hotair--2020-03-25--Glenn Beck: People like me who are over 50 should go back to work and risk death to save the country

This made me laugh just because of how “ on brand ” it is .
None of the MAGA diehards who ’ ve embraced the idea of getting back to work ASAP are recommending that *older people* lead the way .
Just the opposite .
They want older people to stay home because they ’ re more vulnerable to the disease while younger people return to work , which at least genuflects towards reality .
But Beck has always been a guy to take things one notch higher than everyone else .
Righties of all stripes embraced conservative tea-party populism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
But only one guy was drawing complicated schematics on blackboards on Fox News to show how George Soros was behind all of the world ’ s problems .
That ’ s Beck .
One notch higher .
So of course , at a moment when the new fad is to somehow save the country by sabotating the attempt to flatten the curve before that effort has even really begun , he ’ d go one notch higher .
You care enough about America to risk a mass die-off by sending young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he cares enough to risk an even bigger mass die-off by sending older people back .
It ’ s a perverse form of virtue-signaling .
How much are you willing to sacrifice to save this country ?
And by “ you , ” I mean you , the Beck listener , not Beck himself .
This advice , offered by an ardent populist , might get lots of average joes killed but not so much wealthy radio personalities who can broadcast from their home studios .
What ’ s more , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat had recommended relaxing social distancing measures in parts of the country just as things turned really hairy in New York , Beck ’ s outrage would be one notch higher than everyone else ’ s .
“ Of course the Party Of Death , which has condoned the culling of infants for decades for reasons of convenience , would be cavalier about the risk to our mothers and fathers , ” he ’ d say .
And he ’ d be right .
That is what a party of death would condone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something like that in 2009 when he was warning the country about death panels under ObamaCare : “ We care about the elderly… We value life in this country and when you start devaluing life , then you ’ re in trouble.
” Here we are in 2020 , with the elderly facing a threat unlike any in modern history , at a moment when hospitals actually are organizing informal “ death panels ” to ration scarce emergency care , and his attitude now is that older people should cowboy up and risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cot in a hospital parking lot because that ’ s better than a temporary economic freeze backstopped by relief from Congress .
God — and Wall Street — need you on the job .
Was he unserious in 2009 or is he unserious now ?
Or both , conceivably ?
A grim fact via Jim Geraghty : “ 1.8 million people 65 years and older ( 4 % of all U.S. seniors ) live in a county without a hospital.
” Some who get this will die without even having had the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to receive life-saving care .
This nonsense about a supposed binary choice between controlling the disease ’ s spread and saving the economy/country needs to stop .
It ’ s wishcasting .
There ’ s no choice .
There ’ s no route to economic recovery that doesn ’ t involve slowing down rates of infection first .
Even if Trump and various governors from both parties declared that people are free to make up their own minds beginning on Easter whether to reopen for business and return to work , imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that given what these numbers will look like three weeks from now , when Easter arrives : Even as Trump looks forward to relaxing social distancing measures sometime soonish , his own favorite network is taking precautions to enforce them more vigorously : But look .
In spite of the criticism , I sympathize with Beck and everyone else who ’ s grasping for some logic by which we can all get back to work soon .
The warnings from Trump and others that hard times economically have their own human toll are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve all had to shift from an outlook of peace and unprecedented prosperity to a global health calamity and likely depression is disorienting like nothing in recent history , including 9/11 .
My own memory of when the pandemic became fully “ real ” to me was when I wrote this post about evidence that the virus had been quietly spreading in Seattle for longer than anyone thought .
That was just 24 days ago .
Wishcasting is a normal human reaction under any circumstances but under circumstances like these , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daze at the sudden bleakness of reality , the urge is irresistible .
For me too : Posts about the latest anecdotal evidence that hydroxychloroquine might work or that the virus might not be as severe as we all think aren ’ t much more than me choking on the fact that this is really happening , and it ’ ll keep happening for many months , and it ’ ll get much , much worse in lots of ways , and there ’ s no easy way out .
But … maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a secret exit in the form of a magic pill .
Or maybe the epidemiologists have missed something about transmission that proves we ’ re already approaching the worst of it and will be past it soon .
Maybe !
But probably not .
I think the “ let ’ s get back to work ” push from Trump and Beck and others is at base just their own version of that .
What if the younger and healthier among us who don ’ t live in hot spots just said “ f*** @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ?
It wouldn ’ t be so bad , maybe .
We could jump-start GDP .
The recovery could begin now , without seeding a nationwide epidemic that would kill mountains of people and deepen the economic devastation .
Maybe !
But probably not .
But it ’ s human to want to think so .

This made me laugh just because of how “on brand” it is. None of the MAGA diehards who’ve embraced the idea of getting back to work ASAP are recommending that *older people* lead the way. Just the opposite. They want older people to stay home because they’re more vulnerable to the disease while younger people return to work, which at least genuflects towards reality.
But Beck has always been a guy to take things one notch higher than everyone else. Righties of all stripes embraced conservative tea-party populism circa 2009, after Obama was sworn in. But only one guy was drawing complicated schematics on blackboards on Fox News to show how George Soros was behind all of the world’s problems. That’s Beck. One notch higher.
So of course, at a moment when the new fad is to somehow save the country by sabotating the attempt to flatten the curve before that effort has even really begun, he’d go one notch higher. You care enough about America to risk a mass die-off by sending young people back to work? Well, he cares enough to risk an even bigger mass die-off by sending older people back.
Glenn Beck says older Americans should return to work: “Even if we all get sick, I would rather die than kill the country”https://t.co/CQdDAMByXK pic.twitter.com/sgLZ32aJ8C — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) March 24, 2020
It’s a perverse form of virtue-signaling. How much are you willing to sacrifice to save this country? And by “you,” I mean you, the Beck listener, not Beck himself. This advice, offered by an ardent populist, might get lots of average joes killed but not so much wealthy radio personalities who can broadcast from their home studios. What’s more, it’s plain as day that if a Democrat had recommended relaxing social distancing measures in parts of the country just as things turned really hairy in New York, Beck’s outrage would be one notch higher than everyone else’s. “Of course the Party Of Death, which has condoned the culling of infants for decades for reasons of convenience, would be cavalier about the risk to our mothers and fathers,” he’d say.
And he’d be right. That is what a party of death would condone.
In fact, he did say something like that in 2009 when he was warning the country about death panels under ObamaCare: “We care about the elderly… We value life in this country and when you start devaluing life, then you’re in trouble.” Here we are in 2020, with the elderly facing a threat unlike any in modern history, at a moment when hospitals actually are organizing informal “death panels” to ration scarce emergency care, and his attitude now is that older people should cowboy up and risk dying while gasping for breath on a cot in a hospital parking lot because that’s better than a temporary economic freeze backstopped by relief from Congress. God — and Wall Street — need you on the job.
Was he unserious in 2009 or is he unserious now? Or both, conceivably? A grim fact via Jim Geraghty: “1.8 million people 65 years and older (4% of all U.S. seniors) live in a county without a hospital.” Some who get this will die without even having had the opportunity for consideration by a “death panel” to receive life-saving care.
This nonsense about a supposed binary choice between controlling the disease’s spread and saving the economy/country needs to stop. It’s wishcasting. There’s no choice. There’s no route to economic recovery that doesn’t involve slowing down rates of infection first. Even if Trump and various governors from both parties declared that people are free to make up their own minds beginning on Easter whether to reopen for business and return to work, imagine how eager Americans will be to do that given what these numbers will look like three weeks from now, when Easter arrives:
Total confirmed U.S. coronavirus cases at end of each Tuesday:
• Jan. 14 — 0
• Jan. 21 — 1
• Jan. 28 — 5
• Feb. 4 — 11
• Feb. 11 — 14
• Feb. 18 — 25
• Feb. 25 — 59
• Mar. 3 — 125
• Mar. 10 — 1,004
• Mar. 17 — 5,902
• Mar. 24 — 53,478https://t.co/74QzWYbn1p pic.twitter.com/ydxp3iyXGp — Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) March 25, 2020
Mayor of New Orleans told me tonight that OVER HALF of EMS personnel in her city are under quarantine. In NYC, sick callouts of NYPD are 2700-2800. Getting closer to 10% of force. To state the obvious, these numbers matter… — Erin Burnett (@ErinBurnett) March 25, 2020
Even as Trump looks forward to relaxing social distancing measures sometime soonish, his own favorite network is taking precautions to enforce them more vigorously:
Memo says Fox News has ceased all in-studio bookings, all guests and contributors appearing remotely — Brian Steinberg (@bristei) March 24, 2020
But look. In spite of the criticism, I sympathize with Beck and everyone else who’s grasping for some logic by which we can all get back to work soon. The warnings from Trump and others that hard times economically have their own human toll are entirely right. The speed with which we’ve all had to shift from an outlook of peace and unprecedented prosperity to a global health calamity and likely depression is disorienting like nothing in recent history, including 9/11. My own memory of when the pandemic became fully “real” to me was when I wrote this post about evidence that the virus had been quietly spreading in Seattle for longer than anyone thought. That was just 24 days ago.
Wishcasting is a normal human reaction under any circumstances but under circumstances like these, when we’re all in a daze at the sudden bleakness of reality, the urge is irresistible. For me too: Posts about the latest anecdotal evidence that hydroxychloroquine might work or that the virus might not be as severe as we all think aren’t much more than me choking on the fact that this is really happening, and it’ll keep happening for many months, and it’ll get much, much worse in lots of ways, and there’s no easy way out. But … maybe there is! Maybe there’s a secret exit in the form of a magic pill. Or maybe the epidemiologists have missed something about transmission that proves we’re already approaching the worst of it and will be past it soon.
Maybe! But probably not.
I think the “let’s get back to work” push from Trump and Beck and others is at base just their own version of that. What if the younger and healthier among us who don’t live in hot spots just said “f*** the virus” and went back to work? It wouldn’t be so bad, maybe. We could jump-start GDP. The recovery could begin now, without seeding a nationwide epidemic that would kill mountains of people and deepen the economic devastation. Maybe! But probably not.
But it’s human to want to think so.


