hotair--2020-04-01--Did we see a "kinder, gentler Trump" yesterday?

The daily White House briefing on the pandemic situation yesterday included some seriously sobering news .
There seems to be little dispute among many , though not all medical authorities that our best-case scenario at this point will leave the United States death toll well into six figures .
If social distancing collapses , seeing it reach into the millions still isn ’ t out of the question .
The President and his medical advisers weren ’ t pulling any punches and they let everyone know that we need to be prepared for some grim times before we come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But at the same time , we also seemed to see a different side of Donald Trump .
Rather than mixing in his normal shots at his detractors and political opponents , he genuinely seemed to soften his tone a bit .
His remarks contained positive statements about some Democrats he ’ s been at odds with recently .
It sounded like more of a reminder that we ’ re all in this together .
And the media noticed .
( BBC ) Just days after attacking Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter , the president said he had a “ really great conversation ” with her and detailed the support the federal government was providing her state .
Last Friday , he had suggested that if state leaders were not “ appreciative ” of him , he wouldn ’ t talk to them .
On Tuesday , he recounted conversations with Democratic governors in California and Louisiana .
The new call from the White House was to continue the current mitigation efforts for an additional 30 days ; that even if things go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come , the efforts will pay off .
It ’ s definitely true that President Trump was being uncharacteristically generous toward various Democratic governors while delivering disappointing news without his usual tendency to try to put a positive ( perhaps too positive at times ) spin on the situation .
But I would caution anyone who thinks that Trump just underwent some sort of personality transplant or that he had a George Bailey moment the night before to not get too carried away .
As many of us have suggested ever since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announce his presidential bid , the man rarely does anything without calculating the pros and cons of the situation .
When he sets a particular tone during an appearance , it ’ s done to produce a response .
The majority of the time , he takes a combative stance , tearing into his opponents with abandon .
He does that because he knows that ’ s what keeps his base fired up .
Trump was largely elected by people who were sick of the same vanilla politicians from both parties reciting carefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come from a high school drama club play .
His base wanted a fighter and that ’ s what he delivers .
This has led many of his MSM detractors to conclude that the acerbic , combative person they see on Twitter is the real , one and only Donald Trump .
But the man has been figuring out how to play people and work a crowd for a long time .
In show biz terms , he knows how to read a room .
In this case , the “ room ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not the entire world .
Trump was in the middle of telling people something they didn ’ t want to hear .
A staggering number of Americans will likely not survive this pandemic until the point where we finally have an effective antiviral treatment or a vaccine ready for mass distribution .
That doomed cohort will include some of the people who watched the President deliver those remarks or at least friends or family members of theirs .
Few will emerge unscathed in some way or another .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most ardent , “ in your face , ” own the libs base of supporters would be looking for a bit of common cause .
The moment called for a leader who was capable of delivering harsh truths while simultaneously expressing compassion and hope .
And that ’ s what Donald Trump had to project , so he did .
This isn ’ t some sort of reborn Trump 2.0 .
He ’ s been doing this all along .
He ’ s just good enough at it that many in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But don ’ t worry , media wonks .
He ’ ll be back on Twitter delivering some scathing shots in no time .
( Most likely at you . )

The daily White House briefing on the pandemic situation yesterday included some seriously sobering news. There seems to be little dispute among many, though not all medical authorities that our best-case scenario at this point will leave the United States death toll well into six figures. If social distancing collapses, seeing it reach into the millions still isn’t out of the question. The President and his medical advisers weren’t pulling any punches and they let everyone know that we need to be prepared for some grim times before we come out the other side of this thing.
But at the same time, we also seemed to see a different side of Donald Trump. Rather than mixing in his normal shots at his detractors and political opponents, he genuinely seemed to soften his tone a bit. His remarks contained positive statements about some Democrats he’s been at odds with recently. It sounded like more of a reminder that we’re all in this together. And the media noticed. (BBC)
Just days after attacking Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, mocking her name and calling her incompetent on Twitter, the president said he had a “really great conversation” with her and detailed the support the federal government was providing her state. Last Friday, he had suggested that if state leaders were not “appreciative” of him, he wouldn’t talk to them. On Tuesday, he recounted conversations with Democratic governors in California and Louisiana. The new call from the White House was to continue the current mitigation efforts for an additional 30 days; that even if things go from bad to worse in the weeks to come, the efforts will pay off.
It’s definitely true that President Trump was being uncharacteristically generous toward various Democratic governors while delivering disappointing news without his usual tendency to try to put a positive (perhaps too positive at times) spin on the situation. But I would caution anyone who thinks that Trump just underwent some sort of personality transplant or that he had a George Bailey moment the night before to not get too carried away.
As many of us have suggested ever since Trump came down that golden escalator to announce his presidential bid, the man rarely does anything without calculating the pros and cons of the situation. When he sets a particular tone during an appearance, it’s done to produce a response. The majority of the time, he takes a combative stance, tearing into his opponents with abandon. He does that because he knows that’s what keeps his base fired up. Trump was largely elected by people who were sick of the same vanilla politicians from both parties reciting carefully measured and focus-group-tested lines that sound like come from a high school drama club play. His base wanted a fighter and that’s what he delivers.
This has led many of his MSM detractors to conclude that the acerbic, combative person they see on Twitter is the real, one and only Donald Trump. But the man has been figuring out how to play people and work a crowd for a long time. In show biz terms, he knows how to read a room. In this case, the “room” in question is the whole country, if not the entire world.
Trump was in the middle of telling people something they didn’t want to hear. A staggering number of Americans will likely not survive this pandemic until the point where we finally have an effective antiviral treatment or a vaccine ready for mass distribution. That doomed cohort will include some of the people who watched the President deliver those remarks or at least friends or family members of theirs. Few will emerge unscathed in some way or another.
It’s a moment like that when even the President’s most ardent, “in your face,” own the libs base of supporters would be looking for a bit of common cause. The moment called for a leader who was capable of delivering harsh truths while simultaneously expressing compassion and hope. And that’s what Donald Trump had to project, so he did. This isn’t some sort of reborn Trump 2.0. He’s been doing this all along. He’s just good enough at it that many in the press didn’t get it.
But don’t worry, media wonks. He’ll be back on Twitter delivering some scathing shots in no time. (Most likely at you.)


hotair--2020-04-01--TX Gov:  Churches can stay open, deemed essential services

As we all navigate the great hunkering down of America , churches are struggling to manage the balance of spiritual needs of worshippers while abiding by orders put in place about social distancing .
Texas Governor Greg Abbott seems to have struck a decent compromise .
Tuesday Governor Abbott issued an order to re-open churches .
Churches are have been deemed essential services and are therefore exempt from county-level bans like the one issued by Harris County Judge Hildalgo .
During a news conference in Austin , Abbott carefully avoided describing his latest executive order as a shelter-in-place or stay-at-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confusion about the order – people are still free to go out and purchase necessities like groceries and medicine but social distancing measures must be observed .
So , where does this leave churches and houses of worship ?
In this case , Governor Abbott is not closing churches but he is asking that services be conducted , if at all possible , remotely .
If that isn ’ t possible , he asks that churches that do offer services use the precautions put forward by medical experts – including the use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use for Easter Sunday services .
Worshippers remain in their car and this satisfies the distance requirement of social distancing .
Also , during the press conference , Abbott placed Texans under an additional thirty-day statewide standard of staying home except for essential services and activities .
Schools are ordered to remain closed until May 4 .
These decisions bring Texas up to nationwide standards being adhered to by other states , he said .
The exemption of churches as an essential service is not in the federal guidelines .
“ States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even some that use ‘ shelter-in-place ’ are very close to ours , which is , if you had to put a label on it , it would be ‘ essential services and activities only , ' ” Abbott said , drawing parallels between Texas and even New York , the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States .
“ If you ’ re not engaged in an essential service or activity , then you need to be at home for the purpose of slowing the spread of COVID-19.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a dozen sectors that provide essential services that comply with Abbott ’ s order , which is largely aligned with federal guidance on the issue .
Those include health care , energy , food and critical manufacturing .
Texas ’ list adds religious services , which are not included in federal guidance .
The order goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and lasts until April 30 , aligning it with the new end date that President Donald Trump announced Monday for social-distancing guidelines .
The coronavirus outbreak in Texas is expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be surprised if schools open at all before the fall semester begins after the traditional summer break .
This new order revises an order Abbott issued on March 19 .
That order put an end to gatherings of more than 10 people and minimizing exposure to anyone other than household members .
Since then , Abbott has felt the pressure brought by the Texas Hospital Association and Texas Nurses Association calling for a statewide shelter-at-home order .
Last week , 65 out of 67 Texas House Democrats called for the same order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s latest order but of course , there are those who are more interested in criticizing the governor ’ s response to the coronavirus crisis than issuing productive statements .
Never let a crisis go to waste .
One such claim is that Abbott “ mishandled ” the crisis and is “ endangering ” lives .
So , if a church offers normally scheduled services , social distancing guidelines must be followed .
Worshippers have to be six feet apart , which limits the number of people that will be allowed to participate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches are providing “ family pews ” for a family to occupy together , which I assume are sheltering at home together .
Will churches begin to conduct services , though ?
Most have the capacity to hold services online these days .
Just because they can doesn ’ t mean they should hold services as normal , right ?
Pastors are coming forward and pointing to emphasis on protecting parishioners by carrying on as though the church is closed for now .
David Duncan , pastor of Houston ’ s Memorial Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s recognition of the “ importance of religion.
” But he added , “ The second greatest command is to love our neighbors as ourselves .
For me , at this moment , the way I love my neighbor is by giving them physical distance.
” “ We will continue doing what we have been doing , ” said Mike Miller , pastor of Central Baptist Church in Jacksonville .
“ Gathering crowds in any way that would make 6-foot separation impossible is not acting responsibly.
” After the March 19 order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , some religious leaders and conservative activists in Harris County ( Houston and surrounding areas ) questioned the constitutionality of such an order .
They objected to closing churches and Abbott ’ s failure to include gun stores as essential services .
They filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus claiming that Harris County Judge Hildalgo ’ s order to close churches “ undercuts the First Amendment by limiting religious and worship services to video or teleconference calls.
” Hildago issued her order on March 24 for non-essential businesses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from chief executives at the Texas Medical Center called for her to do so .
As I said , just because the churches can now open doesn ’ t mean they should open to services for larger groups of people .
I know people depend on the fellowship with other church members for comfort and strength offered in everyday life but there is nothing normal about what is happening right now .
Why risk it ?
Maybe it ’ s just how I ’ m approaching it but staying home now to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense .
Especially as we are told that the worst is still yet to come , the risk outweighs the inconvenience .

