committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-22--COVID-19 tests — Trustworthy answers

COVID-19 tests — Trustworthy answers

Federal officials recently testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform about government responses to the COVID-19 crisis .
Committee members exhibited concern and frustration , and engaged in politicized finger-pointing , over what they said was needlessly slow development and distribution of diagnostic tests – particularly as compared to some other countries .
Some praised South Korea for testing more people in one day than the U.S. did in the past two months .
Italy and the U.K. also got positive mention .
One wonders whether these Oversight Committee members have any real appreciation for the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In response to one question , National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci said , “ the system is not really geared to what we need right now ” and “ the idea of anybody getting it easily the way people in other countries are doing it , we are not set up for that.
” He added , “ that is a failing.
” Committee members and the media seized on this widely misquoted and misinterpreted response as evidence of the government ’ s failure to provide needed tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and facts about the federal government ’ s actual actions , should correct at least some of the fake news that quickly dominated many articles , editorials and talking head comments .
For reasons rooted in our history , politics and system of government , the United States has myriad federal agencies , with myriad roles and essential healthcare responsibilities .
State and local health departments also have critical healthcare roles .
A maze of laws , regulations and policies operates at each level .
The private sector develops diagnostic tests , obtains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marketing authorization when required ( reflecting the agency ’ s determination about safety and effectiveness ) and then markets the tests for clinical use by medical professionals .
While medical professionals generally have discretion in their clinical use of devices and pharmaceuticals , many aspects of the practice of medicine are regulated under state law .
Two federal agencies , the FDA and Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) , have been front and center in the battle against this novel and deadly virus .
Using emergency authority , flexible approaches and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the normally much more time-consuming processes .
The CDC promotes health , disease prevention and preparedness activities , with the goal of improving public health , in cooperation with state , local and other national entities .
During a public health emergency , a primary CDC role is to develop a test for the pathogen and provide state and local public health labs ( PHLs ) with testing capacity .
PHLs focus on the health status of population groups , perform limited diagnostic testing , disease surveillance , emergency response support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with protecting the public health by assuring the safety and effectiveness of various products , including medical device diagnostic tests .
FDA reviews and authorizes marketing of such tests , which are designed and manufactured by medical device companies .
Laboratories also develop diagnostic tests .
FDA ’ s authority over tests developed by laboratories ( laboratory developed tests or LDTs ) has been challenged for many years and , with some exceptions , the agency has exercised “ enforcement discretion ” in applying laws and regulations to LDTs .
Whatever the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources on many levels are critical to developing , testing , validating and ultimately getting diagnostic tests that work as intended into the hands of medical professionals .
Considering our many laws , regulations , policies and longtime practices , the CDC and FDA have demonstrated flexibility during this unprecedented healthcare crisis .
Congressional testimony noted that CDC scientists developed a diagnostic test for detecting the virus that causes COVID-19 within ten days of China ’ s disclosure of the genome ’ s sequence .
The test was intended for use by PHLs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) to the CDC for its diagnostic test .
The CDC began shipping this test to public labs .
Shortly thereafter , performance issues unfortunately arose due to a problem in manufacturing one of the reagents .
The CDC resolved the issue and began sending corrected tests to public labs .
As of March 15 , 84 state and local public health labs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia had successfully validated and were using the Center ’ s COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC also granted a “ right of reference ” to performance data contained in its EUA to any entity seeking an EUA for a COVID-19 test , and FDA made templates available for EUA submissions .
On February 29 , FDA issued an “ immediately in effect ” guidance that allowed certain qualified laboratories to use validated COVID-19 tests before FDA had completed its review of their EUAs .
That same day , New York ’ s State Department of Public Health ’ s ( NYSDOH ) Wadsworth Center obtained an EUA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On March 12 , FDA used “ enforcement discretion ” and did not object to NYSDOH ’ s decision to authorize certain New York laboratories to begin patient testing after validating their tests and notifying the NYSDOH .
FDA has engaged with many test developers working on this issue .
It issued its first EUA for commercial distribution of a COVID-19 test to Roche Molecular Systems on March 12 .
Since then , other medical device companies have received EUAs for their COVID-19 diagnostic tests .
Labcorp , Quest and other commercial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing patient tests .
On March 16 , FDA issued revised guidance providing additional flexibility for states to authorize laboratory tests developed by qualified in-state labs for use in their states .
Five days later , FDA granted the first EUA for a test that will provide results in hours , without having to go to a lab .
House Committee members asked why the United States can not just use tests developed by South Korea , other countries or the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
The simple answer is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devices ( including diagnostic tests ) must undergo FDA review and obtain approval or clearance before they can be marketed in the United States , unless that particular type of device is exempt .
This applies to medical devices developed in the USA , and to those developed elsewhere .
On the laboratory side , diagnostic tests ( whether or not they receive FDA review and authorization ) are also subject to scrutiny .
This process is intended to ensure that diagnostic tests work as intended , without false negatives that would put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infect others – or false positives that indicate healthy people are sick and thus use healthcare resources meant for those who are ill .
While FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn was reluctant to criticize other countries , he did note during a March 7 White House briefing that several countries have had “ different levels of success ” with their diagnostic tests and one unspecified country had “ problems with the performance of several tests.
” The private sector is ramping up , and tests for COVID-19 are available in larger quantities .
Ironically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government ’ s actions regarding diagnostic tests have been too flexible .
Other test-related issues are emerging , including possible shortages of important chemicals , equipment availability and the capacity of U.S. labs to handle needed testing .
Our healthcare system has many moving parts , with critical , interfacing roles for government and the private sector .
The system is already unleashing the creative powers of federal , state , local , university and private sector experts and innovators , who will develop , test and deploy diagnostic , preventive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the American way .
When the dust settles , there will be time to assess problems and identify solutions , perhaps including new legislation , to address future crises .
In the meantime , our various moving parts need to work collaboratively to address all aspects of this crisis – while maintaining , where feasible , a flexible approach in applying laws , regulations and policies that were not really designed to handle the monumental crisis at hand .