hotair--2020-03-25--Uh oh: Is Pelosi about to torpedo the coronavirus relief agreement?

That ’ s at least a possibility , thanks to a House adjournment and Nancy Pelosi ’ s less-than-full embrace of the Schumer-McConnell-Mnuchin agreement this morning .
The House stayed in session this morning for only two minutes , and won ’ t return until tomorrow at 11 am .
Politico ’ s Jake Sherman spells out what that means : That might not be as big of a problem as it first seems .
NBC ’ s Alex Moe explains that the House may not even get the bill until early tomorrow , thanks to all of the procedural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear in order to pass the bill : How tough would it have been to schedule a session for this evening , though ?
Perhaps they would have had to adjourn it without a bill anyway , but Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell could have given her a target time to be ready for processing the bill .
With the markets and voters on edge , taking a day off now sends a bad signal even if it ’ s largely meaningless .
Or is it ?
This report from Roll Call looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Wednesday that a massive stimulus agreement reached by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and key members of the Trump administration shows improvement over a GOP proposal released late last week .
But she didn ’ t give a clear sign of approval or commit to a House vote .
“ House Democrats will now review the final provisions and legislative text of the agreement to determine a course of action , ” she said in a statement .
Pelosi said the agreement could take negotiators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in meeting the needs of the American people.
” “ Thanks to the unity and insistence of Senate and House Democrats , the bill has moved a great deal closer to America ’ s workers , ” the California Democrat said in a statement .
Note that lack of commitment to putting the bill up for a vote .
Pelosi blew up the negotiations over the weekend by demanding consideration of her own pork-riddled $ 2.5 trillion plan .
That was seen as perhaps a negotiating ploy to get Chuck Schumer more leverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Schumer went on CNN this morning to claim victory for Democrats with this agreement , and pledged that aid would immediately get to Americans because of their skillful negotiations to improve the CARES Act .
Now , Pelosi seems to be signaling that she won ’ t abide by Schumer ’ s agreement on the package .
Not only will that slow down or stop the relief altogether , it leaves Republicans with no legitimate negotiating partners at all .
Why did they bother to discuss the bill with Schumer in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to abide by the agreement ?
Basically , she is threatening to cut off any credibility Schumer has in future negotiations , and making him look like a fool on national television to boot .
Pelosi can ’ t be that foolish .
Right ?
Right ?

That’s at least a possibility, thanks to a House adjournment and Nancy Pelosi’s less-than-full embrace of the Schumer-McConnell-Mnuchin agreement this morning. The House stayed in session this morning for only two minutes, and won’t return until tomorrow at 11 am. Politico’s Jake Sherman spells out what that means:
To be abundantly, 100% clear: This means the House is not likely to vote on the Senate’s coronavirus bill today. https://t.co/nl71PF1jLn — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) March 25, 2020
That might not be as big of a problem as it first seems. NBC’s Alex Moe explains that the House may not even get the bill until early tomorrow, thanks to all of the procedural hurdles that the Senate has yet to clear in order to pass the bill:
However, a Democratic leadership aide points out there is emergency convening authority but it is more likely that House consideration would be tomorrow since there’s no clear Senate timetable for them getting the House the paper today. — Alex Moe (@AlexNBCNews) March 25, 2020
How tough would it have been to schedule a session for this evening, though? Perhaps they would have had to adjourn it without a bill anyway, but Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell could have given her a target time to be ready for processing the bill. With the markets and voters on edge, taking a day off now sends a bad signal even if it’s largely meaningless.
Or is it? This report from Roll Call looks much more ominous:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that a massive stimulus agreement reached by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and key members of the Trump administration shows improvement over a GOP proposal released late last week. But she didn’t give a clear sign of approval or commit to a House vote. “House Democrats will now review the final provisions and legislative text of the agreement to determine a course of action,” she said in a statement. Pelosi said the agreement could take negotiators “a long way down the road in meeting the needs of the American people.” “Thanks to the unity and insistence of Senate and House Democrats, the bill has moved a great deal closer to America’s workers,” the California Democrat said in a statement.
Note that lack of commitment to putting the bill up for a vote. Pelosi blew up the negotiations over the weekend by demanding consideration of her own pork-riddled $2.5 trillion plan. That was seen as perhaps a negotiating ploy to get Chuck Schumer more leverage — and it appears to have worked. Schumer went on CNN this morning to claim victory for Democrats with this agreement, and pledged that aid would immediately get to Americans because of their skillful negotiations to improve the CARES Act.
Now, Pelosi seems to be signaling that she won’t abide by Schumer’s agreement on the package. Not only will that slow down or stop the relief altogether, it leaves Republicans with no legitimate negotiating partners at all. Why did they bother to discuss the bill with Schumer in the first place if Pelosi wasn’t going to abide by the agreement? Basically, she is threatening to cut off any credibility Schumer has in future negotiations, and making him look like a fool on national television to boot.
Pelosi can’t be that foolish. Right? Right?


hotair--2020-03-25--Your smartphone will rat you out for not social distancing

So how ’ s that whole social distancing thing working out for you ?
Many who have never worked from home before or who have lost their jobs are probably clawing at the walls by now and the temptation to go out and get together with friends must be growing by the day .
That ’ s probably a bad idea , particularly if you ’ re in an area with a lot of people who have tested positive for the virus , but now there ’ s another reason to be cautious .
If you happen to have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own phone is checking to see if you ’ re staying a safe distance away from other people with similar devices .
And if you ’ re not , your digital guardian angel will probably tell on you .
( WaPo ) On Tuesday , a company called Unacast that collects and analyzes phone GPS location data launched a “ Social Distancing Scoreboard ” that grades , county by county , which residents are changing behavior at the urging of health officials .
It uses the reduction in the total distance we travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re staying put at home .
Comparing the nation ’ s mass movements from March 20 to an average Friday , Washington , D.C. , gets an A , while Wyoming as a whole earns an F. How do they know that ?
Efforts to track public health during the coronavirus pandemic are a reminder of the many ways phones reveal our personal lives , both as individuals and in the aggregate .
Unacast ’ s location data comes from games , shopping and utility apps that tens of millions of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company normally analyzes for retailers , real estate firms and marketers .
It ’ s part of a shadowy world of location tracking that consumers often have little idea is going on .
I ’ ll be the first to admit that this is creepy .
I think we all knew that our phones were listening and recording all sorts of data about us unless we ’ d taken extreme precautions in terms of setting preferences carefully and not installing certain applications .
And even then the manufacturers have left some back-doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at your activities .
But monitoring social distancing at a time when government executives are exercising unprecedented authoritarian power all across the country is pretty disturbing .
Keep in mind that Unacast isn ’ t just looking at averages or general trends .
In order for the data to be useful to their customers , they have to know the specifics of individual users ’ travel habits for every phone they can tap into .
And if that data exists somewhere , it ’ s not beyond the reach of the government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s not just the government , by the way .
There are any number of spy applications out there that can allow you to track the location of somebody else ’ s phone without their knowing it and all you need to know is their phone number .
But we ’ re not just talking about hackers here .
If , like me , you ’ ve largely fallen into the black hole of the Googleplex , the Google Timeline feature actively records everyplace you go , 24/7 , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , driving or flying .
And during a state of emergency , there ’ s probably little that would stop the government if they demanded that Google give up the goods on you .
( You can shut Google Timeline off if you want to , but it ’ s not easy .
And some tech geeks believe that ’ s it ’ s not really shut off even if you do all of that .
It just stops telling you about it . )
Getting back to the original issue under debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this system of grading how well people are adhering to social distancing orders ?
Well… no .
At least not yet .
But what if one of the more authoritarian governors is unhappy with the low social distancing score their state receives and the death toll is rising ?
Be honest .
In the current environment , would you really find it inconceivable that the state government could demand the tracking data and then send officials around to have a chat with you about your mobile lifestyle ?
I certainly couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the alternative .
You could just smash your phone with a hammer and cancel your account I suppose .
But then how would you learn about stories like this ?