As we all navigate the great hunkering down of America, churches are struggling to manage the balance of spiritual needs of worshippers while abiding by orders put in place about social distancing. Texas Governor Greg Abbott seems to have struck a decent compromise.
Tuesday Governor Abbott issued an order to re-open churches. Churches are have been deemed essential services and are therefore exempt from county-level bans like the one issued by Harris County Judge Hildalgo. During a news conference in Austin, Abbott carefully avoided describing his latest executive order as a shelter-in-place or stay-at-home order. He doesn’t want confusion about the order – people are still free to go out and purchase necessities like groceries and medicine but social distancing measures must be observed. So, where does this leave churches and houses of worship? In this case, Governor Abbott is not closing churches but he is asking that services be conducted, if at all possible, remotely. If that isn’t possible, he asks that churches that do offer services use the precautions put forward by medical experts – including the use of drive-up services which some churches are planning to use for Easter Sunday services. Worshippers remain in their car and this satisfies the distance requirement of social distancing.
Also, during the press conference, Abbott placed Texans under an additional thirty-day statewide standard of staying home except for essential services and activities. Schools are ordered to remain closed until May 4. These decisions bring Texas up to nationwide standards being adhered to by other states, he said. The exemption of churches as an essential service is not in the federal guidelines.
“States that have adopted ‘stay-at-home’ policies or even some that use ‘shelter-in-place’ are very close to ours, which is, if you had to put a label on it, it would be ‘essential services and activities only,'” Abbott said, drawing parallels between Texas and even New York, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States. “If you’re not engaged in an essential service or activity, then you need to be at home for the purpose of slowing the spread of COVID-19.” The state has outlined a list of more than a dozen sectors that provide essential services that comply with Abbott’s order, which is largely aligned with federal guidance on the issue. Those include health care, energy, food and critical manufacturing. Texas’ list adds religious services, which are not included in federal guidance. The order goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and lasts until April 30, aligning it with the new end date that President Donald Trump announced Monday for social-distancing guidelines.
The coronavirus outbreak in Texas is expected to peak on May 5. I will be surprised if schools open at all before the fall semester begins after the traditional summer break.
This new order revises an order Abbott issued on March 19. That order put an end to gatherings of more than 10 people and minimizing exposure to anyone other than household members. Since then, Abbott has felt the pressure brought by the Texas Hospital Association and Texas Nurses Association calling for a statewide shelter-at-home order. Last week, 65 out of 67 Texas House Democrats called for the same order. Most Democrats approved of Abbott’s latest order but of course, there are those who are more interested in criticizing the governor’s response to the coronavirus crisis than issuing productive statements. Never let a crisis go to waste. One such claim is that Abbott “mishandled” the crisis and is “endangering” lives.
So, if a church offers normally scheduled services, social distancing guidelines must be followed. Worshippers have to be six feet apart, which limits the number of people that will be allowed to participate. I’ve read that some churches are providing “family pews” for a family to occupy together, which I assume are sheltering at home together.
Will churches begin to conduct services, though? Most have the capacity to hold services online these days. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should hold services as normal, right? Pastors are coming forward and pointing to emphasis on protecting parishioners by carrying on as though the church is closed for now.
David Duncan, pastor of Houston’s Memorial Church of Christ, said he appreciates Abbott’s recognition of the “importance of religion.” But he added, “The second greatest command is to love our neighbors as ourselves. For me, at this moment, the way I love my neighbor is by giving them physical distance.” “We will continue doing what we have been doing,” said Mike Miller, pastor of Central Baptist Church in Jacksonville. “Gathering crowds in any way that would make 6-foot separation impossible is not acting responsibly.”
After the March 19 order, the one limiting gatherings to 10 people, some religious leaders and conservative activists in Harris County (Houston and surrounding areas) questioned the constitutionality of such an order. They objected to closing churches and Abbott’s failure to include gun stores as essential services. They filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus claiming that Harris County Judge Hildalgo’s order to close churches “undercuts the First Amendment by limiting religious and worship services to video or teleconference calls.” Hildago issued her order on March 24 for non-essential businesses to close. She did so after pressure from chief executives at the Texas Medical Center called for her to do so.
As I said, just because the churches can now open doesn’t mean they should open to services for larger groups of people. I know people depend on the fellowship with other church members for comfort and strength offered in everyday life but there is nothing normal about what is happening right now. Why risk it? Maybe it’s just how I’m approaching it but staying home now to stop the spread of the coronavirus just makes sense. Especially as we are told that the worst is still yet to come, the risk outweighs the inconvenience.


hotair--2020-04-01--An antibody "cure" for COVID-19? Scientist thinks his team may have one

As I understand it , there are three potential pharmaceutical defenses to COVID-19 ( or any other virus ) .
One is a vaccine , the holy grail , which durably prevents infection .
The second is antiviral medication , to treat those who ’ ve already been infected .
The third is antibody therapy , which can be used either to prevent infection or to treat those who are sick .
The bad news with antibody therapy is that it ’ s not durable like a vaccine ; the antibodies degrade after a period of weeks or months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the easiest of the three defenses to develop .
Because antibodies are produced by human beings , there ’ s less risk of side effects in treating people with them .
They can be brought to market sooner .
Jacob Glanville is a biologist who specializes in the immune system .
He was featured in timely new Netflix documentary “ Pandemic ” for his work on flu vaccines .
I ’ m wary of promoting scientists touting miracle cures for coronavirus ever since Tucker Carlson gave some airtime to that French study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not so solid methodologically .
But based on his bio , Glanville seems legit .
What he describes in the interview below is exactly the sort of thing Scott Gottlieb ’ s been calling for as the first big step in turning the tide on COVID-19 .
Right now we ’ re stuck with mass social distancing to fight the virus because we lack any pharmaceutical weapons against it .
Antibody/serological treatments will probably be that first weapon unless we luck out with hydroxychloroquine after all .
Lots of people are working on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report today in Reuters , in fact , that Chinese scientists have isolated more than 200 different antibodies from the plasma of people who ’ ve recovered from coronavirus that appear to show a “ strong ” ability to bind with the virus ’ s proteins .
Among the first 20 antibodies tested , they ’ ve already found two that are “ exceedingly good ” at blocking the virus ’ s ability to enter cells .
Glanville ’ s approach was different .
Instead of isolating COVID-19 antibodies , he and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they already had on the shelf .
That was logical : SARS and the new coronavirus are related genetically , so they figured that tweaking the SARS antibodies via mutations might quickly produce antibodies that are effective against COVID-19 .
And they were right , if you believe Glanville : If I understand him correctly in the clip below , the antibodies his team has developed essentially block the doorway into human cells “ extremely tightly with high affinity.
” There ’ s no way for the virus to get in and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dose given to someone who ’ s already infected would begin working within 20 minutes to shut down the spread of the virus .
It could also be given to doctors and nurses as a prophylaxis , a sort of ersatz vaccine while the world waits for the real thing .
By his estimate , one dose could provide protection for something like eight to 10 weeks .
If that ’ s true , and if enough doses can be manufactured quickly , it ’ s a major game-changer .
But it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Glanville is to send the antibodies to the military for testing against the virus itself .
( He and his team don ’ t keep samples of SARS or COVID-19 in their labs . )
If it looks effective , human trials might begin by July .
If those are promising , the therapy could be available to the public on a “ compassionate use ” basis by September .
Five months is a long time to wait under the circumstances , but you can see why Anthony Fauci is more optimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak this fall .
If treatments like this succeed , and if production ramps up over the summer while the results of human trials are pending , a second outbreak could be ground to a halt before it ever develops momentum .
We ’ d be done with lockdowns .
Fingers crossed .

