only way to get governors to back off these restrictions is to deliver massive amounts of ventilators, masks, gowns, medications, and other health-care resources in a very short period of time. Using executive authority in a crisis never did any damage to a sitting president in the short term, and if it succeeds in getting people out of lockdown more quickly, it won’t hurt in the long term either.


hotair--2020-03-25--Small Chinese study: Hydroxychloroquine doesn't help coronavirus patients more than regular care doe

Small Chinese study: Hydroxychloroquine doesn't help coronavirus patients more than regular care does

If I ’ m going to gratify my urge to wishcast by publicizing the thin anecdotal evidence that chloroquine works , I feel obliged to publicize the anecdotal reality checks that maybe it doesn ’ t too .
The temptation here is to say , “ It ’ s a really small study .
It might be wrong.
” True .
But the French study in which everyone ’ s placed their hopes was also very small , about the same size as this one .
And allegedly methodologically flawed , as I noted yesterday .
Anyway , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothetical benefits of hydroxychloroquine at a moment when New York City hospitals are approaching capacity .
Doctors there will have a firsthand sense soon of whether the drug works or not .
The study , published in the Journal of Zhejiang University and first reported by Bloomberg , involved 30 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 , who were randomly split into two groups .
Both received five-days of conventional treatments , including bed rest , oxygen inhalation and antiviral drugs , but one group was also administered 400 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine—a derivative of chloroquine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arthritis .
According to the study , there was no statistical difference between the two treatment plans after seven days .
In fact , the recovery of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group fared marginally worse than the controls .
Fourteen of the non-hydroxychloroquine group tested negative for COVID-19 at the end of the experiment , versus 13 of the people treated with hydroxychloroquine .
Differences between the two groups in terms of the time it took for body temperature to return to normal and the length of hospital stay were also negligible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a wider study to double-check their findings .
Those are in the works right now in various places .
Meanwhile , Nevada is taking drastic action to preserve the availability of hydroxychloroquine for people who rely on it to treat other ailments , like lupus : Nevada ’ s governor on Tuesday banned the use of anti-malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients .
Democratic Gov .
Steve Sisolak ’ s executive order came after President Trump touted the medication as holding promise for combating the illness… His order also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which are also used to treat illnesses like lupus and arthritis — to a 30-day supply to ensure it ’ s available for “ legitimate medical purposes ” and so people don ’ t stockpile the drug .
If I ’ m reading the regulation correctly , Nevada doctors can still use it on inpatients at the hospital .
What Sisolak and his advisors are worried about is doctors writing scrips for family and friends who aren ’ t sick yet so that they can hoard the drug , just in case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ really wants it could collude with a doctor to claim that they ’ re suffering from arthritis or whatever and need the drug to treat a rheumatological condition .
If you ’ re going to be underhanded in the interest of hoarding , might as well go all the way .
The mass public interest in hydroxychloroquine is of a piece with the rash belief that it ’ ll be safe enough to let most of the country to get back to work in a few weeks .
Each is a means of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality is overwhelming > .
Maybe there ’ s an escape hatch from the pandemic in the form of a miracle drug ; maybe there ’ s an escape hatch from an economic depression if we all collectively just want it bad enough .
It makes sense that both would appeal to Trump , since what president would want to manage many months of a grinding double-barreled crisis like this ?
It ’ s natural to crave an exit from this gruesome timeline .
But if he ’ s going to keep touting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to drop the “ wartime president ” posture .
FDR wasn ’ t telling people in December 1941 that there might be a quick fix to defeating the Japanese .
Nor did he immediately try to dispatch troops to Europe after the Nazis declared war .
There was a strategy , and that strategy would take time .
One of the basic tasks of a wartime president is to galvanize the public to show the resolve needed to see the strategy through .
It ’ s likely that the only thing that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the short-term is to keep physically distancing ourselves from each other .
That ’ ll require discipline and sacrifice .
The more he touts miracle cures , the more he inadvertently gives people a reason to relax that discipline , the harder it ’ ll be to turn this around .