So how’s that whole social distancing thing working out for you? Many who have never worked from home before or who have lost their jobs are probably clawing at the walls by now and the temptation to go out and get together with friends must be growing by the day. That’s probably a bad idea, particularly if you’re in an area with a lot of people who have tested positive for the virus, but now there’s another reason to be cautious. If you happen to have an iPhone, we recently learned that your own phone is checking to see if you’re staying a safe distance away from other people with similar devices. And if you’re not, your digital guardian angel will probably tell on you. (WaPo)
On Tuesday, a company called Unacast that collects and analyzes phone GPS location data launched a “Social Distancing Scoreboard” that grades, county by county, which residents are changing behavior at the urging of health officials. It uses the reduction in the total distance we travel as a rough index for whether we’re staying put at home. Comparing the nation’s mass movements from March 20 to an average Friday, Washington, D.C., gets an A, while Wyoming as a whole earns an F. How do they know that? Efforts to track public health during the coronavirus pandemic are a reminder of the many ways phones reveal our personal lives, both as individuals and in the aggregate. Unacast’s location data comes from games, shopping and utility apps that tens of millions of Americans have installed on their phones — information the company normally analyzes for retailers, real estate firms and marketers. It’s part of a shadowy world of location tracking that consumers often have little idea is going on.
I’ll be the first to admit that this is creepy. I think we all knew that our phones were listening and recording all sorts of data about us unless we’d taken extreme precautions in terms of setting preferences carefully and not installing certain applications. And even then the manufacturers have left some back-doors in the system allowing them to peek at your activities.
But monitoring social distancing at a time when government executives are exercising unprecedented authoritarian power all across the country is pretty disturbing. Keep in mind that Unacast isn’t just looking at averages or general trends. In order for the data to be useful to their customers, they have to know the specifics of individual users’ travel habits for every phone they can tap into. And if that data exists somewhere, it’s not beyond the reach of the government, particularly at this moment in history.
And it’s not just the government, by the way. There are any number of spy applications out there that can allow you to track the location of somebody else’s phone without their knowing it and all you need to know is their phone number. But we’re not just talking about hackers here. If, like me, you’ve largely fallen into the black hole of the Googleplex, the Google Timeline feature actively records everyplace you go, 24/7, along with whether it believes you were walking, driving or flying. And during a state of emergency, there’s probably little that would stop the government if they demanded that Google give up the goods on you. (You can shut Google Timeline off if you want to, but it’s not easy. And some tech geeks believe that’s it’s not really shut off even if you do all of that. It just stops telling you about it.)
Getting back to the original issue under debate, is there really anything dangerous about this system of grading how well people are adhering to social distancing orders? Well… no. At least not yet. But what if one of the more authoritarian governors is unhappy with the low social distancing score their state receives and the death toll is rising? Be honest. In the current environment, would you really find it inconceivable that the state government could demand the tracking data and then send officials around to have a chat with you about your mobile lifestyle? I certainly couldn’t rule it out.
But what’s the alternative. You could just smash your phone with a hammer and cancel your account I suppose. But then how would you learn about stories like this?


hotair--2020-03-25--Schumer: Trump will send out coronavirus stimulus checks by April 6, "unemployment on steroids" shor

Schumer: Trump will send out coronavirus stimulus checks by April 6, "unemployment on steroids" shortly thereafter

Everyone gets a check , and those left without a job from the coronavirus epidemic will get full-salary unemployment for the next four months .
That leaves a central question still left unanswered , which is this — how will the still-employed fare under the newly minted CARES Act ?
The Senate Minority Leader basically took credit for everything else in the bipartisan agreement , natch : Four years of unemployment insurance ?
That would be unemployment on steroids , but Schumer clearly misspoke — he meant four months .
That was indeed a change from the GOP proposal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the package would help replace the salaries of furloughed workers for four months , rather than the three months first proposed .
Furloughed workers would get whatever amount a state usually provides for unemployment , plus a $ 600 per week add-on , with gig workers like Uber drivers covered for the first time .
“ It ensures that all workers are protected whether they work for businesses small , medium or large , along with self-employed and workers in the gig economy , ” Schumer said .
April 6 is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty fast considering the reduced means testing still in place in this bill .
The phase-out makes sense — no one needs to stuff $ 1200 into the pocket of someone who made a million bucks in 2018 , after all .
But it still complicates the payout somewhat , especially for those between the full-benefit limit of $ 75K/ $ 150K for joint filers , and the $ 99K/ $ 198K limit for any benefit .
The rapid cash outlay should help boost local economies and protect at least some jobs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still employed , though ?
How will this bill protect the jobs they have at the moment ?
That ’ s still a murky question , one that won ’ t be answered fully until the language comes out later today .
The bill does provide tax incentives to keep people on payrolls , but is it enough for companies with cash-flow crises ?
That ’ s not a bad incentive , but it might not be enough to tide companies over without reliable cash flow .
Tax credits aren ’ t immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , although they can be a big help to those employers who do survive to the end of the tax year .
Those issues might be addressed in the other part of the small-business and corporate relief packages , but the mechanisms aren ’ t clear yet , nor their potential efficacy .
At one point , it seemed like Congress might just provide cash for payrolls directly .
That is the approach European governments are taking , which could delay a day of reckoning but not put it off altogether : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response has taken the form of a $ 2 trillion stimulus plan .
But while Congress was debating that legislation , and while U.S. companies have been shedding jobs , many European countries have rolled out even more ambitious programs to shield their citizens and businesses .
France , Germany , Denmark , Britain and others have decided to take over the payrolls of struggling companies , so that workers don ’ t get laid off .
The hope is that by paying people to stay home , governments can slow the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic depression .
The pricey gamble could work if the coronavirus crisis lasts just a few months , many economists say , since companies would be able to exit their frozen status almost immediately .
But if the restrictions drag on , the financial support could saddle European governments with gigantic bills while also failing to avert the collapse of businesses .
That particular downside may not matter much , because a financial collapse would still bankrupt nations and crash the global economy , making those debts meaningless .
The bigger risk is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy .
Governments are not going to just fund payrolls without taking over the decision-making behind them .
Even a grant program would inevitably come with so many strings attached that it would all but eliminate any independence of operation by business owners .
Just look at the climate-change nonsense Nancy Pelosi attempted to graft onto the CARES Act even without funding airlines ’ payrolls .
The bet by Congress is that these incentives and the enhanced oversight will keep companies from laying off millions of people until that money runs out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works , because a massive layoff will backfire on Congress after handing out that much cash to corporate boards .