As I understand it, there are three potential pharmaceutical defenses to COVID-19 (or any other virus). One is a vaccine, the holy grail, which durably prevents infection. The second is antiviral medication, to treat those who’ve already been infected. The third is antibody therapy, which can be used either to prevent infection or to treat those who are sick. The bad news with antibody therapy is that it’s not durable like a vaccine; the antibodies degrade after a period of weeks or months. The good news is that it’s the easiest of the three defenses to develop. Because antibodies are produced by human beings, there’s less risk of side effects in treating people with them. They can be brought to market sooner.
Jacob Glanville is a biologist who specializes in the immune system. He was featured in timely new Netflix documentary “Pandemic” for his work on flu vaccines. I’m wary of promoting scientists touting miracle cures for coronavirus ever since Tucker Carlson gave some airtime to that French study on hydroxychloroquine which turned out to be not so solid methodologically. But based on his bio, Glanville seems legit. What he describes in the interview below is exactly the sort of thing Scott Gottlieb’s been calling for as the first big step in turning the tide on COVID-19. Right now we’re stuck with mass social distancing to fight the virus because we lack any pharmaceutical weapons against it. Antibody/serological treatments will probably be that first weapon unless we luck out with hydroxychloroquine after all.
Lots of people are working on antibody treatments. There’s a report today in Reuters, in fact, that Chinese scientists have isolated more than 200 different antibodies from the plasma of people who’ve recovered from coronavirus that appear to show a “strong” ability to bind with the virus’s proteins. Among the first 20 antibodies tested, they’ve already found two that are “exceedingly good” at blocking the virus’s ability to enter cells. Glanville’s approach was different. Instead of isolating COVID-19 antibodies, he and his team studied antibodies that repelled SARS, which they already had on the shelf. That was logical: SARS and the new coronavirus are related genetically, so they figured that tweaking the SARS antibodies via mutations might quickly produce antibodies that are effective against COVID-19.
And they were right, if you believe Glanville:
If I understand him correctly in the clip below, the antibodies his team has developed essentially block the doorway into human cells “extremely tightly with high affinity.” There’s no way for the virus to get in and start replicating. He believes that a dose given to someone who’s already infected would begin working within 20 minutes to shut down the spread of the virus. It could also be given to doctors and nurses as a prophylaxis, a sort of ersatz vaccine while the world waits for the real thing. By his estimate, one dose could provide protection for something like eight to 10 weeks. If that’s true, and if enough doses can be manufactured quickly, it’s a major game-changer.
But it’s a process. The next step for Glanville is to send the antibodies to the military for testing against the virus itself. (He and his team don’t keep samples of SARS or COVID-19 in their labs.) If it looks effective, human trials might begin by July. If those are promising, the therapy could be available to the public on a “compassionate use” basis by September. Five months is a long time to wait under the circumstances, but you can see why Anthony Fauci is more optimistic about containing the second wave of the outbreak this fall. If treatments like this succeed, and if production ramps up over the summer while the results of human trials are pending, a second outbreak could be ground to a halt before it ever develops momentum. We’d be done with lockdowns. Fingers crossed.


hotair--2020-04-01--Trump: China's official coronavirus death toll data seems to be a little on the light side

He ’ s really pulling his punches here .
Yes , they ’ re cooking their books on their virus death toll , he suggests .
But he claims the White House hasn ’ t received any intelligence reports to that effect , which is not what Bloomberg says .
And he ’ s sanguine about his relationship with Xi Jinping , never mind the plague China gifted us with and the lies they told leading us to believe this wouldn ’ t be as dangerous as it proved to be .
He was asked too about China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outbreak and was pretty chill about that as well : It was a spokesman for China ’ s foreign ministry that elevated the “ blame America ” theory of the virus .
The claim had been circulating on Chinese social media for weeks , doubtless with the consent of state censors .
It ’ s not like some random Chinese official went rogue and started pushing a message that Beijing opposed .
Chinese officials who go rogue tend to disappear .
The president ’ s being extremely diplomatic here .
I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return .
And by valuable , I mean something more than Xi agreeing not to cut off our supplies of pharmaceuticals and protective equipment provided the White House has only kind things to say about him publicly .
There ’ s news elsewhere today that another coronavirus hot spot may be grossly underreporting its death toll .
Not because they ’ re trying to cover it up , though .
It ’ s because there are simply too many bodies to test .
The Wall Street Journal compared deaths in different parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March of this year , when the epidemic was raging .
Then it compared the difference between those two months to the number of officially reported Italian coronavirus deaths .
There are gaps .
Big ones .
Nowhere in Italy has been harder hit than Bergamo , a city of about 120,000 people .
In March 2019 , 125 people died in the city .
This March , 553 people died .
Of these , 201 deaths were officially attributed to the virus .
This leaves 352 further deaths for the period , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wider Bergamo province , which comprises the city and more than 240 small towns and has a total population of 1.1 million , 2,060 people died in March from the virus , according to the official count .
But some 4,500 more people died in the province in March than a year earlier , according to a new joint study by the local Eco di Bergamo newspaper and research firm InTwig that took data from 91 towns in the province .
In both cases , unexplained excess deaths are far larger than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by the virus .
What does that mean ?
For starters , it means our confidence that the general fatality rate for COVID-19 is something like 0.5 percent needs to be rethought .
Italy ’ s data is the best available right now but Italy is clearly undercounting because they just don ’ t have the time and resources to test every body .
There may be many more coronavirus deaths than we think — possibly twice as many or more , if the Bergamo numbers are representative .
Complicating matters further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all unexplained excess deaths are due to coronavirus .
In some cases , especially older patients , it may be that they died of unrelated causes that could have been treated if Italian hospitals were able to see them right now .
But they aren ’ t , so people are left to expire before their time .
Here ’ s how bad the situation is : If you ’ re stricken with a minor cardiac episode , in normal times an ambulance might be able to ferry you to the ER before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The resulting death is indirectly due to coronavirus because of how overloaded local hospitals are .
How should that death be categorized ?
And how many deaths of that sort will the U.S. experience when cities start having to cope with what New York City is coping with right now ?
Speaking of the U.S. , not looking great right now : It ’ s not the raw numbers there that matter so much — the U.S. has a big population so of course its daily numbers will be higher — it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Italy and Spain have clearly leveled off in daily new cases whereas we have not .
The trend in daily deaths isn ’ t great either , although Italy ’ s number is obviously complicated by the Wall Street Journal analysis I just described : If you believe the IHME projections , which are similar to the White House ’ s own model , we won ’ t begin to flatten out in this metric for several more weeks .
Peak deaths are expected on April 16 , when we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
That ’ s up from yesterday , when the projection was on the order of 2,200 ; the number of total deaths expected before August 1 is also up substantially in the IHME model , from around 83,000 yesterday to 93,000 today .
Things have turned grimmer in the past 24 hours than they were .
And they were plenty grim yesterday .