Federal officials recently testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform about government responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Committee members exhibited concern and frustration, and engaged in politicized finger-pointing, over what they said was needlessly slow development and distribution of diagnostic tests – particularly as compared to some other countries.
Some praised South Korea for testing more people in one day than the U.S. did in the past two months. Italy and the U.K. also got positive mention. One wonders whether these Oversight Committee members have any real appreciation for the system that they and their predecessors created.
In response to one question, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci said, “the system is not really geared to what we need right now” and “the idea of anybody getting it easily the way people in other countries are doing it, we are not set up for that.” He added, “that is a failing.”
Committee members and the media seized on this widely misquoted and misinterpreted response as evidence of the government’s failure to provide needed tests. Some background about our system, and facts about the federal government’s actual actions, should correct at least some of the fake news that quickly dominated many articles, editorials and talking head comments.
For reasons rooted in our history, politics and system of government, the United States has myriad federal agencies, with myriad roles and essential healthcare responsibilities. State and local health departments also have critical healthcare roles. A maze of laws, regulations and policies operates at each level.
The private sector develops diagnostic tests, obtains Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing authorization when required (reflecting the agency’s determination about safety and effectiveness) and then markets the tests for clinical use by medical professionals. While medical professionals generally have discretion in their clinical use of devices and pharmaceuticals, many aspects of the practice of medicine are regulated under state law.
Two federal agencies, the FDA and Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have been front and center in the battle against this novel and deadly virus. Using emergency authority, flexible approaches and “enforcement discretion,” they streamlined many of the normally much more time-consuming processes.
The CDC promotes health, disease prevention and preparedness activities, with the goal of improving public health, in cooperation with state, local and other national entities. During a public health emergency, a primary CDC role is to develop a test for the pathogen and provide state and local public health labs (PHLs) with testing capacity. PHLs focus on the health status of population groups, perform limited diagnostic testing, disease surveillance, emergency response support and other functions.
The FDA is charged with protecting the public health by assuring the safety and effectiveness of various products, including medical device diagnostic tests. FDA reviews and authorizes marketing of such tests, which are designed and manufactured by medical device companies.
Laboratories also develop diagnostic tests. FDA’s authority over tests developed by laboratories (laboratory developed tests or LDTs) has been challenged for many years and, with some exceptions, the agency has exercised “enforcement discretion” in applying laws and regulations to LDTs.
Whatever the avenue, considerable expertise, time and resources on many levels are critical to developing, testing, validating and ultimately getting diagnostic tests that work as intended into the hands of medical professionals.
Considering our many laws, regulations, policies and longtime practices, the CDC and FDA have demonstrated flexibility during this unprecedented healthcare crisis. Congressional testimony noted that CDC scientists developed a diagnostic test for detecting the virus that causes COVID-19 within ten days of China’s disclosure of the genome’s sequence. The test was intended for use by PHLs.
Pursuant to emergency authority under FDA law, FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the CDC for its diagnostic test. The CDC began shipping this test to public labs. Shortly thereafter, performance issues unfortunately arose due to a problem in manufacturing one of the reagents. The CDC resolved the issue and began sending corrected tests to public labs. As of March 15, 84 state and local public health labs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia had successfully validated and were using the Center’s COVID-19 diagnostic test.
During this time, the CDC also granted a “right of reference” to performance data contained in its EUA to any entity seeking an EUA for a COVID-19 test, and FDA made templates available for EUA submissions.
On February 29, FDA issued an “immediately in effect” guidance that allowed certain qualified laboratories to use validated COVID-19 tests before FDA had completed its review of their EUAs. That same day, New York’s State Department of Public Health’s (NYSDOH) Wadsworth Center obtained an EUA from FDA for its COVID-19 test. On March 12, FDA used “enforcement discretion” and did not object to NYSDOH’s decision to authorize certain New York laboratories to begin patient testing after validating their tests and notifying the NYSDOH.
FDA has engaged with many test developers working on this issue. It issued its first EUA for commercial distribution of a COVID-19 test to Roche Molecular Systems on March 12. Since then, other medical device companies have received EUAs for their COVID-19 diagnostic tests. Labcorp, Quest and other commercial, healthcare system and academic labs are also providing patient tests.
On March 16, FDA issued revised guidance providing additional flexibility for states to authorize laboratory tests developed by qualified in-state labs for use in their states. Five days later, FDA granted the first EUA for a test that will provide results in hours, without having to go to a lab.
House Committee members asked why the United States cannot just use tests developed by South Korea, other countries or the World Health Organization (WHO). The simple answer is that federal laws and regulations require that medical devices (including diagnostic tests) must undergo FDA review and obtain approval or clearance before they can be marketed in the United States, unless that particular type of device is exempt. This applies to medical devices developed in the USA, and to those developed elsewhere. On the laboratory side, diagnostic tests (whether or not they receive FDA review and authorization) are also subject to scrutiny.
This process is intended to ensure that diagnostic tests work as intended, without false negatives that would put sick people back on the streets to infect others – or false positives that indicate healthy people are sick and thus use healthcare resources meant for those who are ill. While FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn was reluctant to criticize other countries, he did note during a March 7 White House briefing that several countries have had “different levels of success” with their diagnostic tests and one unspecified country had “problems with the performance of several tests.”
The private sector is ramping up, and tests for COVID-19 are available in larger quantities. Ironically, some critics are now saying the federal government’s actions regarding diagnostic tests have been too flexible. Other test-related issues are emerging, including possible shortages of important chemicals, equipment availability and the capacity of U.S. labs to handle needed testing.
Our healthcare system has many moving parts, with critical, interfacing roles for government and the private sector. The system is already unleashing the creative powers of federal, state, local, university and private sector experts and innovators, who will develop, test and deploy diagnostic, preventive, therapeutic and curative technologies to tackle COVID-19. This is the American way.
When the dust settles, there will be time to assess problems and identify solutions, perhaps including new legislation, to address future crises. In the meantime, our various moving parts need to work collaboratively to address all aspects of this crisis – while maintaining, where feasible, a flexible approach in applying laws, regulations and policies that were not really designed to handle the monumental crisis at hand.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-23--Covid-19 and climate false equivalencies

First of all , this is in no way meant to minimize the threat from Covid-19 .
In fact the opposite .
It is meant to point out similarities in some of the messaging that goes on with climate and this virus .
I have written on this to some extent previously , but I wanted to sum up several parts here including some new observations .
Warning : This is a long boring story .
The best time to read is when you are going to sleep , I was going to market it as an audio presentation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tacky .
Hows that for honesty.eh ?
But give it a try.. 1 ) The end result is unknown .
That means predictions have a wide variance and thinking you KNOW THE RESULT is arrogance on display .
Believing and KNOWING are 2 different things .
We see this in the climate change issue in the fight over CO2 effects .
Many on my side of the issue believe the introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere has the biggest effect and there is a diminishing return with more .
So the arguments range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ to the ’ limited effect ’ ( 1.2C , of which , if true we have over the last hundred years have gotten pretty close to that and where I am and have been ) to the 4-5C warmer which is where many CO2 climate control knobbers find themselves .
Then to the tipping point of runaway warming with virtually no limit .
Now consider the ranges you are seeing here in this situation .
I do not need to review it because anyone paying attention knows we have ranges , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mortality with age .
In fact I have heard it argued that people becoming more vigilant will mean an increase in the median age of death in the coming years .
As we all are going to die , it is just a question of when and what the cause .
Then to the kind of numbers that would rival major epidemics of previous times .
Lost in all , that is the fact we have far more people living in the world today which means mortality percentages are lower , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effect on the quality of life is indeed devastating , In addition with more people on the planet , more are going to be exposed and perish .
That is a function of the median age rising and the explosion of population and prosperity .
So it is extremely serious .
2 ) The people arguing over this .
There are all sorts of cross motivations here .
There is the purely objective person with no interest except in the right answer .
They are on both sides of this issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have found is that a lot of doctors love the weather , so I have some close personal friends in the medical profession .
Until now I would talk to them about the weather , and they would advise me on health .
Fairtrade right ?
But in talking to them now , I find many of them are looking at this as yet another disease that comes along and we adapt to .
There are even a few who believe the response of , ” an ounce of prevention is worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth it even if this turns out to be a best-case scenario .
They realize until the unknowns are known , its wise to prepare .
However , there are things in the media that are downright scary and doomsday .