Everyone gets a check, and those left without a job from the coronavirus epidemic will get full-salary unemployment for the next four months. That leaves a central question still left unanswered, which is this — how will the still-employed fare under the newly minted CARES Act?
The Senate Minority Leader basically took credit for everything else in the bipartisan agreement, natch:
“I think the President has said that he would have it out by April 6th,” @SenSchumer says about the $2 trillion stimulus deal that will send checks to Americans during the coronavirus crisis.https://t.co/r3RgIxhMu0 pic.twitter.com/NcANnpi2dE — New Day (@NewDay) March 25, 2020
Four years of unemployment insurance? That would be unemployment on steroids, but Schumer clearly misspoke — he meant four months. That was indeed a change from the GOP proposal, but only by one month:
Democrats said the package would help replace the salaries of furloughed workers for four months, rather than the three months first proposed. Furloughed workers would get whatever amount a state usually provides for unemployment, plus a $600 per week add-on, with gig workers like Uber drivers covered for the first time. “It ensures that all workers are protected whether they work for businesses small, medium or large, along with self-employed and workers in the gig economy,” Schumer said.
April 6 is less than two weeks out, which is pretty fast considering the reduced means testing still in place in this bill. The phase-out makes sense — no one needs to stuff $1200 into the pocket of someone who made a million bucks in 2018, after all. But it still complicates the payout somewhat, especially for those between the full-benefit limit of $75K/$150K for joint filers, and the $99K/$198K limit for any benefit. The rapid cash outlay should help boost local economies and protect at least some jobs in the short term.
What about those still employed, though? How will this bill protect the jobs they have at the moment? That’s still a murky question, one that won’t be answered fully until the language comes out later today. The bill does provide tax incentives to keep people on payrolls, but is it enough for companies with cash-flow crises?
Republicans won inclusion of an “employee retention” tax credit that’s estimated to provide $50 billion to companies that retain employees on payroll and cover 50% of workers’ paychecks. Companies would also be able to defer payment of the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax.
That’s not a bad incentive, but it might not be enough to tide companies over without reliable cash flow. Tax credits aren’t immediate enough to work in a crisis like this, although they can be a big help to those employers who do survive to the end of the tax year. Those issues might be addressed in the other part of the small-business and corporate relief packages, but the mechanisms aren’t clear yet, nor their potential efficacy.
At one point, it seemed like Congress might just provide cash for payrolls directly. That is the approach European governments are taking, which could delay a day of reckoning but not put it off altogether:
In the United States, the economic response has taken the form of a $2 trillion stimulus plan. But while Congress was debating that legislation, and while U.S. companies have been shedding jobs, many European countries have rolled out even more ambitious programs to shield their citizens and businesses. France, Germany, Denmark, Britain and others have decided to take over the payrolls of struggling companies, so that workers don’t get laid off. The hope is that by paying people to stay home, governments can slow the virus’s spread while also averting an economic depression. The pricey gamble could work if the coronavirus crisis lasts just a few months, many economists say, since companies would be able to exit their frozen status almost immediately. But if the restrictions drag on, the financial support could saddle European governments with gigantic bills while also failing to avert the collapse of businesses.
That particular downside may not matter much, because a financial collapse would still bankrupt nations and crash the global economy, making those debts meaningless. The bigger risk is that this would inevitably lead to nationalizing the economy. Governments are not going to just fund payrolls without taking over the decision-making behind them. Even a grant program would inevitably come with so many strings attached that it would all but eliminate any independence of operation by business owners. Just look at the climate-change nonsense Nancy Pelosi attempted to graft onto the CARES Act even without funding airlines’ payrolls.
The bet by Congress is that these incentives and the enhanced oversight will keep companies from laying off millions of people until that money runs out. They’d better hope it works, because a massive layoff will backfire on Congress after handing out that much cash to corporate boards.


hotair--2020-03-25--Pennsylvania Governor caves on gun store closures

Well , that didn ’ t take long at all .
It was only yesterday that we were discussing Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf ’ s decision to close all of the gun shops in his state during the coronavirus lockdown , deeming them nonessential businesses , and the state supreme court ’ s ruling that he was able to do so .
But it seems that some people just can ’ t take yes for an answer .
Despite his legal victory at the state ’ s highest court , Wolf has now relented and will allow gun shops to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited basis .
( Free Beacon ) Pennsylvania gun stores will remain open on a limited basis after Democratic governor Tom Wolf reversed course on his emergency coronavirus shut-down order on Tuesday .
The governor will allow gun dealers to reopen their stores , but his order still severely restricts what they are allowed to do .
The updated order says gun stores may only operate “ to complete only the portions of a sale/transfer that must be conducted in-person under the law , ” likely referring to the completion of a background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person… The order requires that stores must operate on an “ individual appointment ” basis and only “ during limited hours.
” Dealers must also “ comply with social distancing , sanitization of applicable area between appointments , and other mitigation measures to protect its employees and the public , ” according to the updated order .
The restrictions on how the stores are allowed to operate aren ’ t particularly draconian compared to any other operation during the crisis .
You can check people ’ s IDs without touching them or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or debit card over your phone or through a scanner ( that is sanitized afterward ) shouldn ’ t be a problem .
And the products can be placed on a counter with the employee backing away before the customer picks them up .
None of this is unreasonable under the circumstances .
The real question is why Wolf backed down so quickly after having his decision validated by the state supreme court .
He had a big political win in the bag and could have just walked away with it .
True @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to challenge the policy and an appeal to the Supreme Court was being discussed , but at least for the time being he could have declared victory and gone home .
So what happened ?
As recently as seven weeks ago , Wolf was giving speeches calling on the Republican majorities in the state legislature to take up new gun control laws .
He was pushing for some of the standard Democratic wishlist items including universal background checks and a red flag law .
The state GOP has given such requests a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity arose to essentially shut down all gun sales via executive fiat , Wolf must have been sorely tempted .
It could be that Wolf saw what happened in Virginia and noticed similar calls for Second Amendment sanctuaries in his own state .
If he decided to go to the mat and wound up losing as Ralph Northam did , it would have been a serious political embarrassment .
Wolf didn ’ t offer much in terms of his reasoning , preferring to simply explain how things would operate from here on out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Pennsylvania go , perhaps it ’ s best to simply take half a loaf and chalk it up as a victory .
Now the battle shifts to New Jersey , where Governor Phil Murphy didn ’ t just close all of the gun stores .
He shut down the state ’ s background check system entirely , meaning that a lawful citizen couldn ’ t complete the purchase of a firearm even if they found someone willing to sell to them .
That move is already being challenged by multiple groups in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month .

Well, that didn’t take long at all. It was only yesterday that we were discussing Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s decision to close all of the gun shops in his state during the coronavirus lockdown, deeming them nonessential businesses, and the state supreme court’s ruling that he was able to do so. But it seems that some people just can’t take yes for an answer. Despite his legal victory at the state’s highest court, Wolf has now relented and will allow gun shops to remain in business, albeit on a limited basis. (Free Beacon)
Pennsylvania gun stores will remain open on a limited basis after Democratic governor Tom Wolf reversed course on his emergency coronavirus shut-down order on Tuesday. The governor will allow gun dealers to reopen their stores, but his order still severely restricts what they are allowed to do. The updated order says gun stores may only operate “to complete only the portions of a sale/transfer that must be conducted in-person under the law,” likely referring to the completion of a background check, which must be done in person… The order requires that stores must operate on an “individual appointment” basis and only “during limited hours.” Dealers must also “comply with social distancing, sanitization of applicable area between appointments, and other mitigation measures to protect its employees and the public,” according to the updated order.
The restrictions on how the stores are allowed to operate aren’t particularly draconian compared to any other operation during the crisis. You can check people’s IDs without touching them or the document easily enough. Paying by credit or debit card over your phone or through a scanner (that is sanitized afterward) shouldn’t be a problem. And the products can be placed on a counter with the employee backing away before the customer picks them up. None of this is unreasonable under the circumstances.
The real question is why Wolf backed down so quickly after having his decision validated by the state supreme court. He had a big political win in the bag and could have just walked away with it. True, there were already lawsuits being drawn up to challenge the policy and an appeal to the Supreme Court was being discussed, but at least for the time being he could have declared victory and gone home. So what happened?
As recently as seven weeks ago, Wolf was giving speeches calling on the Republican majorities in the state legislature to take up new gun control laws. He was pushing for some of the standard Democratic wishlist items including universal background checks and a red flag law. The state GOP has given such requests a rather cool reception, so when the opportunity arose to essentially shut down all gun sales via executive fiat, Wolf must have been sorely tempted.
It could be that Wolf saw what happened in Virginia and noticed similar calls for Second Amendment sanctuaries in his own state. If he decided to go to the mat and wound up losing as Ralph Northam did, it would have been a serious political embarrassment.
Wolf didn’t offer much in terms of his reasoning, preferring to simply explain how things would operate from here on out. As far as gun rights supporters in Pennsylvania go, perhaps it’s best to simply take half a loaf and chalk it up as a victory. Now the battle shifts to New Jersey, where Governor Phil Murphy didn’t just close all of the gun stores. He shut down the state’s background check system entirely, meaning that a lawful citizen couldn’t complete the purchase of a firearm even if they found someone willing to sell to them. That move is already being challenged by multiple groups in court, with initial rulings expected later this month.


hotair--2020-03-25--Finally: Senate, White House cut deal on $2T coronavirus relief package