“ Let ’ s just go back to work .
If I get sick , they ’ ll give me hydroxychloroquine.
” His job approval is up lately because people like seeing a president take action in a crisis .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing ; he and his team have also been scrambling to get masks and ventilators to New York .
There ’ s also a “ rally around the president ” effect to some degree .
( See , e.g.
, Bush 43 ’ s approval rating shortly after 9/11 . )
But if he insists on nudging people outside hot spots to go back to work soon , that may change : The number who trust Trump versus the number who don ’ t is just what you ’ d expect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval rating .
The interesting numbers on that graph aren ’ t Trump ’ s , though .
They ’ re the numbers for medical and health professionals and state governors .
If Trump tries to encourage people to go back to work and he meets all but universal opposition from more trusted authorities , his bid to restart the economy just isn ’ t going to work .
What does he do then ?

If I’m going to gratify my urge to wishcast by publicizing the thin anecdotal evidence that chloroquine works, I feel obliged to publicize the anecdotal reality checks that maybe it doesn’t too.
The temptation here is to say, “It’s a really small study. It might be wrong.” True. But the French study in which everyone’s placed their hopes was also very small, about the same size as this one. And allegedly methodologically flawed, as I noted yesterday.
Anyway, it’s silly to keep posting about the hypothetical benefits of hydroxychloroquine at a moment when New York City hospitals are approaching capacity. Doctors there will have a firsthand sense soon of whether the drug works or not.
The study, published in the Journal of Zhejiang University and first reported by Bloomberg, involved 30 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, who were randomly split into two groups. Both received five-days of conventional treatments, including bed rest, oxygen inhalation and antiviral drugs, but one group was also administered 400 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine—a derivative of chloroquine used in the treatment of malaria and arthritis. According to the study, there was no statistical difference between the two treatment plans after seven days. In fact, the recovery of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group fared marginally worse than the controls. Fourteen of the non-hydroxychloroquine group tested negative for COVID-19 at the end of the experiment, versus 13 of the people treated with hydroxychloroquine. Differences between the two groups in terms of the time it took for body temperature to return to normal and the length of hospital stay were also negligible.
Even the researchers behind this study called for a wider study to double-check their findings. Those are in the works right now in various places. Meanwhile, Nevada is taking drastic action to preserve the availability of hydroxychloroquine for people who rely on it to treat other ailments, like lupus:
Nevada’s governor on Tuesday banned the use of anti-malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients. Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak’s executive order came after President Trump touted the medication as holding promise for combating the illness… His order also limits a prescription of the medicines — which are also used to treat illnesses like lupus and arthritis — to a 30-day supply to ensure it’s available for “legitimate medical purposes” and so people don’t stockpile the drug.
If I’m reading the regulation correctly, Nevada doctors can still use it on inpatients at the hospital. What Sisolak and his advisors are worried about is doctors writing scrips for family and friends who aren’t sick yet so that they can hoard the drug, just in case. Although I suppose anyone who really, really wants it could collude with a doctor to claim that they’re suffering from arthritis or whatever and need the drug to treat a rheumatological condition. If you’re going to be underhanded in the interest of hoarding, might as well go all the way.
The mass public interest in hydroxychloroquine is of a piece with the rash belief that it’ll be safe enough to let most of the country to get back to work in a few weeks. Each is a means of coping with reality at a moment when reality is overwhelming>. Maybe there’s an escape hatch from the pandemic in the form of a miracle drug; maybe there’s an escape hatch from an economic depression if we all collectively just want it bad enough. It makes sense that both would appeal to Trump, since what president would want to manage many months of a grinding double-barreled crisis like this? It’s natural to crave an exit from this gruesome timeline. But if he’s going to keep touting unrealistic quick fixes, he also has to drop the “wartime president” posture. FDR wasn’t telling people in December 1941 that there might be a quick fix to defeating the Japanese. Nor did he immediately try to dispatch troops to Europe after the Nazis declared war. There was a strategy, and that strategy would take time.