Additionally , any good news or potentially good news is either ridiculed or not reported .
So we morph into a situation where you have people of goodwill with an honest disagreement .
Then to a second level where people wish to push something in a direction to fit into a set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda develops and once a person becomes invested in the result , the persons ’ vision can become clouded to anything beyond the result one forecasted .
Believe me , in what I do , that is a constant concern , that my forecasts some time hang on too long because I am so convinced I will be right .
So I am not trying to be critical , but more observant here of what I see as a common denominator .
When someone , for instance , is saying that the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that should raise red flags simply due to the time scales as Covid-19 can tear down much in a year .
In fact in the US , because of the mild winter , the economy likely did better than was thought before the winter , as we had record housing starts in January .
So right there the climate “ emergency ” had a result in the US that was positive while unless you are against progress for mankind , ( that is another issue , the wish to diminish man ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great .
The point is that in both issues , there are very good people that disagree , but a whole cottage industry that is swung by agenda has sprung up .
So there are some dire messages here , but in the end , the facts show that warmer is better for life , very much opposite the possible fast result of COVID-19 .
One test I have devised is trying to detect tone .
For instance , the amount of cases in China matches almost exactly the total in India since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks ago , Why is that ?
An objective person wants to know .
However , someone jumping to conclusions or just looking at one side of the issue , for whatever reason will say , well they don ’ t know how to test or they are not reporting .
Then why is South Korea so leveled off ?
As far as the anti-malarial , the warnings of what can go wrong are no different than what you see on TV for the preventive drugs they advertise .
A whole list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outbreak of malaria in this country , would we not make those drugs available .
I have read the studies that are out there .
There are encouraging possibilities .
It ’ s not the Holy Grail or a magic bullet , but the TONE of people that are trying to throw cold water on it should have them trying to do the same for any common drug on the market today .
Just watch a TV ad for any common drug , I think “ Why would anyone take that ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed is death .
The idea that there is a reward without risk in anything is absurd .
Blasting the President for a false hope or actually trying to lead , especially when he says , “ We ’ ll see , ” is simply showing a closed-minded intolerant approach to all this .
So the objective person wants to know the why ’ s of this and most of the people working on this are doing that .
As another whole subset is working on a different agenda .
Another link to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it is approached .
In additional , add Red Herrings into the equation , such as racist claims should raise red flags .
When we change the name of these diseases : Here are 17 other diseases named after populations or places : Named by European explorers for the Guinea coast of West Africa in the 1600s .
Named after the mountain range spreading across western North America first recognized first in 1896 in Idaho .
Named after a large outbreak of the disease occurred in Lyme and Old Lyme , Connecticut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mosquito found to cause the disease in the Ross River of Queensland , Australia by the 1960s .
The first major outbreak occurred in 1928 .
Named after its 1940s discovery in Omsk , Russia .
Named in 1976 for the Ebola River in Zaire located in central Africa .
Also known as “ camel flu , ” MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and all cases are linked to those who traveled to the Middle Eastern peninsula .
Valley Fever earned its nickname from a 1930s outbreak San Joaquin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case came from Argentina .
Named after Norwalk , Ohio after an outbreak in 1968 .
First discovered in 1947 and named after the Zika Forest in Uganda .
Named after its first case in Japan in 1871 .
Named after the German doctors who first described it in the 18th century .
The disease is also sometimes referred to as “ Rubella.
” While the true origins of the Spanish Flu remain unknown , the disease earned its name after Spain began to report deaths from the flu in its newspapers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nigeria in 1969 .
• Legionnaire ’ s Disease Named in 1976 following an outbreak of people contracting the lung infection after attending an American Legion convention in Philadelphia .
So all these must be “ erased ” if one wishes to distract from the seriousness of the actual situation with accusations of racism because the place of origin is used as labeling .
Just like if you wish to argue the current warm period is an emergency , you must erase periods even warmer than this .
That which were listed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Medieval Warm Period ( which was a climate optimum ) , arguing it was a regional effect .
Yet the point is-there is a common denominator here of the red herring , and to use that , known history must be rewritten .
What is ironic , if I may put it nicely , is that many of these people are on the same kind of doom and gloom train with “ climate change ” .
Here is an even bigger irony .
The young generation , which has been exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in grade school , and worries incessantly about that , up until now , appears to be quite unconcerned about this .
Yet how do you worry about something for unborn generations , when you have people that agree with you and are beating a drum for disaster now ?
Is not the demon today far more important than the ghost , real or imaginary , that you may face tomorrow ?
It is not just about the idea of being young and bulletproof , for if it was we would not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
3 ) The wide variance in forecasts .
I touched on this above to some extent .
Forecasts of doomsday are as old as mankind itself .
But there is a link , This outstanding post several days ago on CFACT : showed how wrong forecasts were from the first earth day .
Many of those same forecasts are showing up now , but of course , the opposite reason from the first one .
Which as I have reviewed before , is opposite of what previous warmer times have produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate optimums .
But only time will tell if the worst forecasts with either will come to pass .
In almost all cases , such forecasts have not come true which is why they are never brought up .
4 ) Showing the real value of the American Safety net .
This gets interesting also .
I believe in less government , but we do need an essential framework .
There is the argument in the man-made climate change community that we should have the same kind of response we have for COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if anything COVID-19 is showing , what happens when the business engine of the nation is shut down , it leads to misery .
One can not argue that before this hit , life on the planet had improved dramatically over the last 100 years .
This despite and aided in fact by warming .
Yet a threat like COVID-19 will be something to show that the government is essential in stepping in for threats like this .
Trying to portray a much more gradual event , arguably not hindering man ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a false equivalency .
One thing is for sure , you are seeing what taking a couple of trillion dollars out of the economy can do .
Imagine a 10 trillion dollar plan to fight “ climate change ” ?
!
The Covid-19 event , like hurricanes , tornadoes , etc .
are showing why there has to be a safety net .
The question is the extent .
5 ) The attacking of ideas .
I have found that people I see are treating each other nicer .
However over social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viscousness in COVID-19 is mimicking the kind of things I see in climate .
I have been accused of minimizing the threat .
Since I am 64 years old , and the people I have known , loved and looked up to longest are right in the middle of the median age this disease is killing .
I am exactly opposite .
But if you are looking to destroy an idea , you do anything you can to do so .
I had a dear friend of mine say he wanted to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On a personal level , for me , its a test of my faith .
That it may not be for other people , does not upset me .
What is concerning in this matter , climate , etc , is the branding of people that offer different ideas , even people that you agree with on almost everything , get upset because they may think you don ’ t see things their way .
They will do anything to FORCE , keyword FORCE , another person to bend to their will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censor ideas .
It is close-minded and intolerant .
If I had a nickel for every time in my life someone that disagreed with me , exposed me to something I learned , I would be a very rich man .
You don ’ t learn anything shutting out ideas .
I welcome discussion and if wrong it makes me stronger if I learned something I can use .
You don ’ t do that by trying to destroy people , and there seems to be some of that going on .
Obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of my professors at Penn State used to say that Weather Watches for a common events such as snow can cause more disruption than the snow itself .
( For those in the south , how many times have you seen snow forecasted and the shelves laid bare ?
The storm comes and 2 days later all the snow is gone . )
There is that possibility here , but what it does show with no uncertainty , is what happens when our business engine shuts down .
So it is instructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going thru will be worth it , even if this fizzles out completely .
I can not say the same about using this as a strategy to develop a war footing on “ climate change ” and trying to portray COVID-19 as actually MINIMIZING the seriousness of the common foe in front of us now .
As someone who believes in linkage in events , similarities in patterns , I am noticing some here .
There are good people on both sides on all issues that truly are searching for the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can see the linkage I am talking about .
Perhaps not , but the call is yours , not mine .
The bottom line is that freedom is needed for the pursuit of any answer .
Those wishing to limit that by demonizing and destroying people who disagree with them are motivated by their desired outcome , no matter what the actual outcome may be .
( Examples : The call for the new dust bowl back in 2012 , when the exact opposite evolved the rest of the decade or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 . )
Please stay safe and heed the cautions being advised .
I do not know or pretend to know the outcome of COVID-19 , though I may believe in a certain result .
Yet , like the weather , I can not let contrived notions cloud my vision pertaining to the challenge .
I do know open-mindedness and freedom should be used as keystones for the way to face challenges and if one looks at the prosperity of our nation , the results speak for themselves .