After several days of brinksmanship with the economy and the markets teetering on the edge of ruin , Democrats and Republicans finally cut a deal .
The latest coronavirus relief package will cost two trillion dollars , well north of the GOP ’ s first proposal but not quite as costly as Nancy Pelosi ’ s last-minute bid that upended talks this weekend .
Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer both hailed the agreement as bipartisan , and agreed to speedy passage today : White House and Senate negotiators announced an agreement early Wednesday morning on a massive financial rescue package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ At last , we have a deal , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said on the floor a little after 1:30 a.m. “ We ’ re going to pass this legislation later today.
” He said the chamber would convene at noon and take up the underlying vehicle shortly thereafter .
“ After five days of arduous negotiations … we have a bipartisan agreement on the largest rescue package in American history , ” added Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer , D-N.Y .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be drafted , officials said they expected to circulate a bill Wednesday that would provide cash payments to families , loans to businesses big and small , an expanded social safety net for the jobless and a major cash infusion for the nation ’ s hospitals .
The price tag was expected to hit $ 2 trillion or more .
What will our great-grandchildren pay for in this bill ?
Most of the components had emerged over the last several days , but some of the details have changed .
Gone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on individual stimulus payments , a condition that even had some conservatives scratching their heads : The revamped Senate proposal will inject approximately $ 2 trillion into the economy , providing tax rebates , four months expanded unemployment benefits and a slew of business tax-relief provisions aimed at shoring up individual , family and business finances .
The deal includes $ 500 billion for a major corporate liquidity program through the Federal Reserve , $ 367 billion for a small business loan program , $ 100 billion for hospitals and $ 150 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also give a one-time check of $ 1,200 to Americans who make up to $ 75,000 .
Individuals with no or little tax liability would receive the same amount , unlike the initial GOP proposal that would have given them a minimum of $ 600 .
Note that the deal still doubles that for joint filers who earned below $ 150,000 in 2018 , the test year for the stimulus .
As Allahpundit noted , this is a change from the GOP ’ s approach , which was more of a tax-credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the people who are most likely to apply the cash immediately to the economy — the poor — and who most desperately need it .
This is more straight-up stimulus and will offer more bang for the buck , economically speaking .
That ’ s one change that Democrats won the in the battle , plus the four-month unemployment benefit extension .
An earlier concession by Republicans on the corporate liquidity program should have been part of the package from the beginning anyway , a transparency/oversight component that will strengthen confidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Main Street ” bailout package .
We don ’ t know all the details of the bill yet , nor whether Pelosi got any of her hobby horse spending into the bill .
We do know that Donald Trump will sign the bill , as Steve Mnuchin pledged his approval : What about the House ?
It ’ s not in session at the moment , and some of its members are either quarantining or sheltering in place .
Pelosi said she will use unanimous consent to pass the bill by acclamation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The House is in recess , with some of its members sick or in quarantine and concerned about flying back to Washington .
Leaders were considering approving the mammoth proposal by unanimous consent , a tactic usually reserved for minor , uncontroversial measures .
“ What I ’ m saying is we want to do it as soon as possible .
The best way to do that as soon as possible is to have agreement on the legislation , ” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California , appearing on CNN .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest possible difference in the shortest period of time.
” That ’ s great if it works .
However , all it takes is one member to announce an objection and the bill will have to go through all of the normal voting processes .
This isn ’ t a bill that just renames a post office , after all — it ’ s the single most significant spending bill they will ever see outside of budgets , and maybe even counting the appropriations process , which actually covers less than half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest is statutory spending , AKA entitlement spending , which is independent of the appropriations process . )
In a group of 435 people , are we sure there isn ’ t one contrarian who will demand more oversight and less rush to spend two trillion dollars ?
We ’ ll see soon enough , I guess .

After several days of brinksmanship with the economy and the markets teetering on the edge of ruin, Democrats and Republicans finally cut a deal. The latest coronavirus relief package will cost two trillion dollars, well north of the GOP’s first proposal but not quite as costly as Nancy Pelosi’s last-minute bid that upended talks this weekend. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer both hailed the agreement as bipartisan, and agreed to speedy passage today:
White House and Senate negotiators announced an agreement early Wednesday morning on a massive financial rescue package designed to curb the economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic. “At last, we have a deal,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the floor a little after 1:30 a.m. “We’re going to pass this legislation later today.” He said the chamber would convene at noon and take up the underlying vehicle shortly thereafter. “After five days of arduous negotiations … we have a bipartisan agreement on the largest rescue package in American history,” added Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. While some of the legislative language had yet to be drafted, officials said they expected to circulate a bill Wednesday that would provide cash payments to families, loans to businesses big and small, an expanded social safety net for the jobless and a major cash infusion for the nation’s hospitals. The price tag was expected to hit $2 trillion or more.
What will our great-grandchildren pay for in this bill? Most of the components had emerged over the last several days, but some of the details have changed. Gone, for instance, is the means testing on individual stimulus payments, a condition that even had some conservatives scratching their heads:
The revamped Senate proposal will inject approximately $2 trillion into the economy, providing tax rebates, four months expanded unemployment benefits and a slew of business tax-relief provisions aimed at shoring up individual, family and business finances. The deal includes $500 billion for a major corporate liquidity program through the Federal Reserve, $367 billion for a small business loan program, $100 billion for hospitals and $150 billion for state and local governments. It will also give a one-time check of $1,200 to Americans who make up to $75,000. Individuals with no or little tax liability would receive the same amount, unlike the initial GOP proposal that would have given them a minimum of $600.
Note that the deal still doubles that for joint filers who earned below $150,000 in 2018, the test year for the stimulus. As Allahpundit noted, this is a change from the GOP’s approach, which was more of a tax-credit program than stimulus. It reduced payments to the people who are most likely to apply the cash immediately to the economy — the poor — and who most desperately need it. This is more straight-up stimulus and will offer more bang for the buck, economically speaking.
That’s one change that Democrats won the in the battle, plus the four-month unemployment benefit extension. An earlier concession by Republicans on the corporate liquidity program should have been part of the package from the beginning anyway, a transparency/oversight component that will strengthen confidence that this is not another “Wall Street before Main Street” bailout package.
We don’t know all the details of the bill yet, nor whether Pelosi got any of her hobby horse spending into the bill. We do know that Donald Trump will sign the bill, as Steve Mnuchin pledged his approval:
Mr. Mnuchin, preparing to leave Capitol Hill early Wednesday, described the measure to reporters as “a terrific bill.” “I’ve spoken to the president many times today,” he said, “and he’s very pleased with this legislation and the impact that this is going to have.”
What about the House? It’s not in session at the moment, and some of its members are either quarantining or sheltering in place. Pelosi said she will use unanimous consent to pass the bill by acclamation, but that has one flaw:
The House is in recess, with some of its members sick or in quarantine and concerned about flying back to Washington. Leaders were considering approving the mammoth proposal by unanimous consent, a tactic usually reserved for minor, uncontroversial measures. “What I’m saying is we want to do it as soon as possible. The best way to do that as soon as possible is to have agreement on the legislation,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, appearing on CNN. “We’re doing U.C. to make the biggest possible difference in the shortest period of time.”
That’s great if it works. However, all it takes is one member to announce an objection and the bill will have to go through all of the normal voting processes. This isn’t a bill that just renames a post office, after all — it’s the single most significant spending bill they will ever see outside of budgets, and maybe even counting the appropriations process, which actually covers less than half of the federal budget. (The rest is statutory spending, AKA entitlement spending, which is independent of the appropriations process.) In a group of 435 people, are we sure there isn’t one contrarian who will demand more oversight and less rush to spend two trillion dollars? We’ll see soon enough, I guess.


hotair--2020-03-25--Harvard not looking very woke in dealing with pandemic

Our nation ’ s colleges and universities are largely considered the epicenters of the woke generation , arguing for all manner of progressive policies and social reengineering .
Paramount among such liberal theories is the idea that there must be fairness in compensation for work , regardless of gender , race or any other criteria you ’ d care to mention .
The little guy ( or gal ) must be treated fairly , even if it doesn ’ t suit the bottom line of the callous fat cats who run the world .
One of the largest and best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its sprawling campuses are recognizable around the globe and a degree from that institution is generally considered a golden ticket when a young person seeks to launch their professional career .
But Harvard , like nearly every other institute of higher learning in America , has been hit hard by the rise of the coronavirus .
They ’ ve had to shutter much of their physical facilities and have moved most classwork online .
That means that the dining halls had to be closed , along with other facilities .
But what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers employed there ?
Surely their wages will be protected during these trying times , right ?
Not so much… particularly if you ’ re one of the 275 subcontractors who keep everyone fed .
They ’ ve been told that they need to collect their things and go , with no mention of continuing to pay them .
Direct employees of the dining halls fare slightly better .
They are getting 30 days of paid leave , but then they ’ ll need to head for the unemployment lines also .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the largest endowment of any school in the country , is cutting its subcontracted dining hall workers without pay as it shuts down in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
The move is drawing criticism from employment rights advocates on and off campus who point to the university ’ s $ 40.9 billion endowment as evidence that the school is hardly in financial straits .
They also claim the decision violates Harvard ’ s wage equality policy , which requires the university to compensate dining hall contract workers in a fashion comparable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees .
Harvard closed campus dining halls and other facilities earlier this month when it transitioned its courses online due to the outbreak .
If we were looking at this from the cold reality of any capitalist system , Harvard ’ s decision makes sense , right ?
The dining halls are closed .
Nobody is preparing any food and there really isn ’ t much for the workers to do .
Continuing to pay them doesn ’ t make financial sense .
But those rules shouldn ’ t apply at Harvard .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pay equity for all of this time , shouldn ’ t the “ little people ” be taken care of ?
And as the Free Beacon points out , it ’ s not as if they can ’ t afford it .
Harvard ’ s endowment is the largest in the nation with an estimated value of more than forty billion ( with a “ B ” ) dollars .
To pay all of those dining hall subcontractors for four weeks would cost them $ 710,000 , a mere drop in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be losing their jobs or taking a pay cut as we ride out the pandemic ?
Harvard ’ s many tenured professors and administrative officials and staff .
And it ’ s a safe bet that they ’ re bringing home a lot more dough than the lady who ’ s dishing out the mac and cheese in the cafeteria .
Also noted in the linked report is the fact that not all schools are acting in such a miserly fashion .
The University of Chicago is paying all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the school year , even while most of them are sheltering in place at home .
And that school ’ s endowment is “ only ” eight billion dollars .
So Harvard isn ’ t really leading by example here , are they ?
If you ’ re going to lecture everyone else on the immorality of capitalism , you ’ d best be practicing a lot more socialism yourself .
In Harvard ’ s case , this comes off as pure hypocrisy .
But hey… you need to hoard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I suppose .