He’s really pulling his punches here. Yes, they’re cooking their books on their virus death toll, he suggests. But he claims the White House hasn’t received any intelligence reports to that effect, which is not what Bloomberg says. And he’s sanguine about his relationship with Xi Jinping, never mind the plague China gifted us with and the lies they told leading us to believe this wouldn’t be as dangerous as it proved to be.
President Trump says China's numbers on coronavirus cases "seem to be a little bit on the light side — and I'm being nice when I say that" https://t.co/4HegAdYLw7 pic.twitter.com/WF6bvwy0Ny — CBS News (@CBSNews) April 1, 2020
He was asked too about China’s recent propaganda falsely blaming the U.S. for the outbreak and was pretty chill about that as well:
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1245471792912875520
It was a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry that elevated the “blame America” theory of the virus. The claim had been circulating on Chinese social media for weeks, doubtless with the consent of state censors. It’s not like some random Chinese official went rogue and started pushing a message that Beijing opposed. Chinese officials who go rogue tend to disappear.
The president’s being extremely diplomatic here. I hope we’re getting something valuable in return. And by valuable, I mean something more than Xi agreeing not to cut off our supplies of pharmaceuticals and protective equipment provided the White House has only kind things to say about him publicly.
There’s news elsewhere today that another coronavirus hot spot may be grossly underreporting its death toll. Not because they’re trying to cover it up, though. It’s because there are simply too many bodies to test. The Wall Street Journal compared deaths in different parts of Italy in March of last year and March of this year, when the epidemic was raging. Then it compared the difference between those two months to the number of officially reported Italian coronavirus deaths. There are gaps. Big ones.
Nowhere in Italy has been harder hit than Bergamo, a city of about 120,000 people. In March 2019, 125 people died in the city. This March, 553 people died. Of these, 201 deaths were officially attributed to the virus. This leaves 352 further deaths for the period, far higher than normal. In the wider Bergamo province, which comprises the city and more than 240 small towns and has a total population of 1.1 million, 2,060 people died in March from the virus, according to the official count. But some 4,500 more people died in the province in March than a year earlier, according to a new joint study by the local Eco di Bergamo newspaper and research firm InTwig that took data from 91 towns in the province.
In both cases, unexplained excess deaths are far larger than the number of deaths known to have been caused by the virus. What does that mean? For starters, it means our confidence that the general fatality rate for COVID-19 is something like 0.5 percent needs to be rethought. Italy’s data is the best available right now but Italy is clearly undercounting because they just don’t have the time and resources to test every body. There may be many more coronavirus deaths than we think — possibly twice as many or more, if the Bergamo numbers are representative. Complicating matters further, we can’t assume that all unexplained excess deaths are due to coronavirus. In some cases, especially older patients, it may be that they died of unrelated causes that could have been treated if Italian hospitals were able to see them right now. But they aren’t, so people are left to expire before their time. Here’s how bad the situation is:
An added problem is that 20% of Bergamo’s family doctors have been infected—and those still working only consult with patients over the phone. The local health service has responded to the high infection rate among family doctors by instituting teams of three to four doctors that make house calls in full protective gear. But with only eight teams for all of Bergamo, and each team able to make only about eight visits a day, many people don’t receive care.
If you’re stricken with a minor cardiac episode, in normal times an ambulance might be able to ferry you to the ER before it turns critical. Not now. The resulting death is indirectly due to coronavirus because of how overloaded local hospitals are. How should that death be categorized? And how many deaths of that sort will the U.S. experience when cities start having to cope with what New York City is coping with right now?
Speaking of the U.S., not looking great right now:
NEW: Wed 1 April update of coronavirus trajectories First, daily new cases (rather than yesterday’s weekly version) One of these is not like the others. Many outbreaks are slowing but in the US every day brings more new cases than the last Live charts: https://t.co/JxVd2cG7KI pic.twitter.com/Y7xRxvVde7 — John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) April 1, 2020
It’s not the raw numbers there that matter so much — the U.S. has a big population so of course its daily numbers will be higher — it’s the fact that European hot zones like Italy and Spain have clearly leveled off in daily new cases whereas we have not.
The trend in daily deaths isn’t great either, although Italy’s number is obviously complicated by the Wall Street Journal analysis I just described:
Now onto *daily new deaths*:
• Daily death tolls flattening in Italy & Spain: each new day brings fewer deaths
• But in UK & US the death toll is accelerating. More dead every day than the last, and rate of increase also rising Live charts: https://t.co/JxVd2cG7KI pic.twitter.com/AvvbATk5sc — John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) April 1, 2020
If you believe the IHME projections, which are similar to the White House’s own model, we won’t begin to flatten out in this metric for several more weeks. Peak deaths are expected on April 16, when we’re expected to hit … 2,600 in a day. That’s up from yesterday, when the projection was on the order of 2,200; the number of total deaths expected before August 1 is also up substantially in the IHME model, from around 83,000 yesterday to 93,000 today. Things have turned grimmer in the past 24 hours than they were. And they were plenty grim yesterday.


hotair--2020-04-02--What? Navy fires captain who sent letter pleading for help for sailors infected with coronavirus

A PR catastrophe , one so lamebrained that only government officials could be behind it .
Capt .
Brett Crozier , who commanded the carrier Theodore Roosevelt , was removed from his job after a letter he wrote about the situation on his ship was sent to people outside his chain of command , Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said… On Thursday , Modly said he still didn ’ t know whether Crozier leaked the letter to his hometown newspaper , the San Francisco Chronicle .
But sending it to anyone outside the chain of command , “ who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to get him the help he needed , ” undermined the process , Modly said .
“ For these reasons , I lost confidence in his ability to continue to lead that worship as it fights through this virus to get the crew healthy , ” he added .
“ The official reason for Crozier ’ s relief of duty is a loss of trust and confidence , ” said NBC , citing sources .
Do these people have any grasp how that sounds to the public , much of which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risking his career by sending that letter in the name of saving the lives of his men ?
Yesterday Modly implied that Crozier would only be in trouble if he leaked the letter himself .
Today he ’ s admitting that he still has no evidence that Crozier leaked it , but he ’ s in trouble anyway for facilitating the leak by sending copies of the letter to so many people .
Weirdly , that concern wasn ’ t mentioned yesterday when the chief of naval operations was assuring reporters that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrat Jackie Speier , a member of the House Armed Services Committee , raised a fair point .
Maybe Crozier feared that the Navy wouldn ’ t take his plea for relief for infected sailors seriously unless the public got wind of it .
“ For this captain to come forward and do what he did up the chain of command , he should be heralded as a hero , and I ’ m sure they ’ re already finding ways to undermine because that ’ s what the military does , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat who chairs the military personnel subcommittee .
“ The fact of the matter is had ( the letter ) not been leaked , more lives would have been affected.
” Yeah , I ’ m keen to know how many requests for help Crozier made privately about the deteriorating situation on the Theodore Roosevelt before his letter ended up in the San Francisco Chronicle .
Watch Modly below during his press conference today and you ’ ll have the impression that the Navy was all over this , fully in agreement with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aboard needed to be quarantined on shore and working earnestly to provide facilities .
To believe that , you need to believe that Crozier deliberately risked having the letter leak by circulating it among 20-30 people for … no reason whatsoever .
He just sent it around , knowing how it might embarrass his superiors , not because the situation was desperate but because that ’ s just the kind of guy he is .
I ’ m eager to see more reporting on just how receptive the Navy actually was behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter leaked .
I hope Modly ’ s telling the truth because he has a political problem now .
The House Armed Service Committee leadership agrees that Crozier shouldn ’ t have gone outside the chain of command but firing him despite his good intentions in acting in the best interests of his sailors is way out of bounds : Why didn ’ t they just discipline him ?
The most tone-deaf thing about dropping the hammer on Crozier is that it comes just a few months after Trump went on that clemency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Clint Lorance .
If you ’ re an accused or even a convicted war criminal , you can expect the commander-in-chief to go to bat for you .
If you ’ re an officer who ’ s desperate because his crew is being swallowed by a deadly virus and you cc too many people on your report about it , you ’ re publicly disgraced by being immediately relieved of command .
What garbage leadership we have .