First of all, this is in no way meant to minimize the threat from Covid-19. In fact the opposite. It is meant to point out similarities in some of the messaging that goes on with climate and this virus. I have written on this to some extent previously, but I wanted to sum up several parts here including some new observations. Warning: This is a long boring story. The best time to read is when you are going to sleep, I was going to market it as an audio presentation for insomnia but I thought that would be tacky. Hows that for honesty.eh?
But give it a try..
1) The end result is unknown. That means predictions have a wide variance and thinking you KNOW THE RESULT is arrogance on display. Believing and KNOWING are 2 different things. We see this in the climate change issue in the fight over CO2 effects. Many on my side of the issue believe the introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere has the biggest effect and there is a diminishing return with more. So the arguments range from the ‘nothing at all crowd’ to the ’limited effect’ (1.2C, of which, if true we have over the last hundred years have gotten pretty close to that and where I am and have been) to the 4-5C warmer which is where many CO2 climate control knobbers find themselves. Then to the tipping point of runaway warming with virtually no limit.
Now consider the ranges you are seeing here in this situation. I do not need to review it because anyone paying attention knows we have ranges, the no discernible effect from the regular expectations of mortality with age. In fact I have heard it argued that people becoming more vigilant will mean an increase in the median age of death in the coming years. As we all are going to die, it is just a question of when and what the cause. Then to the kind of numbers that would rival major epidemics of previous times. Lost in all, that is the fact we have far more people living in the world today which means mortality percentages are lower, but with a much more prosperous world, the effect on the quality of life is indeed devastating, In addition with more people on the planet, more are going to be exposed and perish. That is a function of the median age rising and the explosion of population and prosperity. So it is extremely serious.
2) The people arguing over this. There are all sorts of cross motivations here. There is the purely objective person with no interest except in the right answer. They are on both sides of this issue. One of the perks of my job I have found is that a lot of doctors love the weather, so I have some close personal friends in the medical profession. Until now I would talk to them about the weather, and they would advise me on health. Fairtrade right? But in talking to them now, I find many of them are looking at this as yet another disease that comes along and we adapt to. There are even a few who believe the response of ,”an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” is worth it even if this turns out to be a best-case scenario. They realize until the unknowns are known, its wise to prepare. However, there are things in the media that are downright scary and doomsday. Additionally, any good news or potentially good news is either ridiculed or not reported. So we morph into a situation where you have people of goodwill with an honest disagreement. Then to a second level where people wish to push something in a direction to fit into a set outcome. In other words, an agenda develops and once a person becomes invested in the result, the persons’ vision can become clouded to anything beyond the result one forecasted. Believe me, in what I do, that is a constant concern, that my forecasts some time hang on too long because I am so convinced I will be right. So I am not trying to be critical, but more observant here of what I see as a common denominator. When someone, for instance, is saying that the climate emergency is worse than the Covid-19 outbreak, that should raise red flags simply due to the time scales as Covid-19 can tear down much in a year. In fact in the US, because of the mild winter, the economy likely did better than was thought before the winter, as we had record housing starts in January. So right there the climate “emergency” had a result in the US that was positive while unless you are against progress for mankind, (that is another issue, the wish to diminish man’s progress) the warmer winter was great. The point is that in both issues, there are very good people that disagree, but a whole cottage industry that is swung by agenda has sprung up. So there are some dire messages here, but in the end, the facts show that warmer is better for life, very much opposite the possible fast result of COVID-19.
One test I have devised is trying to detect tone. For instance, the amount of cases in China matches almost exactly the total in India since their first case was reported a few weeks ago, Why is that? An objective person wants to know. However, someone jumping to conclusions or just looking at one side of the issue, for whatever reason will say, well they don’t know how to test or they are not reporting. Then why is South Korea so leveled off? As far as the anti-malarial, the warnings of what can go wrong are no different than what you see on TV for the preventive drugs they advertise. A whole list of possible side effects. If there were an outbreak of malaria in this country, would we not make those drugs available. I have read the studies that are out there. There are encouraging possibilities. It’s not the Holy Grail or a magic bullet, but the TONE of people that are trying to throw cold water on it should have them trying to do the same for any common drug on the market today. Just watch a TV ad for any common drug, I think “Why would anyone take that”, when one of the side effects listed is death. The idea that there is a reward without risk in anything is absurd. Blasting the President for a false hope or actually trying to lead, especially when he says, “We’ll see,” is simply showing a closed-minded intolerant approach to all this. So the objective person wants to know the why’s of this and most of the people working on this are doing that. As another whole subset is working on a different agenda. Another link to the climate change issue as far as how it is approached. In additional, add Red Herrings into the equation, such as racist claims should raise red flags. When we change the name of these diseases:Here are 17 other diseases named after populations or places:
From this link:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/13/17-diseases-named-after-places-or-people/
West Nile Virus
Guinea Worm
Named by European explorers for the Guinea coast of West Africa in the 1600s.
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever
Named after the mountain range spreading across western North America first recognized first in 1896 in Idaho.
Lyme Disease
Named after a large outbreak of the disease occurred in Lyme and Old Lyme, Connecticut in the 1970s.
Ross River Fever
Named after a mosquito found to cause the disease in the Ross River of Queensland, Australia by the 1960s. The first major outbreak occurred in 1928.
Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever
Named after its 1940s discovery in Omsk, Russia.
Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever
Named in 1976 for the Ebola River in Zaire located in central Africa.
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)
Also known as “camel flu,” MERS was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and all cases are linked to those who traveled to the Middle Eastern peninsula.
Valley Fever
Valley Fever earned its nickname from a 1930s outbreak San Joaquin Valley of California, though its first case came from Argentina.
Marburg Virus Disease
Named after Marburg, Germany in 1967.
Norovirus
Named after Norwalk, Ohio after an outbreak in 1968.
Zika Fever
First discovered in 1947 and named after the Zika Forest in Uganda.
Japanese Encephalitis
Named after its first case in Japan in 1871.
German Measles
Named after the German doctors who first described it in the 18th century. The disease is also sometimes referred to as “Rubella.”
Spanish Flu
While the true origins of the Spanish Flu remain unknown, the disease earned its name after Spain began to report deaths from the flu in its newspapers.
Hong Kong Flu (1968)
Lassa Fever
Named after the being found in Lassa, Nigeria in 1969.
Legionnaire’s Disease Named in 1976 following an outbreak of people contracting the lung infection after attending an American Legion convention in Philadelphia.
So all these must be “erased” if one wishes to distract from the seriousness of the actual situation with accusations of racism because the place of origin is used as labeling. Just like if you wish to argue the current warm period is an emergency, you must erase periods even warmer than this. That which were listed as optimums and BTW is being used in the Medieval Warm Period (which was a climate optimum), arguing it was a regional effect. Yet the point is-there is a common denominator here of the red herring, and to use that, known history must be rewritten.
What is ironic, if I may put it nicely, is that many of these people are on the same kind of doom and gloom train with “climate change”. Here is an even bigger irony. The young generation, which has been exposed to the climate change agenda since being in grade school, and worries incessantly about that, up until now, appears to be quite unconcerned about this. Yet how do you worry about something for unborn generations, when you have people that agree with you and are beating a drum for disaster now? Is not the demon today far more important than the ghost, real or imaginary, that you may face tomorrow? It is not just about the idea of being young and bulletproof, for if it was we would not have an 81-week climate change school strike going on.
3) The wide variance in forecasts. I touched on this above to some extent. Forecasts of doomsday are as old as mankind itself. But there is a link,
This outstanding post several days ago on CFACT:
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/13/greta-preaches-many-of-the-first-earth-days-failed-predictions/
showed how wrong forecasts were from the first earth day. Many of those same forecasts are showing up now, but of course, the opposite reason from the first one. Which as I have reviewed before, is opposite of what previous warmer times have produced and so much so they were called climate optimums. But only time will tell if the worst forecasts with either will come to pass. In almost all cases, such forecasts have not come true which is why they are never brought up.
4) Showing the real value of the American Safety net. This gets interesting also. I believe in less government, but we do need an essential framework. There is the argument in the man-made climate change community that we should have the same kind of response we have for COVID-19. This which is interesting in that if anything COVID-19 is showing, what happens when the business engine of the nation is shut down, it leads to misery. One can not argue that before this hit, life on the planet had improved dramatically over the last 100 years. This despite and aided in fact by warming. Yet a threat like COVID-19 will be something to show that the government is essential in stepping in for threats like this. Trying to portray a much more gradual event, arguably not hindering man’s progress but enhancing it, seems like a false equivalency. One thing is for sure, you are seeing what taking a couple of trillion dollars out of the economy can do. Imagine a 10 trillion dollar plan to fight “climate change”?! The Covid-19 event, like hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. are showing why there has to be a safety net. The question is the extent.
5) The attacking of ideas. I have found that people I see are treating each other nicer. However over social media and regular media, the level of viscousness in COVID-19 is mimicking the kind of things I see in climate. I have been accused of minimizing the threat. Since I am 64 years old, and the people I have known, loved and looked up to longest are right in the middle of the median age this disease is killing. I am exactly opposite. But if you are looking to destroy an idea, you do anything you can to do so. I had a dear friend of mine say he wanted to make sure I was not cavalier about this. On a personal level, for me, its a test of my faith. That it may not be for other people, does not upset me. What is concerning in this matter, climate, etc, is the branding of people that offer different ideas, even people that you agree with on almost everything, get upset because they may think you don’t see things their way. They will do anything to FORCE, keyword FORCE, another person to bend to their will. Attacking people is an attempt to censor ideas. It is close-minded and intolerant. If I had a nickel for every time in my life someone that disagreed with me, exposed me to something I learned, I would be a very rich man. You don’t learn anything shutting out ideas. I welcome discussion and if wrong it makes me stronger if I learned something I can use. You don’t do that by trying to destroy people, and there seems to be some of that going on.
Obviously this is a very serious situation, one of my professors at Penn State used to say that Weather Watches for a common events such as snow can cause more disruption than the snow itself. (For those in the south, how many times have you seen snow forecasted and the shelves laid bare? The storm comes and 2 days later all the snow is gone.) There is that possibility here, but what it does show with no uncertainty, is what happens when our business engine shuts down. So it is instructive. I believe that the pain we are going thru will be worth it, even if this fizzles out completely. I can not say the same about using this as a strategy to develop a war footing on “climate change” and trying to portray COVID-19 as actually MINIMIZING the seriousness of the common foe in front of us now. As someone who believes in linkage in events, similarities in patterns, I am noticing some here. There are good people on both sides on all issues that truly are searching for the right answer. Watch closely and see if you can see the linkage I am talking about. Perhaps not, but the call is yours, not mine.
The bottom line is that freedom is needed for the pursuit of any answer. Those wishing to limit that by demonizing and destroying people who disagree with them are motivated by their desired outcome, no matter what the actual outcome may be. (Examples: The call for the new dust bowl back in 2012, when the exact opposite evolved the rest of the decade or the idea the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.)
Please stay safe and heed the cautions being advised. I do not know or pretend to know the outcome of COVID-19, though I may believe in a certain result. Yet, like the weather, I can not let contrived notions cloud my vision pertaining to the challenge. I do know open-mindedness and freedom should be used as keystones for the way to face challenges and if one looks at the prosperity of our nation, the results speak for themselves.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-23--Emergency! Narrow the recovery curve