Our nation’s colleges and universities are largely considered the epicenters of the woke generation, arguing for all manner of progressive policies and social reengineering. Paramount among such liberal theories is the idea that there must be fairness in compensation for work, regardless of gender, race or any other criteria you’d care to mention. The little guy (or gal) must be treated fairly, even if it doesn’t suit the bottom line of the callous fat cats who run the world.
One of the largest and best known of our universities is Harvard. Its sprawling campuses are recognizable around the globe and a degree from that institution is generally considered a golden ticket when a young person seeks to launch their professional career. But Harvard, like nearly every other institute of higher learning in America, has been hit hard by the rise of the coronavirus. They’ve had to shutter much of their physical facilities and have moved most classwork online.
That means that the dining halls had to be closed, along with other facilities. But what’s to happen to the hundreds of workers employed there? Surely their wages will be protected during these trying times, right? Not so much… particularly if you’re one of the 275 subcontractors who keep everyone fed. They’ve been told that they need to collect their things and go, with no mention of continuing to pay them. Direct employees of the dining halls fare slightly better. They are getting 30 days of paid leave, but then they’ll need to head for the unemployment lines also. (Free Beacon)
Harvard University, which has the largest endowment of any school in the country, is cutting its subcontracted dining hall workers without pay as it shuts down in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The move is drawing criticism from employment rights advocates on and off campus who point to the university’s $40.9 billion endowment as evidence that the school is hardly in financial straits. They also claim the decision violates Harvard’s wage equality policy, which requires the university to compensate dining hall contract workers in a fashion comparable to the school’s directly hired employees. Harvard closed campus dining halls and other facilities earlier this month when it transitioned its courses online due to the outbreak.
If we were looking at this from the cold reality of any capitalist system, Harvard’s decision makes sense, right? The dining halls are closed. Nobody is preparing any food and there really isn’t much for the workers to do. Continuing to pay them doesn’t make financial sense.
But those rules shouldn’t apply at Harvard. After lecturing all of us about fairness and pay equity for all of this time, shouldn’t the “little people” be taken care of? And as the Free Beacon points out, it’s not as if they can’t afford it. Harvard’s endowment is the largest in the nation with an estimated value of more than forty billion (with a “B”) dollars. To pay all of those dining hall subcontractors for four weeks would cost them $710,000, a mere drop in the endowment bucket.
Do you know who won’t be losing their jobs or taking a pay cut as we ride out the pandemic? Harvard’s many tenured professors and administrative officials and staff. And it’s a safe bet that they’re bringing home a lot more dough than the lady who’s dishing out the mac and cheese in the cafeteria.
Also noted in the linked report is the fact that not all schools are acting in such a miserly fashion. The University of Chicago is paying all of their subcontractors and other hourly workers through the end of the school year, even while most of them are sheltering in place at home. And that school’s endowment is “only” eight billion dollars. So Harvard isn’t really leading by example here, are they?
If you’re going to lecture everyone else on the immorality of capitalism, you’d best be practicing a lot more socialism yourself. In Harvard’s case, this comes off as pure hypocrisy. But hey… you need to hoard that endowment money for the long run, I suppose.


hotair--2020-03-25--Oh, So this is why Joe Biden has been hiding

Joe Biden has largely been missing in action during the mitigation phase of the coronavirus pandemic .
While I don ’ t think that most Americans are sitting around pondering where good old Joe is , his absence from the national conversation has been noticed .
That is why his presidential campaign has made a calculated decision – get Joe out there in front of the American voters now .
While it is not possible to hold standard campaign rallies now because of social distancing , especially given that Biden is in the high-risk group due to his advanced age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivering regular updates on the COVID-19 crisis via live streaming .
They are called shadow briefings .
His virtual town hall on March 13 was a disaster .
Biden kept moving out of camera range and there were technical issues .
Biden ’ s first COVID -19 pandemic briefing happened on March 23 .
It didn ’ t go well .
There was a problem with the teleprompter – you can see Biden making a hand gesture to get past it and abruptly move to another subject .
He is stammering and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he supposedly was preparing to roll out these briefings for a couple of weeks , mind you .
Yikes .
Does that look like a man who should be the guy in charge ?
So , the virtual town hall and the shadow briefing didn ’ t pan out so well .
What is left now is for Joe to hit the talk show circuit .
If I was on the Biden campaign payroll , which I most assuredly am not , I would have advised him to take that route in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a good public speaker .
He does much better one-on-one , especially with the softball questions that the media provides for him .
He only goes on friendly shows anyway , so there is no expectation of holding him accountable for any ideas or plans .
Biden was a guest on The View Tuesday morning .
He appears to be at home as he does the interview .
Co-host Sara Haines asks a straightforward question .
“ Are you at all concerned , as Trump said , that we can not let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself ?
” The View put out a tweet of the question and answer but I don ’ t think it had the reception it hoped for because it shows Biden answering in a really garbled way .
Got that ?
Biden says “ the cure ” for COVID-19 “ will make the problem worse , no matter what.
” Biden clearly mixed up “ the cure ” and “ the problem ” in his answer , but he didn ’ t seem to notice , and he continued on as normal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ done … We ’ ve got to flatten that curve .
And we ’ ve got to make sure that once , in fact , we have this under control , it doesn ’ t come back , ” he said , effectively contradicting his earlier point .
“ So we should be focusing on getting all the help necessary in terms of testing , in terms of access to the gear that our first responders , our doctors , our nurses need in treating people.
” No , of course Sara Haines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he misspoke .
Don ’ t expect any pushback from any of the co-hosts of The View – they will all be voting for him in November , rest assured of that .
I am sure Biden will regularly appear on the show and it will always be a lovefest .
He ’ s their guy .
The reaction on social media was what you would expect .
The Biden supporters thought he was great .
The other side pointed out his obvious gaffe .
Jake Tapper reminded Biden to cough into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand during an interview .
Biden excused it by saying it ’ s ok , he was alone .
Was he ?
Who was behind the camera ?
Let ’ s be honest .
The more Biden is in front of voters , the more likely he will remind us of how gaffetastic he is .
He is a placeholder of a candidate .
The DNC panicked when it was becoming clear that Bernie Sanders may rise to be their candidate and Biden was dusted off and brought out as the safe choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden is not up to the challenge .
A national campaign is tough , even for the most energetic and capable candidates .
Joe Biden appears feeble , frequently confused , and very low energy , as has been said of other candidates in the past .
By running Biden , the Democrats are desperately hoping to defeat President Trump in November .
The plan is for him to win and bring back the status quo of the Obama days .
I think Americans have moved past the status quo .
Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big ideas .
He looks back , not forward .
By doing things like shadow briefings , for example , he undermines the president while offering no new solutions .
He simply parrots the words of advice from experts , all of which is already being done by the Trump COVID-19 task force .
Biden claims he is running to bring back the days of civility and unity .
The fact is , Americans were very divided during the Obama-Biden administration .
The Trump era has deepened divides , not created them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing operation now , during a pandemic crisis , he is further dividing , not unifying Americans .
I ’ ll end with this little flashback .
Joy Behar has expressed concerns about Joe Biden as far back as 2009 .
Biden , as vice-president , admitted he was warning his family to avoid public places like airplanes and the subway during the H1N1 pandemic .