One of the basic tasks of a wartime president is to galvanize the public to show the resolve needed to see the strategy through. It’s likely that the only thing that’ll get us to a better place in the short-term is to keep physically distancing ourselves from each other. That’ll require discipline and sacrifice. The more he touts miracle cures, the more he inadvertently gives people a reason to relax that discipline, the harder it’ll be to turn this around. “Let’s just go back to work. If I get sick, they’ll give me hydroxychloroquine.”
His job approval is up lately because people like seeing a president take action in a crisis. A week ago he affirmed the need for social distancing; he and his team have also been scrambling to get masks and ventilators to New York. There’s also a “rally around the president” effect to some degree. (See, e.g., Bush 43’s approval rating shortly after 9/11.) But if he insists on nudging people outside hot spots to go back to work soon, that may change:
The number who trust Trump versus the number who don’t is just what you’d expect, right in line with his traditional job approval rating. The interesting numbers on that graph aren’t Trump’s, though. They’re the numbers for medical and health professionals and state governors. If Trump tries to encourage people to go back to work and he meets all but universal opposition from more trusted authorities, his bid to restart the economy just isn’t going to work. What does he do then?


hotair--2020-03-25--For the far left, the coronavirus crisis is the perfect time to abolish capitalism and the nuclear f

For the far left, the coronavirus crisis is the perfect time to abolish capitalism and the nuclear family

There has been quite a bit of talk in the past couple of days about when we might get back to normal .
The president is hoping that might happen as soon as Easter while others are saying it could be 3-4 months .
But some people aren ’ t interested in going back to normal .
On the contrary , they see the crisis as an inflection point that presents and opportunity for some significant changes to the country .
On the left there are a lot of people who see the crisis as an opportunity to push forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve had all along .
In some cases , they don ’ t mean European-style social democracy , they want to see an end to capitalism .
Here ’ s an example published by NBC yesterday .
The author of this is named Paris Marx : Once COVID-19 abates and people can start leaving their homes , many industries may indeed have collapsed or will be surviving on government support — the airline industry being the first .
If China and Italy are any indication , carbon emissions and air pollution will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ramp things back up in a way that continues to threaten our futures and our health by fueling the climate crisis , or we can make the necessary investments and change the regulatory framework to move away from fossil fuels while ensuring that our workers have a future .
When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , and Sen. Ed Markey , D-Mass.
, proposed their Green New Deal in February 2019 , the most likely implementation of which would cost $ 16.3 trillion over 10 years , it was written off as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , and ridiculed by Republicans who charged it was too expensive and un-American .
Yet its policies would provide a job guarantee for being laid off , support for retraining for many workers , and a mass investment program to not only boost the economy , but move it away from fossil fuels .
Is the author suggesting we should not have an aviation industry ?
I seem to remember that was a big issue when AOC initially released the Green New Deal and a summary that suggested a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.
” Even Sen. Mazie Hirono mocked the idea of replacing air travel with trains saying , “ That would be pretty hard for Hawaii.
” AOC ’ s accidentally leaked agenda , which she backtracked away from at the time , sounds moderate compared to what this author is suggesting .
At least AOC wanted to phase out air travel by replacing it with something else .
Paris Marx is suggesting that if the industry collapses we just let it burn , even if there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cost of the Green New Deal , that has been a matter of some debate .
Initial estimates ranged between $ 52 and $ 94 trillion over 10 years .
Sanders would later release his own GND plan ( under the same name ) and claim it would cost $ 16.3 trillion .
However , it ’ s important to note that his GND plan was just one of several plans .
If you include the cost of his Medicare for All plan , you ’ re right back around $ 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s far beyond even the cost of the current stimulus bill duplicated every year for the next ten years .
Sanders plan also didn ’ t envision a global pandemic which would potentially create a worldwide recession ( or worse ) .
It ’ s one thing to promise a government job to out of work people when the economy is running along wish sub-4 percent unemployment .