Emergency! Narrow the recovery curve

There are three key letters everyone needs to focus on .
They are V , U , and L. These are the common shapes economic recoveries take .
A V shaped recovery is ideal .
It means bounce right back .
This is where we should aim , but if we don ’ t get the economy functioning fast , the opportunity will be lost .
A U shaped recovery means a reasonable period of loss , followed by growth .
This is more common , but second best .
If we let this scenario slip from our grasp… heaven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the wolf now stalking us .
It means drop down and stay down , with suffering over a prolonged period .
We ’ re talking stagnation — Japan ’ s lost decade — if we ’ re lucky .
It means long-term bread lines , brother can you spare a dime , shanty town , 1930s great depression , if we ’ re not .
We ’ ve worked together to flatten the virus transmission curve and enable our medical system to cope .
We must work together now to narrow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our economy shut down , markets are crashing .
How could they not ?
If we don ’ t get the economy functioning we will all learn a terrible lesson in what “ unsustainable ” actually means .
Trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulants will quickly be consumed , vanish and be wasted , unless markets are permitted to function and the economic motor to run .
The good news is that if we ’ re smart , we are better equipped to harness the productive power of our free market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , than we ’ ve ever been before .
• The CODVID-19 crisis is not an opportunity for partisan advantage .
STOP IT !
• One-size-fits-all edicts are what we issue at the first moment of emergency .
We must do better moving forward .
• We ’ re in the digital age .
Information is power .
Use it .
• Not all activities operate at the same level of risk .
Assess them individually and phase them back on as quickly as reasonable .
• State-wide orders are inefficient .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ little exposure , for instance , shouldn ’ t receive the same mandates as dense urban areas .
Fine tune .
• Slash bureaucratic red tape and remove unnecessary obstacles to working in novel ways .
• Remove disincentives and create no new disincentives to hiring Americans and producing goods here .
• Tailor safety procedures to allow businesses to resume functioning .
• Keep emergency programs temporary .
Make long-term policy changes through normal due process .
• Phase activity back on as the virus threat diminishes .
• Phase activity back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes widespread and social distancing is no longer effective .
• Government is vital , but inefficient .
Enable the private sector to provide solutions .
• Harness today ’ s data-driven economy to replace blanket shutdowns with a mosaic of safe activity .
• Be kind , caring , compassionate , appreciative , polite and helpful to others .
If we don ’ t enable economic recovery to get moving , the resulting harm will exceed the harm from the virus .
To everyone caring for the sick , keeping order , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , driving our trucks , stocking our shelves , helping a neighbor , making us laugh , finding a way to keep things moving when others panicked… CFACT salutes you !
It ’ s not the first time we ’ ve owed you one .
If you want to read one of the best essays ever written about the power of every purchase we make in a free market to benefit a multitude .
Read this .

There are three key letters everyone needs to focus on.
They are V, U, and L. These are the common shapes economic recoveries take.
A V shaped recovery is ideal. It means bounce right back. This is where we should aim, but if we don’t get the economy functioning fast, the opportunity will be lost.
A U shaped recovery means a reasonable period of loss, followed by growth. This is more common, but second best. If we let this scenario slip from our grasp… heaven help us.
An L shaped recovery is the wolf now stalking us. It means drop down and stay down, with suffering over a prolonged period. We’re talking stagnation — Japan’s lost decade — if we’re lucky. It means long-term bread lines, brother can you spare a dime, shanty town, 1930s great depression, if we’re not.
We’ve worked together to flatten the virus transmission curve and enable our medical system to cope.
Well done.We hope these efforts stem the loss of life and the burden on our nurses, hospitals, and doctors. To all those who have lost someone, or are concerned about their health, or the well-being of a loved one, our prayers are with you.
We must work together now to narrow the economic recovery curve.
With huge portions of our economy shut down, markets are crashing.
How could they not?
If we don’t get the economy functioning we will all learn a terrible lesson in what “unsustainable” actually means.
Trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulants will quickly be consumed, vanish and be wasted, unless markets are permitted to function and the economic motor to run.
The good news is that if we’re smart, we are better equipped to harness the productive power of our free market, and safely phase economic activity back on, than we’ve ever been before.
The CODVID-19 crisis is not an opportunity for partisan advantage. STOP IT!
One-size-fits-all edicts are what we issue at the first moment of emergency. We must do better moving forward.
We’re in the digital age. Information is power. Use it.
Not all activities operate at the same level of risk. Assess them individually and phase them back on as quickly as reasonable.
State-wide orders are inefficient. Rural and desert counties in California with little exposure, for instance, shouldn’t receive the same mandates as dense urban areas. Fine tune.
Slash bureaucratic red tape and remove unnecessary obstacles to working in novel ways.
Remove disincentives and create no new disincentives to hiring Americans and producing goods here.
Make remote working incredibly productive.
Tailor safety procedures to allow businesses to resume functioning.
Set aside unneeded regulations.
Keep emergency programs temporary. Make long-term policy changes through normal due process.
Phase activity back on as the virus threat diminishes.
Phase activity back on if, sadly, the virus becomes widespread and social distancing is no longer effective.
Government is vital, but inefficient. Enable the private sector to provide solutions.
Harness today’s data-driven economy to replace blanket shutdowns with a mosaic of safe activity.
Be kind, caring, compassionate, appreciative, polite and helpful to others.
Plan a COVID-19 endgame.
If we don’t enable economic recovery to get moving, the resulting harm will exceed the harm from the virus.
Time to be smart. Fast.
_______
To everyone caring for the sick, keeping order, growing our food, producing our goods, driving our trucks, stocking our shelves, helping a neighbor, making us laugh, finding a way to keep things moving when others panicked… CFACT salutes you! It’s not the first time we’ve owed you one.
If you want to read one of the best essays ever written about the power of every purchase we make in a free market to benefit a multitude. Read this.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-24--Free market begins to solve coronavirus test shortage

As COVID-19 , commonly referred to as the coronavirus , continues to spread across the United States , questions are being raised about the availability of test kits .
While other countries have been testing hundreds of thousands to millions of individuals , in early March the Center for Disease Control ( CDC ) had only tested just over 1,000 people .
But why are these tests so vital ?
And why is the CDC so behind ?
In order to determine if someone has the flu or the new coronavirus , that person must be tested with the appropriate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-quarantined or isolated in hospital care , or if they can just take more typical sickness precautions .
As reported in the MIT Technology Review , in the beginning of February of this year , many of the test kits the CDC began to distribute were faulty , and were giving false positive results .
That means that many people who were tested were thought to have contracted the coronavirus , but actually had not .
It also prevented more people who actually contracted the coronavirus from being tested due to the delays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gut reaction may be to ask “ oh , so this virus thing is overblown after all ?
” , it unfortunately is not that simple .
The reason this is so concerning is because if the reagents used in the tests were contaminated , thus giving the false positive results , it is almost impossible to know if samples taken were positive because of the actual presence of COVID-19 in a person , or because of the contamination .
Malfunctioning tests then had to be sent back to the CDC for further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay in assessing how widespread the disease actually was .
The amplification of DNA in PCR [ polymerase chain reaction ] has to be initiated using short strands that are complementary to the target DNA , called primers .
Keith Jerome , the head of virology at the University of Washington , points out that “ primer design is still somewhat of an art , and not fully predictable.
” Even when you have a good database of viral sequences , not all primer sets that look good on a computer will perform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s terms , it means the science behind these tests can be sensitive .
If it is off by just a tiny bit , the test can easily fail .
To make matters even worse , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) had prohibited any state or commercial labs from developing coronavirus test kits , giving the CDC a monopoly of control over their development and implementation .
It may sound safe , until the only organization allowed to create the tests ( the CDC ) makes tests that fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and FDA lifted the ban on private labs and companies from creating coronavirus test kits .
In early March , independent labs began to develop kits and test individuals .
We ’ re already seeing major steps forward ; the University of Washington , for instance , has a new diagnostic that will allow it to test 1,500 samples a day … The reagents are now fixed , and the CDC looks ready to move forward .
The CDC now says that it anticipates labs all over the United States should be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the efficiency and innovation of free market competition , coronavirus testing should be on the road to where it needs to be to appropriately assess the extent of the disease in the United States .
The CDC and FDA should continue to look for areas where such unnecessary government regulations could pose a problem in the future .
As the coronavirus spreads , the United States ’ health care system needs to be as prepared as possible to prevent the deaths and infections seen in places like Italy .
For more information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , please visit the CDC ’ s website on COVID-19 .