Joe Biden has largely been missing in action during the mitigation phase of the coronavirus pandemic. While I don’t think that most Americans are sitting around pondering where good old Joe is, his absence from the national conversation has been noticed. That is why his presidential campaign has made a calculated decision – get Joe out there in front of the American voters now.
While it is not possible to hold standard campaign rallies now because of social distancing, especially given that Biden is in the high-risk group due to his advanced age, his campaign announced Biden will be delivering regular updates on the COVID-19 crisis via live streaming. They are called shadow briefings.
His virtual town hall on March 13 was a disaster. Biden kept moving out of camera range and there were technical issues. Biden’s first COVID -19 pandemic briefing happened on March 23. It didn’t go well. There was a problem with the teleprompter – you can see Biden making a hand gesture to get past it and abruptly move to another subject. He is stammering and it is awkward to watch. This is after he supposedly was preparing to roll out these briefings for a couple of weeks, mind you.
Every American needs to see Joe Biden's latest brain freeze. pic.twitter.com/CfrrHRElfy — Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) March 23, 2020
Yikes. Does that look like a man who should be the guy in charge?
So, the virtual town hall and the shadow briefing didn’t pan out so well. What is left now is for Joe to hit the talk show circuit. If I was on the Biden campaign payroll, which I most assuredly am not, I would have advised him to take that route in the first place. Joe Biden is not a good public speaker. He does much better one-on-one, especially with the softball questions that the media provides for him. He only goes on friendly shows anyway, so there is no expectation of holding him accountable for any ideas or plans.
Biden was a guest on The View Tuesday morning. He appears to be at home as he does the interview. Co-host Sara Haines asks a straightforward question. “Are you at all concerned, as Trump said, that we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself?” The View put out a tweet of the question and answer but I don’t think it had the reception it hoped for because it shows Biden answering in a really garbled way.
.@JoeBiden on Pres. Trump hinting he wants to reopen the country: “We got to flatten that curve. And we got to make sure that once, in fact, we have this under control, it doesn’t come back.” https://t.co/f8u2wbJuik pic.twitter.com/wSzxiUyTwe — The View (@TheView) March 24, 2020
Got that? Biden says “the cure” for COVID-19 “will make the problem worse, no matter what.”
Biden clearly mixed up “the cure” and “the problem” in his answer, but he didn’t seem to notice, and he continued on as normal. “We know what has to be done … We’ve got to flatten that curve. And we’ve got to make sure that once, in fact, we have this under control, it doesn’t come back,” he said, effectively contradicting his earlier point. “So we should be focusing on getting all the help necessary in terms of testing, in terms of access to the gear that our first responders, our doctors, our nurses need in treating people.”
No, of course Sara Haines didn’t follow-up and ask Biden if he misspoke. Don’t expect any pushback from any of the co-hosts of The View – they will all be voting for him in November, rest assured of that. I am sure Biden will regularly appear on the show and it will always be a lovefest. He’s their guy.
The reaction on social media was what you would expect. The Biden supporters thought he was great. The other side pointed out his obvious gaffe.
Joe Biden went on the View and reminded everyone why he has been in hiding. https://t.co/esMUEkePUu — thebradfordfile (@thebradfordfile) March 24, 2020
Jake Tapper reminded Biden to cough into his elbow when he coughed into his hand during an interview. Biden excused it by saying it’s ok, he was alone. Was he? Who was behind the camera?
https://twitter.com/FrancisBrennan/status/1242533096114868224
Let’s be honest. The more Biden is in front of voters, the more likely he will remind us of how gaffetastic he is. He is a placeholder of a candidate. The DNC panicked when it was becoming clear that Bernie Sanders may rise to be their candidate and Biden was dusted off and brought out as the safe choice. Unfortunately for the DNC, though, Biden is not up to the challenge. A national campaign is tough, even for the most energetic and capable candidates. Joe Biden appears feeble, frequently confused, and very low energy, as has been said of other candidates in the past.
By running Biden, the Democrats are desperately hoping to defeat President Trump in November. The plan is for him to win and bring back the status quo of the Obama days. I think Americans have moved past the status quo. Joe Biden offers nothing new in policy or big ideas. He looks back, not forward. By doing things like shadow briefings, for example, he undermines the president while offering no new solutions. He simply parrots the words of advice from experts, all of which is already being done by the Trump COVID-19 task force. Biden claims he is running to bring back the days of civility and unity. The fact is, Americans were very divided during the Obama-Biden administration. The Trump era has deepened divides, not created them. By Biden trying to run a shadow briefing operation now, during a pandemic crisis, he is further dividing, not unifying Americans.
I’ll end with this little flashback. Joy Behar has expressed concerns about Joe Biden as far back as 2009. Biden, as vice-president, admitted he was warning his family to avoid public places like airplanes and the subway during the H1N1 pandemic.


hotair--2020-03-25--Kinsa "health map" shows fever rates decreasing virtually everywhere in the United States

Last week , when their “ health weather ” map debuted , I noted that it was nifty but that it ’ d be nice to be able to see at a glance on the map whether fevers are becoming more or less common .
Kinsa added that feature ( “ Trends ” ) yesterday .
As you can see above , there ’ s a band of counties in Colorado and New Mexico that are showing a modest increase but otherwise the fever rate is declining practically everywhere coast to coast .
Dark blue areas reflect the steepest decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are they not ( yet ) seeing atypical rates of fever , they ’ re waaaaaay below where Kinsa ’ s historical data would project them to be in a normal year .
What ’ s happening here , one would think , is that the social distancing being practiced by locals is sharply reducing the total number of seasonal infections caused by all “ influenza-like illnesses.
” COVID-19 isn ’ t the only bug out there ; the flu is circulating , as are other well-known and milder forms of coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the underlying cause , it can ’ t say definitively that rates of infection by COVID-19 specifically are decreasing .
It ’ s possible that that rate is still rising but is being offset ( and then some ) in their data by dramatically declining rates of infection by all other forms of “ influenza-like illness.
” The overall trend is downward but maybe not the particular trend for COVID-19 , especially since it ’ s more contagious than flu .
And that ’ s the one we care about .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing is driving down the infection rate of COVID-19 too .
That ’ s what these lockdowns are designed to do , after all .
The self-isolation strategy is — probably — working , too late for New York but hopefully not too late for a lot of places .
Even Florida , the most worrisome fever hot spot in last week ’ s Kinsa data , is beginning to cool off .
Seems like a good moment , then , to flush this promising collective effort down the toilet and start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people back to work : “ ASAP ” is correct but I ’ m guessing his idea of when “ ASAP ” is and when Fauci ’ s idea of it is diverge starkly .
Here ’ s a sneak preview of our country lifting isolation measures before local health departments are ready : There ’ s another , more radical way to interpret the Kinsa data .
What if it ’ s not social distancing that ’ s driving down fever rates ?
What if much of the country has already been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the Oxford study I wrote about last night speculated ?
That study theorized that ( a ) coronavirus may be spreading at lightning speed , ( b ) half the population of Great Britain may already have it , and ( c ) the disease is actually exceedingly mild in almost everyone who ’ s infected , to the point that few people who ’ ve gotten it will ever even know they ’ ve had it .
There are severe cases , of course , as American doctors and nurses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe cases might not be one-in-50 infections .
They may be more like one-in-5,000 infections .
There may be a crunch at hospitals now only because such a tremendously large number of people in NYC have been infected that even the tiny percentage of severe infections currently represents a big raw number .
A piece in the Wall Street Journal echoes that theory .
We ’ re making BIG decisions as a country based on an assumption about how dangerous COVID-19 is to most of the population .
If one in 50 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are staring at a potentially apocalyptic load on our system and we need to do everything we can to start managing the spread for months to come .
If only one in 5,000 need hospital treatment , then many millions of people may already have recovered and gained immunity , with no “ second wave ” on the way this fall .
What we ’ ll experience over the next month or so may be the worst of it , with herd immunity shortly to follow .
Fear of Covid-19 is based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 4 % of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died , according to the World Health Organization and others .
So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease , two million to four million could die .
We believe that estimate is deeply flawed .
The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die , not the deaths from identified positive cases… [ T ] he northeastern Italian town of Vò , near the provincial capital of Padua .
On March 6 , all 3,300 people of Vò were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prevalence of 2.7 % .
Applying that prevalence to the whole province ( population 955,000 ) , which had 198 reported cases , suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time .
That ’ s more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases .
Since Italy ’ s case fatality rate of 8 % is estimated using the confirmed cases , the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06 % … The epidemic started in China sometime in November or December .
The first confirmed U.S. cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Jan. 15 , and it is likely that the virus entered before that : Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December .
Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days .
An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected .
As of March 23 , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , there were 499 Covid-19 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of six million cases is accurate , that ’ s a mortality rate of 0.01 % , assuming a two week lag between infection and death .
This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1 % .
Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism .
That ’ s the same argument made in the Oxford study , and the same made by Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis in a widely read piece last week .
We know the numerator in calculating the fatality rate from COVID-19 ; the momentous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What if the new coronavirus is extremely infectious , almost always mild ( unless , perhaps , you get a high dose of it like front-line health-care workers do ) , but severe in some freak cases ?
There may be enough infected people out there , say the authors , that we should expect a death toll in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 people , which is serious business but in line with the death toll from the flu and orders of magnitude below the death toll of two million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason hospitals are being crushed by COVID-19 when they aren ’ t crushed every year by the flu is because we have few ways of slowing down transmission of COVID-19 like we do with the flu ( vaccines , naturally gained immunity , and so on ) .
An enormous number of people are sick with it at the same time .
It ’ s just that only a very unlucky few actually end up feeling it .
That ’ s not to minimize what New York is dealing with now .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fever rates on the Kinsa map could be partially explained by many more people than we realize having already contracted the disease and now reached the recovery stage .
1 .
If the virus spreads like lightning , why weren ’ t more people quarantined on cruise ships infected ?
Many were , but when Dr. Jeremy Faust offered his theory a few weeks ago that COVID-19 is less lethal than we think , even he noted how surprisingly low the rate of infection onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship was ( 705 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close quarters and recirculated air , you would think they might all have been quickly infected , not just 20 percent or so .
Only six infected people died , but that ’ s close to one percent , not the .01 percent rate about which the Journal piece speculates .
2 .
Why haven ’ t we seen any atypical rates of fever in L.A. yet , per the Kinsa data ?
A virus as contagious as the Oxford study imagines should have infected many people in a city that size already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small but detectable percentage of that group should have developed fevers .
Shouldn ’ t there be some recent spike ?
If not , then maybe fewer people have been infected than the Oxford study would imagine , which means maybe the virus is less contagious than it imagines , which means maybe the death rate isn ’ t as low as we hope .
In lieu of an exit question , read this grim piece about what the next few months will look like if the theories about a massive undetected population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ A recent analysis from the University of Pennsylvania estimated that even if social-distancing measures can reduce infection rates by 95 percent , 960,000 Americans will still need intensive care .
There are only about 180,000 ventilators in the U.S. and , more pertinently , only enough respiratory therapists and critical-care staff to safely look after 100,000 ventilated patients .
Abandoning social distancing would be foolish .
Abandoning it now , when tests and protective equipment are still scarce , would be catastrophic .
”