It ’ s quite another to make the math work when unemployment hits 15 percent or higher .
The cost of the latter program would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover those costs after taking into account all of the revenue the government will lose because people are out of work will be far less .
Anyway , this isn ’ t even the most extreme proposal being floated during the crisis .
Yesterday a site called Open Society published a piece suggesting now is a good time to think about doing away with capitalism and the nuclear family : Nuclear households , it seems , are where we are all intuitively expected to retreat in order to prevent widespread ill-health .
‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-evidently supposed to keep us well .
But there are several problems with this , as anyone inclined to think about it critically ( even for a moment ) might figure out – problems one might summarize as the mystification of the couple-form ; the romanticisation of kinship ; and the sanitization of the fundamentally unsafe space that is private property… In short , the pandemic is no time to forget about family abolition .
In the words of feminist theorist and mother Madeline Lane-McKinley ; “ Households are capitalism ’ s pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge in housework – cleaning , cooking , caretaking , but also child abuse , molestation , intimate partner rape , psychological torture , and more.
” Far from a time to acquiesce to ‘ family values ’ ideology , then , the pandemic is an acutely important time to provision , evacuate and generally empower survivors of – and refugees from – the nuclear household .
And thirdly , even when the private nuclear household poses no direct physical or mental threat to one ’ s person – no spouse-battering , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the private family qua mode of social reproduction still , frankly , sucks .
It genders , nationalizes and races us .
It norms us for productive work .
It makes us believe we are ‘ individuals.
’ It minimizes costs for capital while maximizing human beings ’ life-making labor ( across billions of tiny boxes , each kitted out – absurdly – with its own kitchen , micro-crèche and laundry ) .
It blackmails us into mistaking the only sources of love and care we have for the extent of what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an article at a site called Pinko .
Here ’ s a sample : Communists like to promise the revolution that sounds like it will be an orgy/art exploration , but the reality is always something closer to Venezuela , i.e .
a man-made disaster where millions of nuclear families flee their homes to protect their children .
Even the fringiest of communist ideologues now see a path to what they want in things Sanders and AOC have already introduced in Congress .
We ’ re not quite there for the family abolishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as a serious idea hasn ’ t been imported into the mainstream yet , but you can bet they are working on it .
AOC has already suggested it makes sense that people no longer want to have children .
Little by little they ’ ll make this part of the conversation .
The coronavirus is just another crisis the far left doesn ’ t want to go to waste .

There has been quite a bit of talk in the past couple of days about when we might get back to normal. The president is hoping that might happen as soon as Easter while others are saying it could be 3-4 months. But some people aren’t interested in going back to normal. On the contrary, they see the crisis as an inflection point that presents and opportunity for some significant changes to the country.
On the left there are a lot of people who see the crisis as an opportunity to push forward some of the socialist agenda they’ve had all along. In some cases, they don’t mean European-style social democracy, they want to see an end to capitalism. Here’s an example published by NBC yesterday. The author of this is named Paris Marx:
Once COVID-19 abates and people can start leaving their homes, many industries may indeed have collapsed or will be surviving on government support — the airline industry being the first. If China and Italy are any indication, carbon emissions and air pollution will have declined. We can choose whether we ramp things back up in a way that continues to threaten our futures and our health by fueling the climate crisis, or we can make the necessary investments and change the regulatory framework to move away from fossil fuels while ensuring that our workers have a future. When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., proposed their Green New Deal in February 2019, the most likely implementation of which would cost $16.3 trillion over 10 years, it was written off as a “green dream” by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and ridiculed by Republicans who charged it was too expensive and un-American. Yet its policies would provide a job guarantee for being laid off, support for retraining for many workers, and a mass investment program to not only boost the economy, but move it away from fossil fuels.
Is the author suggesting we should not have an aviation industry? I seem to remember that was a big issue when AOC initially released the Green New Deal and a summary that suggested a focus on high speed rail “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Even Sen. Mazie Hirono mocked the idea of replacing air travel with trains saying, “That would be pretty hard for Hawaii.”