As COVID-19, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, continues to spread across the United States, questions are being raised about the availability of test kits.
While other countries have been testing hundreds of thousands to millions of individuals, in early March the Center for Disease Control (CDC) had only tested just over 1,000 people.
But why are these tests so vital? And why is the CDC so behind?
In order to determine if someone has the flu or the new coronavirus, that person must be tested with the appropriate kit to determine if they should be self-quarantined or isolated in hospital care, or if they can just take more typical sickness precautions.
As reported in the MIT Technology Review, in the beginning of February of this year, many of the test kits the CDC began to distribute were faulty, and were giving false positive results.
That means that many people who were tested were thought to have contracted the coronavirus, but actually had not. It also prevented more people who actually contracted the coronavirus from being tested due to the delays the faulty tests caused.
While your gut reaction may be to ask “oh, so this virus thing is overblown after all?”, it unfortunately is not that simple.
The reason this is so concerning is because if the reagents used in the tests were contaminated, thus giving the false positive results, it is almost impossible to know if samples taken were positive because of the actual presence of COVID-19 in a person, or because of the contamination.
Malfunctioning tests then had to be sent back to the CDC for further testing, causing even more of a delay in assessing how widespread the disease actually was.
The MIT Technology Review explains:
The amplification of DNA in PCR [polymerase chain reaction] has to be initiated using short strands that are complementary to the target DNA, called primers. Keith Jerome, the head of virology at the University of Washington, points out that “primer design is still somewhat of an art, and not fully predictable.” Even when you have a good database of viral sequences, not all primer sets that look good on a computer will perform well in real life.
In laymen’s terms, it means the science behind these tests can be sensitive. If it is off by just a tiny bit, the test can easily fail.
To make matters even worse, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had prohibited any state or commercial labs from developing coronavirus test kits, giving the CDC a monopoly of control over their development and implementation.
It may sound safe, until the only organization allowed to create the tests (the CDC) make tests that fail.
On February 29, the CDC and FDA lifted the ban on private labs and companies from creating coronavirus test kits. In early March, independent labs began to develop kits and test individuals.
The MIT Technology Review also reports:
We’re already seeing major steps forward; the University of Washington, for instance, has a new diagnostic that will allow it to test 1,500 samples a day … The reagents are now fixed, and the CDC looks ready to move forward.
The CDC now says that it anticipates labs all over the United States should be able test approximately 400,000 patients each.
Thanks to the efficiency and innovation of free market competition, coronavirus testing should be on the road to where it needs to be to appropriately assess the extent of the disease in the United States.
The CDC and FDA should continue to look for areas where such unnecessary government regulations could pose a problem in the future. As the coronavirus spreads, the United States’ health care system needs to be as prepared as possible to prevent the deaths and infections seen in places like Italy.
For more information on how to stop the spread of coronavirus, please visit the CDC’s website on COVID-19.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-24--America faces a COVID-19/Economic crossroads

We live in dangerous times and it could get much worse in the weeks ahead , both for public health and the economy .
At this moment , the United States and the world are accumulating numbers of people contracting the COVID-19 coronavirus and numbers of people losing their jobs and businesses .
Both have an ominous multiplier effect .
The question faced by our elected officials , starting with the President and the nation ’ s fifty governors , is how much longer can they shut down the economy to fight this insidious virus , and is it prudent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midday Tuesday there were more than 46,500 Americans who tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus , and nearly 600 dead ; this death toll having tripled in just five days .
The global figures are significantly higher , with a greater proportion of deaths to those diagnosed , as compared to the U.S .
Importantly , in the U.S. , of those diagnosed with COVID-19 , the percentage of deaths continues to dwindle .
While both figures are expected to rise , the death rate is now below 1.3 percent and heading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-fifth of one percent .
On average , 8 percent of Americans annually contract the flu .
Depending on the season , this perennial number ranges between 3 and 11 percent of the population , according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control .
In 2017 , 55,672 Americans died from the flu or pneumonia , the eighth biggest killer that year .
This staggering figure yet amounts to a death rate between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of those who contract the illness , which is less than two hundredths of a percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall .
The death rate from COVID-19 may , in fact , be closer to the influenza rate than initially realized since millions of Americans have not been tested , yet may already have suffered mild versions of the coronavirus .
The nearly 56,000 Americans who died from flu and pneumonia in 2017 was higher than a typical year and nearly the equivalent of the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War over a dozen-year period .
Tragically , the number of annual flu deaths in America is in the five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions put on Americans by several state governors will have the effect of slowing the spread of COVID-19 .
It ultimately will not stop its spread , since this virus is more contagious than the typical flu virus .
But slowing its spread is vitally important to buy time for the weather to warm up and to “ flatten the curve ” of cases so as to ease the impact on the health care system over a short period .
Meanwhile , the closure of businesses and massive , growing unemployment also will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much longer .
For every restaurant , hotel or other business that closes , workers are laid off , mortgages and other debts won ’ t get paid , and bankruptcies will multiply .
The longer we have governments imposing restrictions on congregating and traveling , the more severe will be this economic downturn .
If borrowers default on debts en masse , the commercial mortgage market will collapse absent extraordinary intervention by the government .
At this writing , Congress is deadlocked on legislation to cope with the downturn in the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and families , and loan programs and bailouts to businesses , among other provisions .
Some of the disagreement relates to congressional Democratic leaders demanding a slew of non-germane proposals to this emergency bill , including tax credits for wind and solar projects , and increased fuel emission standards for the airlines .
Regardless of how one views these issues—which are highly dubious on their own—I doubt a small business owner shutting her doors , a laid off worker , or a COVID-19 victim on a ventilator is hoping that airplanes become more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Assuming imminent congressional agreement , how soon with the cash flow , how long can it last , and will it be enough of a backstop to this economic downward spiral ?
In a matter of days , federal and state governments may have to rethink their restrictions on activities of Americans in order to stave off what will be an economic depression .
At a minimum , restrictions will need to be more targeted to protect more vulnerable populations like the elderly , and the government must continue to provide needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity to health care facilities .
If the COVID-19 coronavirus proves to be little more dangerous than typical annual influenza , the ongoing fight against it should not turn into an economic calamity which has not been seen in this country in 80 years and will result in greater tragedy .

We live in dangerous times and it could get much worse in the weeks ahead, both for public health and the economy.
At this moment, the United States and the world are accumulating numbers of people contracting the COVID-19 coronavirus and numbers of people losing their jobs and businesses.
Both have an ominous multiplier effect.
The question faced by our elected officials, starting with the President and the nation’s fifty governors, is how much longer can they shut down the economy to fight this insidious virus, and is it prudent to continue this way?
As of midday Tuesday there were more than 46,500 Americans who tested positive for the COVID-19 coronavirus, and nearly 600 dead; this death toll having tripled in just five days. The global figures are significantly higher, with a greater proportion of deaths to those diagnosed, as compared to the U.S.
Importantly, in the U.S., of those diagnosed with COVID-19, the percentage of deaths continues to dwindle. While both figures are expected to rise, the death rate is now below 1.3 percent and heading to more familiar influenza territory of less than one-fifth of one percent.
On average, 8 percent of Americans annually contract the flu. Depending on the season, this perennial number ranges between 3 and 11 percent of the population, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In 2017, 55,672 Americans died from the flu or pneumonia, the eighth biggest killer that year. This staggering figure yet amounts to a death rate between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of those who contract the illness, which is less than two hundredths of a percent (<0.02%) of Americans overall.
The death rate from COVID-19 may, in fact, be closer to the influenza rate than initially realized since millions of Americans have not been tested, yet may already have suffered mild versions of the coronavirus.
The nearly 56,000 Americans who died from flu and pneumonia in 2017 was higher than a typical year and nearly the equivalent of the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War over a dozen-year period. Tragically, the number of annual flu deaths in America is in the five figures.
The closing of businesses and restrictions put on Americans by several state governors will have the effect of slowing the spread of COVID-19. It ultimately will not stop its spread, since this virus is more contagious than the typical flu virus. But slowing its spread is vitally important to buy time for the weather to warm up and to “flatten the curve” of cases so as to ease the impact on the health care system over a short period.
Meanwhile, the closure of businesses and massive, growing unemployment also will take its toll if allowed to continue much longer.
For every restaurant, hotel or other business that closes, workers are laid off, mortgages and other debts won’t get paid, and bankruptcies will multiply. The longer we have governments imposing restrictions on congregating and traveling, the more severe will be this economic downturn. If borrowers default on debts en masse, the commercial mortgage market will collapse absent extraordinary intervention by the government.
At this writing, Congress is deadlocked on legislation to cope with the downturn in the economy, which include cash payments to individuals and families, and loan programs and bailouts to businesses, among other provisions.
Some of the disagreement relates to congressional Democratic leaders demanding a slew of non-germane proposals to this emergency bill, including tax credits for wind and solar projects, and increased fuel emission standards for the airlines. Regardless of how one views these issues—which are highly dubious on their own—I doubt a small business owner shutting her doors, a laid off worker, or a COVID-19 victim on a ventilator is hoping that airplanes become more carbon efficient and additional wind turbines sprout.
Assuming imminent congressional agreement, how soon with the cash flow, how long can it last, and will it be enough of a backstop to this economic downward spiral?
In a matter of days, federal and state governments may have to rethink their restrictions on activities of Americans in order to stave off what will be an economic depression. At a minimum, restrictions will need to be more targeted to protect more vulnerable populations like the elderly, and the government must continue to provide needed supplies to front-line workers and equipment and capacity to health care facilities.
If the COVID-19 coronavirus proves to be little more dangerous than typical annual influenza, the ongoing fight against it should not turn into an economic calamity which has not been seen in this country in 80 years and will result in greater tragedy.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-25--The real reasons Africa has another locust plague