Last week, when their “health weather” map debuted, I noted that it was nifty but that it’d be nice to be able to see at a glance on the map whether fevers are becoming more or less common. Kinsa added that feature (“Trends”) yesterday.
As you can see above, there’s a band of counties in Colorado and New Mexico that are showing a modest increase but otherwise the fever rate is declining practically everywhere coast to coast. Dark blue areas reflect the steepest decline. Check out L.A.:
Not only are they not (yet) seeing atypical rates of fever, they’re waaaaaay below where Kinsa’s historical data would project them to be in a normal year. What’s happening here, one would think, is that the social distancing being practiced by locals is sharply reducing the total number of seasonal infections caused by all “influenza-like illnesses.” COVID-19 isn’t the only bug out there; the flu is circulating, as are other well-known and milder forms of coronavirus. Because Kinsa can only measure fevers and not the underlying cause, it can’t say definitively that rates of infection by COVID-19 specifically are decreasing. It’s possible that that rate is still rising but is being offset (and then some) in their data by dramatically declining rates of infection by all other forms of “influenza-like illness.” The overall trend is downward but maybe not the particular trend for COVID-19, especially since it’s more contagious than flu. And that’s the one we care about.
But. Obviously it’s possible that social distancing is driving down the infection rate of COVID-19 too. That’s what these lockdowns are designed to do, after all. The self-isolation strategy is — probably — working, too late for New York but hopefully not too late for a lot of places. Even Florida, the most worrisome fever hot spot in last week’s Kinsa data, is beginning to cool off.
Seems like a good moment, then, to flush this promising collective effort down the toilet and start owning the libs again by hastily sending people back to work:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242905328209080331
“ASAP” is correct but I’m guessing his idea of when “ASAP” is and when Fauci’s idea of it is diverge starkly. Here’s a sneak preview of our country lifting isolation measures before local health departments are ready:
This dickhead who licked a toilet seat for the #CoronaVirusChallenge on Tik Tok has tested positive for COVID-19 and been suspended from twitter. Darwin is working overtime for this year’s awards show pic.twitter.com/6V4k4RMm35 — KFC (@KFCBarstool) March 25, 2020
There’s another, more radical way to interpret the Kinsa data. What if it’s not social distancing that’s driving down fever rates? What if much of the country has already been infected by coronavirus and begun to recover, as the Oxford study I wrote about last night speculated? That study theorized that (a) coronavirus may be spreading at lightning speed, (b) half the population of Great Britain may already have it, and (c) the disease is actually exceedingly mild in almost everyone who’s infected, to the point that few people who’ve gotten it will ever even know they’ve had it. There are severe cases, of course, as American doctors and nurses are seeing firsthand now, but the severe cases might not be one-in-50 infections. They may be more like one-in-5,000 infections. There may be a crunch at hospitals now only because such a tremendously large number of people in NYC have been infected that even the tiny percentage of severe infections currently represents a big raw number.
A piece in the Wall Street Journal echoes that theory. We’re making BIG decisions as a country based on an assumption about how dangerous COVID-19 is to most of the population. If one in 50 or so need hospital treatment then we really are staring at a potentially apocalyptic load on our system and we need to do everything we can to start managing the spread for months to come. If only one in 5,000 need hospital treatment, then many millions of people may already have recovered and gained immunity, with no “second wave” on the way this fall. What we’ll experience over the next month or so may be the worst of it, with herd immunity shortly to follow.
Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases… [T]he northeastern Italian town of Vò, near the provincial capital of Padua. On March 6, all 3,300 people of Vò were tested, and 90 were positive, a prevalence of 2.7%. Applying that prevalence to the whole province (population 955,000), which had 198 reported cases, suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time. That’s more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases. Since Italy’s case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%… The epidemic started in China sometime in November or December. The first confirmed U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15, and it is likely that the virus entered before that: Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December. Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.
That’s the same argument made in the Oxford study, and the same made by Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis in a widely read piece last week. We know the numerator in calculating the fatality rate from COVID-19; the momentous question is what the denominator is. What if the new coronavirus is extremely infectious, almost always mild (unless, perhaps, you get a high dose of it like front-line health-care workers do), but severe in some freak cases? There may be enough infected people out there, say the authors, that we should expect a death toll in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 people, which is serious business but in line with the death toll from the flu and orders of magnitude below the death toll of two million people predicted in some worst-case scenarios. The reason hospitals are being crushed by COVID-19 when they aren’t crushed every year by the flu is because we have few ways of slowing down transmission of COVID-19 like we do with the flu (vaccines, naturally gained immunity, and so on). An enormous number of people are sick with it at the same time. It’s just that only a very unlucky few actually end up feeling it.
That’s not to minimize what New York is dealing with now. It’s bad. But the falling fever rates on the Kinsa map could be partially explained by many more people than we realize having already contracted the disease and now reached the recovery stage.
Two questions, though:
1. If the virus spreads like lightning, why weren’t more people quarantined on cruise ships infected? Many were, but when Dr. Jeremy Faust offered his theory a few weeks ago that COVID-19 is less lethal than we think, even he noted how surprisingly low the rate of infection onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship was (705 of 3,711 passengers). Given the close quarters and recirculated air, you would think they might all have been quickly infected, not just 20 percent or so. Only six infected people died, but that’s close to one percent, not the .01 percent rate about which the Journal piece speculates.
2. Why haven’t we seen any atypical rates of fever in L.A. yet, per the Kinsa data? A virus as contagious as the Oxford study imagines should have infected many people in a city that size already, one would think, and some small but detectable percentage of that group should have developed fevers. Shouldn’t there be some recent spike? If not, then maybe fewer people have been infected than the Oxford study would imagine, which means maybe the virus is less contagious than it imagines, which means maybe the death rate isn’t as low as we hope.
In lieu of an exit question, read this grim piece about what the next few months will look like if the theories about a massive undetected population of infected people are wrong. Quote: “A recent analysis from the University of Pennsylvania estimated that even if social-distancing measures can reduce infection rates by 95 percent, 960,000 Americans will still need intensive care. There are only about 180,000 ventilators in the U.S. and, more pertinently, only enough respiratory therapists and critical-care staff to safely look after 100,000 ventilated patients. Abandoning social distancing would be foolish. Abandoning it now, when tests and protective equipment are still scarce, would be catastrophic.”