AOC’s accidentally leaked agenda, which she backtracked away from at the time, sounds moderate compared to what this author is suggesting. At least AOC wanted to phase out air travel by replacing it with something else. Paris Marx is suggesting that if the industry collapses we just let it burn, even if there’s no alternative.
As for the cost of the Green New Deal, that has been a matter of some debate. Initial estimates ranged between $52 and $94 trillion over 10 years. Sanders would later release his own GND plan (under the same name) and claim it would cost $16.3 trillion. However, it’s important to note that his GND plan was just one of several plans. If you include the cost of his Medicare for All plan, you’re right back around $50 trillion over ten years. That’s far beyond even the cost of the current stimulus bill duplicated every year for the next ten years.
Sanders plan also didn’t envision a global pandemic which would potentially create a worldwide recession (or worse). It’s one thing to promise a government job to out of work people when the economy is running along wish sub-4 percent unemployment. It’s quite another to make the math work when unemployment hits 15 percent or higher. The cost of the latter program would be far higher and the ability to cover those costs after taking into account all of the revenue the government will lose because people are out of work will be far less.
Anyway, this isn’t even the most extreme proposal being floated during the crisis. Yesterday a site called Open Society published a piece suggesting now is a good time to think about doing away with capitalism and the nuclear family:
Nuclear households, it seems, are where we are all intuitively expected to retreat in order to prevent widespread ill-health. ‘Staying home’ is what is somehow self-evidently supposed to keep us well. But there are several problems with this, as anyone inclined to think about it critically (even for a moment) might figure out – problems one might summarize as the mystification of the couple-form; the romanticisation of kinship; and the sanitization of the fundamentally unsafe space that is private property… In short, the pandemic is no time to forget about family abolition. In the words of feminist theorist and mother Madeline Lane-McKinley; “Households are capitalism’s pressure cookers. This crisis will see a surge in housework – cleaning, cooking, caretaking, but also child abuse, molestation, intimate partner rape, psychological torture, and more.” Far from a time to acquiesce to ‘family values’ ideology, then, the pandemic is an acutely important time to provision, evacuate and generally empower survivors of – and refugees from – the nuclear household. And thirdly, even when the private nuclear household poses no direct physical or mental threat to one’s person – no spouse-battering, no child rape, and no queer-bashing – the private family qua mode of social reproduction still, frankly, sucks. It genders, nationalizes and races us. It norms us for productive work. It makes us believe we are ‘individuals.’ It minimizes costs for capital while maximizing human beings’ life-making labor (across billions of tiny boxes, each kitted out – absurdly – with its own kitchen, micro-crèche and laundry). It blackmails us into mistaking the only sources of love and care we have for the extent of what is possible.
That last link is to an article at a site called Pinko. Here’s a sample:
In place of the coercive system of atomized family units, the abolition of the family would generalize what we now call care. Care of mutual love and support; care of the labor of raising children and caring for the ill; care of erotic connection and pleasure; care of aiding each other in fulfilling the vast possibilities of our humanity, expressed in countless ways, including forms of self-expression we now call gender. Care in our capitalist society is a commodified, subjugating, and alienated act, but in it we can see the kernel of a non-alienating interdependence.
Communists like to promise the revolution that sounds like it will be an orgy/art exploration, but the reality is always something closer to Venezuela, i.e. a man-made disaster where millions of nuclear families flee their homes to protect their children.
Even the fringiest of communist ideologues now see a path to what they want in things Sanders and AOC have already introduced in Congress. We’re not quite there for the family abolishment people. The full language to propose that as a serious idea hasn’t been imported into the mainstream yet, but you can bet they are working on it. AOC has already suggested it makes sense that people no longer want to have children. Little by little they’ll make this part of the conversation. The coronavirus is just another crisis the far left doesn’t want to go to waste.


hotair--2020-03-25--COVID-19 hits British royal family, Prince Charles tests positive

The heir to the British throne has tested positive for the coronavirus .