The ChiCom coronavirus and COVID-19 outbreaks , deaths and responses continue to dominate US , European and Asian news .
Meanwhile , a very different infestation is devastating East African crops and leaving tens of millions at risk of starvation and death .
If COVID hits these weakened populations , amid their malaria and other systemic diseases , it would bring tragedy on unimaginable scales .
“ Across Somalia , desert locusts in a swarm the size of Manhattan have destroyed a swath of farmland as big as Oklahoma , ” the Wall Street Journal ’ s Nicholas Bariyo reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the insects have eaten through 800 square miles of crops and survived a weeks-long spraying campaign .
They have “ swept across more than 10 nations on two continents.
” In parts of East Africa they “ are destroying some 1.8 million metric tons of vegetation every day , enough food to feed 81 million people.
” East Africa has a Desert Locust Control Organization .
But it , the region and the individual countries were totally unprepared for the onslaught , unaware the hordes were coming , irresponsibly underfunded , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
By the time they acted , it was too little , too late .
The massive swarms are hardly unprecedented .
Locusts “ covered the face of the whole earth , so that the land was darkened ; and they ate every herb of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left .
So there remained nothing green on the trees or on the plants of the field throughout all the land of Egypt.
” [ Exodus 10:15 ] Locusts pillaged long before that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 1986-87 plague was calamitous .
As the late entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards noted in 1988 , four major locust species hatched simultaneously in 15 countries , and the crops were so totally devastated that the UN Food and Agricultural Organization predicted 50 million Africans and Asians might starve to death .
Malnourished survivors would suffer reduced mental capacity and have greater susceptibility to diseases .
Other near-biblical infestations have ravaged Africa with predictable regularity and results .
The obvious , burning , essential question is this : In this era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pest control technologies , how could Africa have reached this frightening precipice yet again ?
These 2019-2020 swarms originated in the vast deserts of Oman , Somalia and Yemen , parts of which are lawless and war-torn .
That made it difficult and dangerous to monitor them for the emergence of billions of “ hoppers , ” following tumultuous downpours two years ago – or to spray them with insecticides when they were most vulnerable , before their wings matured and they could fly thousands of miles .
But it also means East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite these obstacles , to prevent such plagues .
These are horrifically poor countries , where bureaucrats live relatively well largely on outside donor funds , often corrupt top-gun politicians live very well on the same money , and some 90 % of the people exist on a few dollars a day , on the edge of starvation and debilitating disease , tilling tiny patches of land .
Too often their governments ’ ability to plan for recurring crises like this are minimal , their priorities are skewed to whatever the donors want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal at best .
Eritrea , Somalia , Sudan and Uganda didn ’ t even pay their Locust Control membership dues for years , or decades – much less acquire the aircraft and pesticides they would need for the inevitable next locust plague .
Their focus was on elections ( getting reelected ) , essential or just showy infrastructure projects , and climate change .
Indeed , it seems nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the UN , EU and environmentalist obsession with climate change as the single greatest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate cataclysms exist in models and headlines , are decades away , are hardly unprecedented for East Africa , and can hardly be worse than these recurring locust cataclysms .
But UN , EU , World Bank and eco-centered foundation money drives the agenda and pays Africa ’ s leaders and bureaucrats .
So recurring real-world crises get short shrift .
When it comes to insect control , the driving force is aid money totally skewed to agro-ecology and its perverse focus on “ food sovereignty , ” and “ traditional subsistence farming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ in harmony with nature , ” free from Western seeds , fertilizers , tractors and , above all , pesticides .
The new moniker is clever , but the ideology and donor-driven attitudes are nothing new .
Dr. Edwards documented them in his 1988 article .
The FAO , USAID , USEPA , World Bank , Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations were pushing “ all-natural , biological , integrated pest management ” practices back then , too .
They were totally opposed to the use of dieldrin and other insecticides that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities , clinics and hospitals dependent on minimalist wind and solar electricity .
Just as today , their focus back then was on alleged , possible side effects from modern insecticides , which used properly by trained applicators are safe for people , livestock , wildlife and most non-target insects .
The key is having the necessary staff , equipment and chemicals ahead of time .
Under pressure by all these external forces , East Africa failed to do that – and now it is reaping the proverbial whirlwind .
The donor agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demanding that chemotherapy for cancer be banned , because the chemicals impair patient ’ s immune systems and cause hair to fall out .
Saving their lives is inarguably far more important than these side effects – just as saving millions from starvation and associated diseases , and preventing total crop and habitat annihilation , is inarguably far more important than the temporary loss of some insects or even slight risks to cattle , wildlife or people from the sprays .
Back in 1987 , Dr. Edwards noted , Senegal requested and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transport aircraft that could hold 18,400 pounds of cargo ( 8.4 metric tons ) .
They sprayed two million acres and killed 95 % of that country ’ s immature locusts .
But elsewhere FAO anti-pesticide ideologies prevailed , and billions of locusts matured , flew off , mated and produced tens of billions of locusts the following year .
They destroyed croplands , wildlife habitats , communities and lives in a dozen other African countries .
This year ’ s efforts are far too little , far too late .
Kenya has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clock ; the Locust Control consortium has four antiquated little planes .
They ’ re apparently spraying fenitrothion ( an effective locust killer ) , pyrethroids ( somewhat effective ) and malathion ( also somewhat effective though it breaks down within a few hours under Africa ’ s hot , humid conditions ) .
But they didn ’ t get the hoppers .
They waited until swarms the size of Manhattan were upon them .
Against those countless billions of voracious locusts , ground-based equipment is useless .
A dozen small crop dusters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods like banging on pots are a sick joke .
However , there could still be hope .
A single Lockheed KC-130 Hercules tanker plane equipped with Modular Aerial Spray Systems can cover up to 150,000 acres a day .
Each plane can carry 2,000 gallons of the most appropriate pesticide-water mixture .
The benefits would be immediate and tremendous .
President Trump could order the Air Force to provide a KC-130 or two and enough fenitrothion , Lorsban or other effective insecticide for a few weeks of locust-eradication spraying .
He could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change attitudes , policies and practices across Africa and the world .
The President could also order his US Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , State Department and other agencies to end their funding of climate and agro-ecology programs , and start making the East Africa Desert Locust Control Organization the forward-thinking , effective operation it was meant to be .
He could have blunt discussions with the heads of EU nations about their agro-ecology , anti-pesticide and anti-biotechnology policies , funding practices and import restrictions toward Africa – which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he could direct the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to review ( and terminate ) the tax-exempt status of organizations and foundations engaged in lethal , eco-imperialistic lies and pressure campaigns in Africa , Asia and South America .
The locust plagues , starvation and deaths from readily preventable diseases like malaria must end – now .
The poorest people in these impoverished countries should not be the ones paying the price , too often with their lives .
This President is one of the very few politicians who could make @ @ @ @