A PR catastrophe, one so lamebrained that only government officials could be behind it.
Capt. Brett Crozier, who commanded the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, was removed from his job after a letter he wrote about the situation on his ship was sent to people outside his chain of command, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said… On Thursday, Modly said he still didn’t know whether Crozier leaked the letter to his hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle. But sending it to anyone outside the chain of command, “who had been moving and adjusting as rapidly as possible to get him the help he needed,” undermined the process, Modly said. “For these reasons, I lost confidence in his ability to continue to lead that worship as it fights through this virus to get the crew healthy,” he added.
“The official reason for Crozier’s relief of duty is a loss of trust and confidence,” said NBC, citing sources. Do these people have any grasp how that sounds to the public, much of which is destined to consider Crozier a hero for risking his career by sending that letter in the name of saving the lives of his men?
Yesterday Modly implied that Crozier would only be in trouble if he leaked the letter himself. Today he’s admitting that he still has no evidence that Crozier leaked it, but he’s in trouble anyway for facilitating the leak by sending copies of the letter to so many people. Weirdly, that concern wasn’t mentioned yesterday when the chief of naval operations was assuring reporters that there’d be no retaliation against Crozier.
Democrat Jackie Speier, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, raised a fair point. Maybe Crozier feared that the Navy wouldn’t take his plea for relief for infected sailors seriously unless the public got wind of it.
“For this captain to come forward and do what he did up the chain of command, he should be heralded as a hero, and I’m sure they’re already finding ways to undermine because that’s what the military does,” said Speier, a San Mateo Democrat who chairs the military personnel subcommittee. “The fact of the matter is had (the letter) not been leaked, more lives would have been affected.”
Yeah, I’m keen to know how many requests for help Crozier made privately about the deteriorating situation on the Theodore Roosevelt before his letter ended up in the San Francisco Chronicle. Watch Modly below during his press conference today and you’ll have the impression that the Navy was all over this, fully in agreement with Crozier from the start that the sailors aboard needed to be quarantined on shore and working earnestly to provide facilities. To believe that, you need to believe that Crozier deliberately risked having the letter leak by circulating it among 20-30 people for … no reason whatsoever. He just sent it around, knowing how it might embarrass his superiors, not because the situation was desperate but because that’s just the kind of guy he is.
I’m eager to see more reporting on just how receptive the Navy actually was behind the scenes to his quarantine request before the letter leaked. I hope Modly’s telling the truth because he has a political problem now. The House Armed Service Committee leadership agrees that Crozier shouldn’t have gone outside the chain of command but firing him despite his good intentions in acting in the best interests of his sailors is way out of bounds:
Why didn’t they just discipline him?
The most tone-deaf thing about dropping the hammer on Crozier is that it comes just a few months after Trump went on that clemency spree for the likes of Eddie Gallagher and Clint Lorance. If you’re an accused or even a convicted war criminal, you can expect the commander-in-chief to go to bat for you. If you’re an officer who’s desperate because his crew is being swallowed by a deadly virus and you cc too many people on your report about it, you’re publicly disgraced by being immediately relieved of command. What garbage leadership we have.


hotair--2020-04-02--Some coronavirus patients display neurological symptoms

In case you needed one more thing to worry about .
Until I read this article at the NY Times I was under the impression the impact of the coronavirus was limited to clogging up people ’ s lungs , often seriously enough that they needed the help of machines to breath .
But it turns out doctors around the world have also seen a subset of coronavirus patients who experience serious mental problems .
The exact mechanism for this is still unknown but it ’ s pretty frightening that the first symptom of the virus some people experience isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In early March , a 74-year-old man came to the emergency room in Boca Raton , Fla. , with a cough and a fever , but an X-ray ruled out pneumonia and he was sent home .
The next day , when his fever spiked , family members brought him back .
He was short of breath , and could not tell doctors his name or explain what was wrong — he had lost the ability to speak… On Tuesday , doctors in Detroit reported another disturbing case involving a female airline worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was confused , and complained of a headache ; she could tell the physicians her name but little else , and became less responsive over time .
Brain scans showed abnormal swelling and inflammation in several regions , with smaller areas where some cells had died .
The Detroit Free Press published a story about the woman ’ s case yesterday .
It notes that she had coughs and aches for several days before she was taken to the hospital and diagnosed .
But the Times cites two studies suggesting more seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these symptoms : [ A ] Chinese study in February said that about 15 percent of those patients with severe illness experienced a change in mental status , compared with 2.4 percent of those who did not have severe illness , according to that study .
Another study , published in the British Medical Journal in late March , found that of 113 patients from Wuhan who died of Covid-19 , 22 percent had experienced disorders of consciousness , ranging from somnolence to deep coma , compared with only 1 percent of another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness .
However , another example given in the story involves four “ elderly patients ” who came to a hospital in Connecticut complaining of confusion .
All four tested positive for coronavirus but only two of them ever needed oxygen .
This may be an exception to the rule but it is apparently possible that you can have coronavirus and the most serious symptom can be related to your brain rather than your lungs .
It ’ s worth noting that the unusual cases described in this story mostly involve older patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years old .
The man in Florida was 74 .
So this appears to be further proof the coronavirus is especially dangerous to the health of older people .
This report from Taiwan dated March 9 mentions two additional cases of coronavirus related encephalitis , one in China and one in Japan .

In case you needed one more thing to worry about. Until I read this article at the NY Times I was under the impression the impact of the coronavirus was limited to clogging up people’s lungs, often seriously enough that they needed the help of machines to breath. But it turns out doctors around the world have also seen a subset of coronavirus patients who experience serious mental problems. The exact mechanism for this is still unknown but it’s pretty frightening that the first symptom of the virus some people experience isn’t a cough but confusion:
In early March, a 74-year-old man came to the emergency room in Boca Raton, Fla., with a cough and a fever, but an X-ray ruled out pneumonia and he was sent home. The next day, when his fever spiked, family members brought him back. He was short of breath, and could not tell doctors his name or explain what was wrong — he had lost the ability to speak… On Tuesday, doctors in Detroit reported another disturbing case involving a female airline worker in her late 50s with Covid-19. She was confused, and complained of a headache; she could tell the physicians her name but little else, and became less responsive over time. Brain scans showed abnormal swelling and inflammation in several regions, with smaller areas where some cells had died.
The Detroit Free Press published a story about the woman’s case yesterday. It notes that she had coughs and aches for several days before she was taken to the hospital and diagnosed. But the Times cites two studies suggesting more seriously ill patients are more likely to display these symptoms:
[A] Chinese study in February said that about 15 percent of those patients with severe illness experienced a change in mental status, compared with 2.4 percent of those who did not have severe illness, according to that study. Another study, published in the British Medical Journal in late March, found that of 113 patients from Wuhan who died of Covid-19, 22 percent had experienced disorders of consciousness, ranging from somnolence to deep coma, compared with only 1 percent of another group of patients who recovered from the illness.
However, another example given in the story involves four “elderly patients” who came to a hospital in Connecticut complaining of confusion. All four tested positive for coronavirus but only two of them ever needed oxygen. This may be an exception to the rule but it is apparently possible that you can have coronavirus and the most serious symptom can be related to your brain rather than your lungs.
It’s worth noting that the unusual cases described in this story mostly involve older patients. The woman in Detroit was 58 years old. The man in Florida was 74. So this appears to be further proof the coronavirus is especially dangerous to the health of older people.
This report from Taiwan dated March 9 mentions two additional cases of coronavirus related encephalitis, one in China and one in Japan.


hotair--2020-04-02--Trump admin will soon announce: It's time to mask up, America

A good call .
It ’ s late , but you know America ’ s motto when it comes to coronavirus .
From testing to travel bans to lockdowns to ventilators : Better late than never .
I ’ m gon na get me one of those neck gaiters with a print of a skeleton jaw that pulls up around the nose and mouth .
If we ’ ve got to cover up when we go outside to walk with death , might as well look the part .
I made the case for masks a few days ago in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come today or tomorrow , but it ’ s coming .
White House coronavirus task force officials have been considering whether to recommend that face coverings be routinely worn in public because of increasing evidence that infected people without symptoms can spread the virus , according to internal memos and new guidance provided to the White House by the CDC… The recommendations represent a major change in official CDC guidance that healthy people don ’ t need masks or face coverings .
The memos and guidance make clear the coverings under discussion are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respirators or surgical face masks , which are needed by front-line health-care workers and are in extremely short supply .
Those must continue to be reserved for health-care workers and other first responders , they say… Simple cloth masks that cover the mouth and nose can prevent virus transmission from individuals who are infected but have no symptoms when they are out buying groceries , the guidance states .
It makes clear the cloth covering is not intended to protect the wearer , but to prevent the spread of the virus from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two essential points to communicate .
There ’ s lots of heavy breathing about how masks are foreign to American culture , which is true , but I think the culture will adapt quickly as masks become quasi-mandatory and then de rigueur .
We ’ ll all feel weird the first time or two we put one on and then it ’ ll quickly become a “ fine , I guess we ’ re doing this until further notice ” thing .
The main obstacle to wearing them , I suspect , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbol of fear .
No one wants to walk around signaling that they ’ re afraid .
That ’ s why the point about protection is so important : The mask isn ’ t for the benefit of the wearer , because he fears infection , but for the benefit of those around him .
The other point , that asymptomatic people are transmitting this virus , is also key since , er , even some governors seemed to have grasped it only recently .
The more people understand that the appearance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no assurance that someone you ’ re with is uninfected , the more precautions they ’ ll take .
The White House was told last night that mere breathing in close quarters is enough to transmit the virus via aerosolized droplets .
A mask is the only defense in a situation like that .
Three doctors writing today for the Times offered these numbers in support of a national mask policy : Scientists are not completely sure of all the ways that the Covid-19 virus is transmitted , but in a randomized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use a surgical mask , and did so , were 80 percent less likely to contract respiratory illness… Even if masks don ’ t completely protect each individual , they could considerably reduce the spread of the virus .
Even if the coverings only reduced transmission to and from each wearer by half , that would reduce the chance of spread by 75 percent .
So face coverings could reduce the exponential growth of new infections and avert disaster in America ’ s hot spots .
Because scientists can not rule out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be spread easily in the air , even outdoors , we believe it ’ s most prudent to promote face covering in all public settings .
And to state the obvious , mask wearing and face covering is not a substitute for shelter-in-place , hand-washing and other protective measures .
We ’ ll hear that last point hammered a bunch once Trump and Fauci start rolling this out .
That ’ s been the big fear holding back a formal recommendation , that some idiots will treat mask-wearing as a license to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the rhetorical energy the feds will spend on this subject , I ’ m guessing , will be spent on emphasizing that one isn ’ t a substitute for the other .
They ’ re a package deal ; masks are a force multiplier .
Trump ’ s daily briefing has already begun as I write this at 5:40 p.m .
ET .
I ’ ll update if he comments about masks .
In the meantime , here ’ s a company that claims to have used a 3-D printer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have no idea if that ’ s true but it ’ s a neat concept .