Prince Charles has mild symptoms and otherwise remains in good health .
The Duke of Cornwall and his wife Camilla , who tested negative , are self-isolating at Balmoral .
My question is this – why was Prince Charles continuing on with his schedule of royal duties during an outbreak of an international pandemic ?
Reports about this story all state that he was carrying out his public obligations as usual .
.
What ?
Shouldn ’ t he have been setting an example and staying home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ride out possible exposure to the coronavirus ?
Now it is very possible that he has spread the COVID-19 virus to others , too .
Prince Charles is in a high-risk group because of his age , whether he has any underlying health concerns or not .
He ’ s 71 years old .
His wife , the Duchess of Cornwall , is 72 years old .
So , they are in their home in Scotland after being tested by the NHS in Aberdeenshire .
They both “ met the criteria required for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t seen his mother , Queen Elizabeth II , since March 12 .
He ’ s been working from home but still holding private meetings .
Again , what ?
That ’ s not how this works .
The prince ’ s last public engagement was on 12 March , when he attended a Mansion House dinner hosted by William Russell , Lord Mayor of the City of London , and George Brandis , the High Commissioner for Australia , in aid of the Australian bushfire relief and recovery effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from home over the last few days , and has held a number of private meetings with Highgrove and Duchy of Cornwall individuals , all of whom have been made aware .
A number of the household staff at Birkhall – the prince ’ s residence on the Balmoral estate – are now self-isolating at their own homes .
Allahpundit wrote an interesting post yesterday on the outbreak in England .
Originally , Prime Minister Johnson thought it was a good idea for younger people to carry on as normal , living their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
The theory was that if younger people are more resilient to the virus , then they could experience the virus , probably without hospitalization and not overtax the hospital system .
Older people would then be able to venture out again after “ herd immunity ” developed .
There is also a very good chance , if one study is correct , that half of the population in England is already infected .
Given all of this information , the carefree pursuit of his everyday calendar of events as though a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country looks particularly irresponsible .
Perhaps he contacted the virus from Prince Albert II of Monaco .
So far , the Queen and Prince William and former Prince Harry are fine .
Queen Elizabeth , age 93 , began to self-quarantine just last week after staff became alarmed that she was carrying out her normal schedule of appearances .
At least she began wearing gloves earlier in March , though she did continue to shake hands .
We know now that the virus can live on material and even cardboard for several days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bird but why take chances ?
She ’ s now self-quarantined at Windsor Castle .
Queen Elizabeth had taken to wearing gloves during her events when coronavirus first began to spread .
During a March 3 ceremony , the queen shook hands while wearing gloves .
“ This is the first time in my memory , and I ’ ve been covering the royal family for 30 years , that Her Majesty has worn gloves for an investiture , ” said ABC News royal contributor Robert Jobson .
“ It is clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors are taking no chances.
” Since then , Buckingham Place has taken the next steps to cancel and postpone all forthcoming royal events .
“ In consultation with the Medical Household and Government , a number of public events with large numbers of people due to have been attended by The Queen , and other Members of the Royal Family , in the coming months will be cancelled or postponed , ” Buckingham Palace said in a statement .
The Queen is preparing a rare address to the British empire about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SKYPE and FaceTime to keep in contact with family , like grandmothers and great grandmothers everywhere .
Prince Charles is a liberal climate alarmist dork .
Queen Elizabeth , however , is a treasure .
May she remain in good health for years to come .

The heir to the British throne has tested positive for the coronavirus. Prince Charles has mild symptoms and otherwise remains in good health.
The Duke of Cornwall and his wife Camilla, who tested negative, are self-isolating at Balmoral. My question is this – why was Prince Charles continuing on with his schedule of royal duties during an outbreak of an international pandemic? Reports about this story all state that he was carrying out his public obligations as usual. .
“It is not possible to ascertain from whom the prince caught the virus owing to the high number of engagements he carried out in his public role during recent weeks.”