The ChiCom coronavirus and COVID-19 outbreaks, deaths and responses continue to dominate US, European and Asian news. Meanwhile, a very different infestation is devastating East African crops and leaving tens of millions at risk of starvation and death. If COVID hits these weakened populations, amid their malaria and other systemic diseases, it would bring tragedy on unimaginable scales.
“Across Somalia, desert locusts in a swarm the size of Manhattan have destroyed a swath of farmland as big as Oklahoma,” the Wall Street Journal’s Nicholas Bariyo reports. “In Kenya, billions-strong clouds of the insects have eaten through 800 square miles of crops and survived a weeks-long spraying campaign. They have “swept across more than 10 nations on two continents.” In parts of East Africa they “are destroying some 1.8 million metric tons of vegetation every day, enough food to feed 81 million people.”
East Africa has a Desert Locust Control Organization. But it, the region and the individual countries were totally unprepared for the onslaught, unaware the hordes were coming, irresponsibly underfunded, with almost no pesticides or aircraft to spray them. By the time they acted, it was too little, too late.
The massive swarms are hardly unprecedented. Locusts “covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they ate every herb of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. So there remained nothing green on the trees or on the plants of the field throughout all the land of Egypt.” [Exodus 10:15] Locusts pillaged long before that, and have returned hundreds of times since.
The 1986-87 plague was calamitous. As the late entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards noted in 1988, four major locust species hatched simultaneously in 15 countries, and the crops were so totally devastated that the UN Food and Agricultural Organization predicted 50 million Africans and Asians might starve to death. Malnourished survivors would suffer reduced mental capacity and have greater susceptibility to diseases. Other near-biblical infestations have ravaged Africa with predictable regularity and results.
The obvious, burning, essential question is this: In this era of amazing modern agriculture, aviation and pest control technologies, how could Africa have reached this frightening precipice yet again?
These 2019-2020 swarms originated in the vast deserts of Oman, Somalia and Yemen, parts of which are lawless and war-torn. That made it difficult and dangerous to monitor them for the emergence of billions of “hoppers,” following tumultuous downpours two years ago – or to spray them with insecticides when they were most vulnerable, before their wings matured and they could fly thousands of miles. But it also means East African countries needed to work together, despite these obstacles, to prevent such plagues.
These are horrifically poor countries, where bureaucrats live relatively well largely on outside donor funds, often corrupt top-gun politicians live very well on the same money, and some 90% of the people exist on a few dollars a day, on the edge of starvation and debilitating disease, tilling tiny patches of land.
Too often their governments’ ability to plan for recurring crises like this are minimal, their priorities are skewed to whatever the donors want, and funding for insect control is minimal at best. Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda didn’t even pay their Locust Control membership dues for years, or decades – much less acquire the aircraft and pesticides they would need for the inevitable next locust plague. Their focus was on elections (getting reelected), essential or just showy infrastructure projects, and climate change.
Indeed, it seems nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the UN, EU and environmentalist obsession with climate change as the single greatest threat facing humanity and planet. But climate cataclysms exist in models and headlines, are decades away, are hardly unprecedented for East Africa, and can hardly be worse than these recurring locust cataclysms. But UN, EU, World Bank and eco-centered foundation money drives the agenda and pays Africa’s leaders and bureaucrats. So recurring real-world crises get short shrift.
When it comes to insect control, the driving force is aid money totally skewed to agro-ecology and its perverse focus on “food sovereignty,” and “traditional subsistence farming” with wood plows and oxen, “in harmony with nature,” free from Western seeds, fertilizers, tractors and, above all, pesticides.
The new moniker is clever, but the ideology and donor-driven attitudes are nothing new. Dr. Edwards documented them in his 1988 article. The FAO, USAID, USEPA, World Bank, Environmental Defense Fund and other organizations were pushing “all-natural, biological, integrated pest management” practices back then, too. They were totally opposed to the use of dieldrin and other insecticides that actually work. They keep families, communities, clinics and hospitals dependent on minimalist wind and solar electricity.
Just as today, their focus back then was on alleged, possible side effects from modern insecticides, which used properly by trained applicators are safe for people, livestock, wildlife and most non-target insects. The key is having the necessary staff, equipment and chemicals ahead of time. Under pressure by all these external forces, East Africa failed to do that – and now it is reaping the proverbial whirlwind.
The donor agencies and pressure groups’ attitude is akin to demanding that chemotherapy for cancer be banned, because the chemicals impair patient’s immune systems and cause hair to fall out. Saving their lives is inarguably far more important than these side effects – just as saving millions from starvation and associated diseases, and preventing total crop and habitat annihilation, is inarguably far more important than the temporary loss of some insects or even slight risks to cattle, wildlife or people from the sprays.
(An upcoming article will document who is behind the eco-manslaughter today, and who is funding them: from US, EU and UN organizations to their Swiss, Swedish, pseudo-African and other counterparts.)
Back in 1987, Dr. Edwards noted, Senegal requested and received the loan of four American DC-7 transport aircraft that could hold 18,400 pounds of cargo (8.4 metric tons). They sprayed two million acres and killed 95% of that country’s immature locusts. But elsewhere FAO anti-pesticide ideologies prevailed, and billions of locusts matured, flew off, mated and produced tens of billions of locusts the following year. They destroyed croplands, wildlife habitats, communities and lives in a dozen other African countries.
This year’s efforts are far too little, far too late. Kenya has eight small crop-spraying aircraft operating around the clock; the Locust Control consortium has four antiquated little planes. They’re apparently spraying fenitrothion (an effective locust killer), pyrethroids (somewhat effective) and malathion (also somewhat effective though it breaks down within a few hours under Africa’s hot, humid conditions).
But they didn’t get the hoppers. They waited until swarms the size of Manhattan were upon them. Against those countless billions of voracious locusts, ground-based equipment is useless. A dozen small crop dusters makes almost no difference. And traditional methods like banging on pots are a sick joke.
However, there could still be hope. A single Lockheed KC-130 Hercules tanker plane equipped with Modular Aerial Spray Systems can cover up to 150,000 acres a day. Each plane can carry 2,000 gallons of the most appropriate pesticide-water mixture. The benefits would be immediate and tremendous.
President Trump could order the Air Force to provide a KC-130 or two and enough fenitrothion, Lorsban or other effective insecticide for a few weeks of locust-eradication spraying. He could save millions of lives – and help change attitudes, policies and practices across Africa and the world.
The President could also order his US Agency for International Development (USAID), State Department and other agencies to end their funding of climate and agro-ecology programs, and start making the East Africa Desert Locust Control Organization the forward-thinking, effective operation it was meant to be.
He could have blunt discussions with the heads of EU nations about their agro-ecology, anti-pesticide and anti-biotechnology policies, funding practices and import restrictions toward Africa – which are an undeniable crime against humanity. Finally, he could direct the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to review (and terminate) the tax-exempt status of organizations and foundations engaged in lethal, eco-imperialistic lies and pressure campaigns in Africa, Asia and South America.
The locust plagues, starvation and deaths from readily preventable diseases like malaria must end – now. The poorest people in these impoverished countries should not be the ones paying the price, too often with their lives. This President is one of the very few politicians who could make these changes happen.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-25--Bill Gates: You know better than this. We need you now!

Is it Great Depression time in America ?
As we work together to combat COVID-19 , much of America is shuttered and our economy stopped .
We need to keep people safe , no doubt about it , but if we don ’ t keep the economy moving there ’ s a world of hurt in store for us all .
In the midst of crisis Bill Gates had this to say : “ There really is no middle ground , and it ’ s very tough to say to people , ‘ Hey , keep going to restaurants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pile of bodies over in the corner .
We want you to keep spending because there ’ s maybe a politician who thinks GDP growth is all that counts… ’ It ’ s very irresponsible for somebody to suggest that we can have the best of both worlds.
” Is that the best you ’ ve got ?
How 20th century of you , Bill !
Years ago we played close heed to Mr. Gates when he explained how the digital revolution would change how we do things .
I remember Gates saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ever sit through an entire TV newscast again , if what they were waiting for was the weather .
The digital revolution would enable us to sort through information and target what we need with laser precision .
How right he was .
Now to hear him insist that the bulk of the economy remain shut down is very disappointing .
What we actually need to do is use the digital revolution to differentiate people , businesses and all human activities to make individual assessments of who needs the most protection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can safely reopen .
Facebook , Microsoft and others announced that they are going to team up with the World Health Organization and conduct a “ hackathon ” to create digital solutions to the COVID-19 challenge .
That ’ s more like it !
Check out these Microsoft guys , Mr. Gates , we hear they ’ ve got a deep pool of talent to draw on .
We need to “ hack ” the government .
One-size-fits-all , blanket solutions are second nature to governments .
Precision and innovation is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our best innovators to provide their expertise and lead .
We should use digital solutions to identify which parts of the economy can reopen safely , what geographic areas are safer than others , who ’ s least at risk , who needs the most protection , and what precautions need to be taken — and take action .
We challenge Bill Gates and the rest of the titans of tech to harness their resources and knowledge and bring them to bear .
Failing to function is not an option .

Is it Great Depression time in America?
As we work together to combat COVID-19, much of America is shuttered and our economy stopped. We need to keep people safe, no doubt about it, but if we don’t keep the economy moving there’s a world of hurt in store for us all.
In the midst of crisis Bill Gates had this to say: “There really is no middle ground, and it’s very tough to say to people, ‘Hey, keep going to restaurants, go buy new houses, ignore that pile of bodies over in the corner. We want you to keep spending because there’s maybe a politician who thinks GDP growth is all that counts…’ It’s very irresponsible for somebody to suggest that we can have the best of both worlds.”
Is that the best you’ve got? How 20th century of you, Bill!
Years ago we played close heed to Mr. Gates when he explained how the digital revolution would change how we do things. I remember Gates saying that he found it ridiculous that anyone would ever sit through an entire TV newscast again, if what they were waiting for was the weather. The digital revolution would enable us to sort through information and target what we need with laser precision.
How right he was.
Now to hear him insist that the bulk of the economy remain shut down is very disappointing.
What we actually need to do is use the digital revolution to differentiate people, businesses and all human activities to make individual assessments of who needs the most protection, what needs to stay shut and what can safely reopen.
Facebook, Microsoft and others announced that they are going to team up with the World Health Organization and conduct a “hackathon” to create digital solutions to the COVID-19 challenge.
That’s more like it!
Check out these Microsoft guys, Mr. Gates, we hear they’ve got a deep pool of talent to draw on.
We need to “hack” the government. One-size-fits-all, blanket solutions are second nature to governments. Precision and innovation is not the bureaucracy’s forté. Time for our best innovators to provide their expertise and lead.
We should use digital solutions to identify which parts of the economy can reopen safely, what geographic areas are safer than others, who’s least at risk, who needs the most protection, and what precautions need to be taken — and take action.
It’s time to microtarget and function.
We challenge Bill Gates and the rest of the titans of tech to harness their resources and knowledge and bring them to bear.
Failing to function is not an option.