A good call. It’s late, but you know America’s motto when it comes to coronavirus. From testing to travel bans to lockdowns to ventilators: Better late than never.
I’m gonna get me one of those neck gaiters with a print of a skeleton jaw that pulls up around the nose and mouth. If we’ve got to cover up when we go outside to walk with death, might as well look the part.
I made the case for masks a few days ago in this post. The official recommendation may come today or tomorrow, but it’s coming.
White House coronavirus task force officials have been considering whether to recommend that face coverings be routinely worn in public because of increasing evidence that infected people without symptoms can spread the virus, according to internal memos and new guidance provided to the White House by the CDC… The recommendations represent a major change in official CDC guidance that healthy people don’t need masks or face coverings. The memos and guidance make clear the coverings under discussion are not medical masks, such as N95 respirators or surgical face masks, which are needed by front-line health-care workers and are in extremely short supply. Those must continue to be reserved for health-care workers and other first responders, they say… Simple cloth masks that cover the mouth and nose can prevent virus transmission from individuals who are infected but have no symptoms when they are out buying groceries, the guidance states. It makes clear the cloth covering is not intended to protect the wearer, but to prevent the spread of the virus from the wearer to others.
Those are the two essential points to communicate. There’s lots of heavy breathing about how masks are foreign to American culture, which is true, but I think the culture will adapt quickly as masks become quasi-mandatory and then de rigueur. We’ll all feel weird the first time or two we put one on and then it’ll quickly become a “fine, I guess we’re doing this until further notice” thing. The main obstacle to wearing them, I suspect, is the sense that the mask is a symbol of fear. No one wants to walk around signaling that they’re afraid. That’s why the point about protection is so important: The mask isn’t for the benefit of the wearer, because he fears infection, but for the benefit of those around him.
The other point, that asymptomatic people are transmitting this virus, is also key since, er, even some governors seemed to have grasped it only recently. The more people understand that the appearance of health (or a negative test) is no assurance that someone you’re with is uninfected, the more precautions they’ll take. The White House was told last night that mere breathing in close quarters is enough to transmit the virus via aerosolized droplets. A mask is the only defense in a situation like that.
Three doctors writing today for the Times offered these numbers in support of a national mask policy:
Scientists are not completely sure of all the ways that the Covid-19 virus is transmitted, but in a randomized control trial, participants who were told to use a surgical mask, and did so, were 80 percent less likely to contract respiratory illness… Even if masks don’t completely protect each individual, they could considerably reduce the spread of the virus. Even if the coverings only reduced transmission to and from each wearer by half, that would reduce the chance of spread by 75 percent. So face coverings could reduce the exponential growth of new infections and avert disaster in America’s hot spots. Because scientists cannot rule out with complete confidence that this coronavirus can be spread easily in the air, even outdoors, we believe it’s most prudent to promote face covering in all public settings. And to state the obvious, mask wearing and face covering is not a substitute for shelter-in-place, hand-washing and other protective measures.
We’ll hear that last point hammered a bunch once Trump and Fauci start rolling this out. That’s been the big fear holding back a formal recommendation, that some idiots will treat mask-wearing as a license to give up on social distancing. Probably 80 percent of the rhetorical energy the feds will spend on this subject, I’m guessing, will be spent on emphasizing that one isn’t a substitute for the other. They’re a package deal; masks are a force multiplier.
Trump’s daily briefing has already begun as I write this at 5:40 p.m. ET. I’ll update if he comments about masks. In the meantime, here’s a company that claims to have used a 3-D printer to make an effective and reusable face mask. I have no idea if that’s true but it’s a neat concept.


hotair--2020-04-02--The Chinese propaganda war is on hold...for now

Josh Rogin has an interesting column in the Washington Post today .
He says President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping reached a temporary truce on a phone call last week .
In order to appreciate Rogin ’ s take on the call , you need to first see how it was reported earlier this week by the Daily Beast : In a private conversation with President Donald Trump during the rapid acceleration of the coronavirus pandemic , China ’ s leader Xi Jinping went out of his way to deploy one of the most effective diplomatic maneuvers of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a phone call to discuss the international health crisis last week , Xi stressed to Trump how decisive , strong , and successful he feels his U.S. counterpart ’ s public-health and economic responses have been , two U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter said .
The flattery came at a time when Trump was continuing to experience a deluge of criticism for his administration ’ s response to the pandemic .
It also came as some of the American president ’ s most prominent officials were still engaged in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an alleged coronavirus cover-up and to rebrand the illness as the “ Chinese virus ” and the “ Wuhan virus.
” As Rogin sees it , Trump ’ s decision to tone down his response to the Chinese propaganda effort blaming the US for the virus was more practical than personal : There was an interagency decision to push back on claims by Chinese officials that this coronavirus originated in the United States , a necessary but also costly effort… The United States is now in dire need of medical supplies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If China ’ s leaders are willing to stop telling lies about us , we can pause pointing out the most embarrassing truths about them .
But the detente won ’ t last long .
This is chiefly because the coronavirus crisis has revealed that Beijing ’ s propaganda and political interference strategy has entered a new era .
The Chinese government ’ s official public diplomacy organs , large corporations , state-controlled media and a new army of social media bots and trolls are now working in seamless coordination all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ProPublica story published last week .
The site ’ s investigation found thousands of Chinese propaganda accounts on Twitter , some of them hacked out from under the control of real people .
These accounts issue coordinate messages propping up the regime .
Recently that has meant message about China ’ s handling of the coronavirus outbreak : Since August 2019 , ProPublica has tracked more than 10,000 suspected fake Twitter accounts involved in a coordinated influence campaign with ties to the Chinese government .
Among those are the hacked accounts of users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propaganda and disinformation about the coronavirus outbreak , the Hong Kong protests and other topics of state interest .
They included a professor in North Carolina ; a graphic artist and a mother in Massachusetts ; a web designer in the U.K. ; and a business analyst in Australia .
( It is unclear whether the current fake account holders hacked the accounts themselves or purchased them from elsewhere . )
Suspected Chinese operatives have stepped up their efforts in recent days , according to private messages shared with ProPublica , offering influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our examination of an interlocking group of accounts within our data linked the effort to OneSight ( Beijing ) Technology Ltd. , a Beijing-based internet marketing company .
OneSight , records show , held a contract to boost the Twitter following of China News Service , the country ’ s second-largest state-owned news agency .
The news service operates under the United Front Work Department , an arm of the Chinese Communist Party long responsible for influence operations in foreign countries .
OneSight declined to comment and China News Service did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the influence network were consistent with the timing of the government ’ s handling of the epidemic and the themes it was publicly pushing .
Discussions of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan began swirling on Chinese social media in early January , but the network made no mention of it , continuing to criticize the Hong Kong protests and attack political dissidents .
On Jan. 29 , six days after the Chinese central government imposed a lockdown on Wuhan , the influence network suddenly shifted its focus to the coronavirus epidemic .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app that tracked virus-related information .
The announcement was accompanied by a graphic declaring that OneSight would “ transmit the correct voice of China ” to the world .
This kind of coordinated propaganda effort is what the world is now up against .
China is devoting enormous resources to spreading government PR though western social media even as it kicks western media outlets out of the country .
It ’ s also carefully amplifying voices within foreign media that suit its purposes .
The Washington Examiner recently highlighted this video released by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bottom line is that Chinese propaganda is too serious to ignore for long , but in the midst of this crisis , the president has apparently decided a momentary truce is our best option .