What? Shouldn’t he have been setting an example and staying home in one of the royal residences to ride out possible exposure to the coronavirus? Now it is very possible that he has spread the COVID-19 virus to others, too.
Prince Charles is in a high-risk group because of his age, whether he has any underlying health concerns or not. He’s 71 years old. His wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, is 72 years old. So, they are in their home in Scotland after being tested by the NHS in Aberdeenshire. They both “met the criteria required for testing.” Clarence House states that Charles hasn’t seen his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, since March 12. He’s been working from home but still holding private meetings. Again, what? That’s not how this works.
The prince’s last public engagement was on 12 March, when he attended a Mansion House dinner hosted by William Russell, Lord Mayor of the City of London, and George Brandis, the High Commissioner for Australia, in aid of the Australian bushfire relief and recovery effort. However, Charles has also been working from home over the last few days, and has held a number of private meetings with Highgrove and Duchy of Cornwall individuals, all of whom have been made aware. A number of the household staff at Birkhall – the prince’s residence on the Balmoral estate – are now self-isolating at their own homes.
Allahpundit wrote an interesting post yesterday on the outbreak in England. Originally, Prime Minister Johnson thought it was a good idea for younger people to carry on as normal, living their lives, while older people self-isolate at home. The theory was that if younger people are more resilient to the virus, then they could experience the virus, probably without hospitalization and not overtax the hospital system. Older people would then be able to venture out again after “herd immunity” developed. There is also a very good chance, if one study is correct, that half of the population in England is already infected. Given all of this information, the carefree pursuit of his everyday calendar of events as though a pandemic wasn’t spreading across the country looks particularly irresponsible.
According to the latest Department of Health and Social Care figures, there are now more than 8,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK – although the actual number cases is likely to be far higher. Some 422 of those patients have died.
Perhaps he contacted the virus from Prince Albert II of Monaco.
Charles attended an event in London with Prince Albert II nine days before the Monaco royal tested positive for the virus. On March 9, the Prince of Wales attended the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey in London alongside his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, and their wives, Duchess Kate and Meghan Markle. At the service, Charles actively avoided shaking hands with people and instead placed his hands together and bowed to guests.
So far, the Queen and Prince William and former Prince Harry are fine. Queen Elizabeth, age 93, began to self-quarantine just last week after staff became alarmed that she was carrying out her normal schedule of appearances. At least she began wearing gloves earlier in March, though she did continue to shake hands. We know now that the virus can live on material and even cardboard for several days. She’s a tough old bird but why take chances? She’s now self-quarantined at Windsor Castle.
Queen Elizabeth had taken to wearing gloves during her events when coronavirus first began to spread. During a March 3 ceremony, the queen shook hands while wearing gloves. “This is the first time in my memory, and I’ve been covering the royal family for 30 years, that Her Majesty has worn gloves for an investiture,” said ABC News royal contributor Robert Jobson. “It is clear that she is acting on advice and her doctors are taking no chances.” Since then, Buckingham Place has taken the next steps to cancel and postpone all forthcoming royal events. “In consultation with the Medical Household and Government, a number of public events with large numbers of people due to have been attended by The Queen, and other Members of the Royal Family, in the coming months will be cancelled or postponed,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement.
As a sensible precaution and for practical reasons in the current circumstances, a number of changes are being made to The Queen’s diary. Read our press release in full:https://t.co/dWXKCT0AQj — The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) March 17, 2020
The Queen is preparing a rare address to the British empire about the COVID-19 pandemic. She has been using SKYPE and FaceTime to keep in contact with family, like grandmothers and great grandmothers everywhere.
A special address would mark only the fourth such speech during her 68-year reign. The last time was in 2002 when her mother, Queen Elizabeth, also known as The Queen Mother, died. There is no official date set for any coronavirus-related address from the 93-year-old, but a date for the televised speech will reportedly be nailed down in the coming weeks.
Prince Charles is a liberal climate alarmist dork. Queen Elizabeth, however, is a treasure. May she remain in good health for years to come.