Josh Rogin has an interesting column in the Washington Post today. He says President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping reached a temporary truce on a phone call last week. In order to appreciate Rogin’s take on the call, you need to first see how it was reported earlier this week by the Daily Beast:
In a private conversation with President Donald Trump during the rapid acceleration of the coronavirus pandemic, China’s leader Xi Jinping went out of his way to deploy one of the most effective diplomatic maneuvers of the current American era: aggressive flattery. In a phone call to discuss the international health crisis last week, Xi stressed to Trump how decisive, strong, and successful he feels his U.S. counterpart’s public-health and economic responses have been, two U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter said. The flattery came at a time when Trump was continuing to experience a deluge of criticism for his administration’s response to the pandemic. It also came as some of the American president’s most prominent officials were still engaged in a multipronged campaign to castigate the Chinese government for an alleged coronavirus cover-up and to rebrand the illness as the “Chinese virus” and the “Wuhan virus.”
As Rogin sees it, Trump’s decision to tone down his response to the Chinese propaganda effort blaming the US for the virus was more practical than personal:
There was an interagency decision to push back on claims by Chinese officials that this coronavirus originated in the United States, a necessary but also costly effort… The United States is now in dire need of medical supplies, many of which are coming from China. If China’s leaders are willing to stop telling lies about us, we can pause pointing out the most embarrassing truths about them. But the detente won’t last long. This is chiefly because the coronavirus crisis has revealed that Beijing’s propaganda and political interference strategy has entered a new era. The Chinese government’s official public diplomacy organs, large corporations, state-controlled media and a new army of social media bots and trolls are now working in seamless coordination all over the world.
Rogin points to this ProPublica story published last week. The site’s investigation found thousands of Chinese propaganda accounts on Twitter, some of them hacked out from under the control of real people. These accounts issue coordinate messages propping up the regime. Recently that has meant message about China’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak:
Since August 2019, ProPublica has tracked more than 10,000 suspected fake Twitter accounts involved in a coordinated influence campaign with ties to the Chinese government. Among those are the hacked accounts of users from around the world that now post propaganda and disinformation about the coronavirus outbreak, the Hong Kong protests and other topics of state interest. They included a professor in North Carolina; a graphic artist and a mother in Massachusetts; a web designer in the U.K.; and a business analyst in Australia. (It is unclear whether the current fake account holders hacked the accounts themselves or purchased them from elsewhere.) Suspected Chinese operatives have stepped up their efforts in recent days, according to private messages shared with ProPublica, offering influential Chinese-speaking Twitter users cash for favorable posts. Our examination of an interlocking group of accounts within our data linked the effort to OneSight (Beijing) Technology Ltd., a Beijing-based internet marketing company. OneSight, records show, held a contract to boost the Twitter following of China News Service, the country’s second-largest state-owned news agency. The news service operates under the United Front Work Department, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party long responsible for influence operations in foreign countries. OneSight declined to comment and China News Service did not respond to our inquiries… The activities of the influence network were consistent with the timing of the government’s handling of the epidemic and the themes it was publicly pushing. Discussions of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan began swirling on Chinese social media in early January, but the network made no mention of it, continuing to criticize the Hong Kong protests and attack political dissidents. On Jan. 29, six days after the Chinese central government imposed a lockdown on Wuhan, the influence network suddenly shifted its focus to the coronavirus epidemic. That same day, OneSight announced a new app that tracked virus-related information. The announcement was accompanied by a graphic declaring that OneSight would “transmit the correct voice of China” to the world.
This kind of coordinated propaganda effort is what the world is now up against. China is devoting enormous resources to spreading government PR though western social media even as it kicks western media outlets out of the country. It’s also carefully amplifying voices within foreign media that suit its purposes. The Washington Examiner recently highlighted this video released by China’s English language paper:
The US President’s rhetoric in using “Chinese virus” to describe #COVID19, has sparked fierce public criticism from all walks of life in the US. pic.twitter.com/RMljngN7P3 — Global Times (@globaltimesnews) March 23, 2020
The bottom line is that Chinese propaganda is too serious to ignore for long, but in the midst of this crisis, the president has apparently decided a momentary truce is our best option.


hotair--2020-04-02--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Bipartisan dance, coronavirus advance, convention chance, "commission"

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Bipartisan dance, coronavirus advance, convention chance, "commission" expanse, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll discuss the latest coronavirus news , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s first responders , plus chew over Nancy Pelosi ’ s new “ bipartisan ” select committee .
Also , the DNC has postponed their convention — what does that mean , and will we ever see a convention this year ?
• If Adam Schiff gets his way , Congress will push for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Trump administration ’ s coronavirus response .
Andrew C. McCarthy joins us again to explain why this would be just a typical Beltway exercise , and why the 9/11 Commission was overrated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll discuss the latest coronavirus news, including the terrible triage choices left to NYC’s first responders, plus chew over Nancy Pelosi’s new “bipartisan” select committee. Also, the DNC has postponed their convention — what does that mean, and will we ever see a convention this year?
If Adam Schiff gets his way, Congress will push for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Trump administration’s coronavirus response. Andrew C. McCarthy joins us again to explain why this would be just a typical Beltway exercise, and why the 9/11 Commission was overrated in the first place.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-04-02--The coronavirus death toll in Italy is even higher than reported

Officially , the coronavirus death toll in Italy is the highest in the world right now at 13,915 .
Italy has become synonymous with the worst case scenario when discussing the virus , but the Wall Street Journal published a piece yesterday which makes a convincing case the situation is Italy is even worse than it appears .
Italy ’ s worst hit areas have seen hundreds of deaths that were almost certainly caused by the virus but which happened outside a hospital .
Because those people weren ’ t tested and confirmed to have the virus before they died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tally .
In the town of Coccaglio , an hour ’ s drive east of [ Milan ] , the local nursing home lost over a third of its residents in March .
None of the 24 people who died there were tested for the new coronavirus .
Nor were the 38 people who died in another nursing home in the nearby town of Lodi… Nowhere in Italy has been harder hit than Bergamo , a city of about 120,000 people .
In March 2019 , 125 people died in the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of these , 201 deaths were officially attributed to the virus .
This leaves 352 further deaths for the period , far higher than normal .
In the wider Bergamo province , which comprises the city and more than 240 small towns and has a total population of 1.1 million , 2,060 people died in March from the virus , according to the official count .
But some 4,500 more people died in the province in March than a year earlier , according to a new joint study by the local Eco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that took data from 91 towns in the province… “ They are not receiving postmortem tests , ” Eleonora Colombi , a family doctor based near Brescia , says of people who die outside hospitals , such as in nursing homes .
“ Many of those who die and aren ’ t tested are old , but you normally don ’ t have so many people all dying at the same time .
It ’ s corona.
” The WSJ created several graphs to show the difference between the normal death toll in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case ) and what Italy experienced this March .
As you can see by comparing the bottom two bars in this graph , less than half of the excess deaths in the Bergamo region have been officially attributed to the coronavirus .
What all of this means is that the world ’ s worst case scenario may actually be much worse than we know .
But there ’ s almost no chance the exact numbers will ever be known because most of the dead are being cremated as quickly as possible .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back later to determine what caused these deaths .
At some point a more accurate estimate of the actual death toll from the virus will be made but by that point the information will come too late to help other nations gauge their reactions .
Finally , even if we did have more accurate information on the death toll in Italy , we still wouldn ’ t be able to estimate the death rate because we also don ’ t know how many people are infected .
In Italy , the severity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t even being tested .
So both the numerator and the denominator needed to accurately estimate the death rate are known to be inaccurate which is why estimates range from under one percent to much higher .

Officially, the coronavirus death toll in Italy is the highest in the world right now at 13,915. Italy has become synonymous with the worst case scenario when discussing the virus, but the Wall Street Journal published a piece yesterday which makes a convincing case the situation is Italy is even worse than it appears. Italy’s worst hit areas have seen hundreds of deaths that were almost certainly caused by the virus but which happened outside a hospital. Because those people weren’t tested and confirmed to have the virus before they died, they aren’t included in the tally.
In the town of Coccaglio, an hour’s drive east of [Milan], the local nursing home lost over a third of its residents in March. None of the 24 people who died there were tested for the new coronavirus. Nor were the 38 people who died in another nursing home in the nearby town of Lodi… Nowhere in Italy has been harder hit than Bergamo, a city of about 120,000 people. In March 2019, 125 people died in the city. This March, 553 people died. Of these, 201 deaths were officially attributed to the virus. This leaves 352 further deaths for the period, far higher than normal. In the wider Bergamo province, which comprises the city and more than 240 small towns and has a total population of 1.1 million, 2,060 people died in March from the virus, according to the official count. But some 4,500 more people died in the province in March than a year earlier, according to a new joint study by the local Eco di Bergamo newspaper and research firm InTwig that took data from 91 towns in the province… “They are not receiving postmortem tests,” Eleonora Colombi, a family doctor based near Brescia, says of people who die outside hospitals, such as in nursing homes. “Many of those who die and aren’t tested are old, but you normally don’t have so many people all dying at the same time. It’s corona.”
The WSJ created several graphs to show the difference between the normal death toll in a given region (Bergamo in this case) and what Italy experienced this March. As you can see by comparing the bottom two bars in this graph, less than half of the excess deaths in the Bergamo region have been officially attributed to the coronavirus.
What all of this means is that the world’s worst case scenario may actually be much worse than we know. But there’s almost no chance the exact numbers will ever be known because most of the dead are being cremated as quickly as possible. So there may be no way to go back later to determine what caused these deaths.
At some point a more accurate estimate of the actual death toll from the virus will be made but by that point the information will come too late to help other nations gauge their reactions.
Finally, even if we did have more accurate information on the death toll in Italy, we still wouldn’t be able to estimate the death rate because we also don’t know how many people are infected. In Italy, the severity of the outbreak means that people without symptoms aren’t even being tested. So both the numerator and the denominator needed to accurately estimate the death rate are known to be inaccurate which is why estimates range from under one percent to much higher.


hotair--2020-04-02--Pelosi: We're launching a "bipartisan" select committee to oversee coronavirus response -- not inves

Pelosi: We're launching a "bipartisan" select committee to oversee coronavirus response -- not investigate it; Update: Briefing envy?

Or so she says now .
With $ 2.2 trillion in massive relief funds in play , the US needs a robust oversight mechanism for the distribution and efficacy of this historic rescue package .
The question will be whether that is what Nancy Pelosi and James Clyburn have in mind — or whether they will turn it into Adam Schiff ’ s proposed third full-scale investigation into the Trump administration .
Pelosi told reporters that this committee would only focus on “ the here and now , ” but would still need subpoena power in order to conduct effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off bipartisanship in this MSNBC interview discussing her new effort : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday announced the creation of a new bipartisan House select committee on the coronavirus crisis that will exercise oversight of the federal response to the pandemic and be chaired by Majority Whip Jim Clyburn .
The speaker told reporters on a conference call that the committee ’ s immediate focus will be on “ the here and now , ” not the Trump administration ’ s initial response to the pandemic , though she said there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be appropriate .
She said the committee will “ have an expert staff and the committee will be empowered to examine all aspects of the federal response to coronavirus and to ensure that the taxpayers dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent to save lives , deliver relief , and benefit our economy.
” Pelosi said the committee will be able to exercise oversight and would have the authority to issue subpoenas .
Had Pelosi announced this at the time of the bill ’ s passage , it might have seemed like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coming a day after Schiff ’ s announcement of seeking authorization for yet another probe of the White House , that “ here and now ” pledge has to be viewed with some skepticism .
Even if Pelosi is sincere at the moment , Schiff and Jerrold Nadler among others in her caucus will demand that this select committee expand its scope at some point .
The only way to prevent that from happening would be to have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the select committee .
Chances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none .
Normally , that construct would require co-chairs from each party .
Pelosi didn ’ t mention anything of the sort , nor does it appear that she ’ s discussed this idea much with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy : For one thing , McCarthy objects to Clyburn as chair over some of his comments about using the crisis to reorganize government : McCarthy makes a good point .
The CARES Act includes — at Pelosi ’ s demand — independent oversight by IGs : Sounds like McCarthy has his suspicions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door to Schiff ’ s investigatory tool .
One other point McCarthy makes is worth emphasizing — how will this work when the House is adjourned at the very moment when Treasury has to make critical decisions on distribution of aid ?
Pelosi won ’ t have the House return until April 20 , almost three weeks from now .
And while McCarthy told Manu Raju that he missed a call from Pelosi earlier in the morning , why would she announce a “ bipartisan ” effort without first discussing it with McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under the circumstances .
If this is to be truly focused on the here and now in a bipartisan manner , it ’ s not off to a good start .
Update : I must admit this hadn ’ t occurred to me : Pelosi has a daily briefing already , but this would certainly afford an opportunity for the House to counter-program against Trump .
They ’ d have to stay in town to do it , though .

Or so she says now. With $2.2 trillion in massive relief funds in play, the US needs a robust oversight mechanism for the distribution and efficacy of this historic rescue package. The question will be whether that is what Nancy Pelosi and James Clyburn have in mind — or whether they will turn it into Adam Schiff’s proposed third full-scale investigation into the Trump administration.
Pelosi told reporters that this committee would only focus on “the here and now,” but would still need subpoena power in order to conduct effective oversight. Note how well Pelosi carries off bipartisanship in this MSNBC interview discussing her new effort:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday announced the creation of a new bipartisan House select committee on the coronavirus crisis that will exercise oversight of the federal response to the pandemic and be chaired by Majority Whip Jim Clyburn. The speaker told reporters on a conference call that the committee’s immediate focus will be on “the here and now,” not the Trump administration’s initial response to the pandemic, though she said there will come a time when such a review will be appropriate. She said the committee will “have an expert staff and the committee will be empowered to examine all aspects of the federal response to coronavirus and to ensure that the taxpayers dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent to save lives, deliver relief, and benefit our economy.” Pelosi said the committee will be able to exercise oversight and would have the authority to issue subpoenas.
Had Pelosi announced this at the time of the bill’s passage, it might have seemed like a normal follow-up to the CARES Act. Coming a day after Schiff’s announcement of seeking authorization for yet another probe of the White House, that “here and now” pledge has to be viewed with some skepticism. Even if Pelosi is sincere at the moment, Schiff and Jerrold Nadler among others in her caucus will demand that this select committee expand its scope at some point.
The only way to prevent that from happening would be to have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the select committee. Chances of that happening range somewhere between slim and none. Normally, that construct would require co-chairs from each party. Pelosi didn’t mention anything of the sort, nor does it appear that she’s discussed this idea much with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy:
Republicans voiced immediate skepticism about Pelosi’s move to stand up a new select committee. “This seems really redundant,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters on a call following Pelosi’s announcement. McCarthy also expressed “concerns” about how the committee would be created since the House is on a long recess and no one knows when they are coming back given health concerns from the coronavirus. Several lawmakers have tested positive.
For one thing, McCarthy objects to Clyburn as chair over some of his comments about using the crisis to reorganize government:
McCarthy also says he has “a couple concerns” about the new select committee Pelosi announced, criticizing the selection of Clyburn to oversee the panel based on his past comments and saying there’s already enough oversight detailed in the law — Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 2, 2020
McCarthy makes a good point. The CARES Act includes — at Pelosi’s demand — independent oversight by IGs:
The law established a new special inspector general to oversee the Treasury fund, a separate commission appointed by Congress also empowered to monitor that fund, and a Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, comprised of existing inspectors general from multiple agencies, to oversee the entire federal response to the coronavirus.
Sounds like McCarthy has his suspicions about this select committee becoming a back door to Schiff’s investigatory tool. One other point McCarthy makes is worth emphasizing — how will this work when the House is adjourned at the very moment when Treasury has to make critical decisions on distribution of aid? Pelosi won’t have the House return until April 20, almost three weeks from now. And while McCarthy told Manu Raju that he missed a call from Pelosi earlier in the morning, why would she announce a “bipartisan” effort without first discussing it with McCarthy?
The whole idea sounds rather peculiar, under the circumstances. If this is to be truly focused on the here and now in a bipartisan manner, it’s not off to a good start.
Update: I must admit this hadn’t occurred to me:
It's an excuse so they can then have daily pressers themselves disguised as updates. They cant let Trump speak directly to the people. This is like setting up the 9/11 committee when the towers were still burning. Its just for politics. — MayberryParker (@KaiserTruman) April 2, 2020
Pelosi has a daily briefing already, but this would certainly afford an opportunity for the House to counter-program against Trump. They’d have to stay in town to do it, though.