investmentwatchblog--2020-10-03--What Trump and Amy Coney Barrett Hide about Amy Coney Barrett

The only poll about the morning-after pill in which any sort of blanket legal restriction against its use was even listed as being an option was a 2013 NPR poll that offered , as an option , “ A prescription should be required for all women regardless of age.
” Only 16.7 % of the 3,008 randomly sampled Americans chose that option , and all others chose options in which no prescription , at all , would be required above various age-limits , ranging upwards from 21 down to 15 years of age .
Consequently , the percentage of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fertilized human egg within 5 days of its conception ( as the morning-after pill is designed to do ) should be treated as murdering a person , was something less than that 16.7 % .
For example , it might have been 8 % .
But , in any event , far fewer than 16.7 % of Americans agree with Amy Coney Barrett , that use of the morning-after pill constitutes murder ( because it intentionally terminates a “ human life ” ) .
Far fewer than 16.7 % of Americans think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserves to be sent to prison as a murderer .
But Amy Coney Barrett is one of them .
( Unless she thinks that some murderers shouldn ’ t go to prison .
But how could she then justify that belief ? )
Furthermore , only 24 % of Americans agree with her view of abortion ( that it is murder ) .
Here is what Amy Coney Barrett believes about both abortion and the morning-after pill : Guardian Guardian , said , “ We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supportive of criminalizing the women .
We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF [ in-vitro fertilization ] process.
” However , if a woman takes an “ emergency contraception ” or “ morning after ” pill , and murder is intentionally killing a human “ life , ” and the pill kills a fertilized egg , then how can they say that “ At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women ” ?
Is that merely a political statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believing that these people aren ’ t as extreme as they actually are ?
But how not-extreme would it even be to criminalize the medical doctors who perform abortions , and the ones who provide IVF services ?
How insane would that actually be ?
How could a rational person think that America ’ s Founders would have wanted their Constitution to be ‘ interpreted ’ in such a brutal and anti-scientific manner ?
How could it not be extremist , in the worst sense ?
After all , medical doctors have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for performing abortions .
Is this something that America ’ s Founders would have wanted ?
When their Constitution , OUR Constitution , opened with a supreme commitment to “ We , the People ” and to “ promote the general welfare , ” were they referring to fertilized human eggs etc .
until death , or instead only to conscious human beings , which don ’ t even exist prior to around 20 weeks ?
And , if to fertilized human eggs , then why not also to any mere vegetable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities that lack any nervous system , even at their maturity ?
Even mere bacteria and viruses are forms of “ life.
” But did any of the Founders so much as imagine such insanity as this which some U.S. Supreme Court ‘ Justices ’ believe and are religiously committed to ?
For such judges to believe it for themselves , as part of their personal religion , is one thing , they ’ ve a right to that , but for them to impose it as if this belief had any foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , insane , if not outright stupid .
What is the logic of Amy Coney Barrett ’ s approach to these matters ?
Or : is there any ?
We now know what her views are .
She has stated them .
There is no logic to them .
Certainly it ’ s not based in what is written in our Constitution .
It is nowhere there , not at all .
Not a bit .
It is alien to the U.S. Constitution .
As Britain ’ s reported on October 1st , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett and her husband had signed onto , Saint Joseph County Right to Life , when interviewed by the , said , “ We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions .
At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women .
We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF [ in-vitro fertilization ] process.
” However , if a woman takes an “ emergency contraception ” or “ morning after ” pill , and murder is intentionally killing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pill kills a fertilized egg , then how can they say that “ At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women ” ?
Is that merely a political statement in order to deceive the public into believing that these people aren ’ t as extreme as they actually are ?
But how-extreme would it even be to criminalize the medical doctors who perform abortions , and the ones who provide IVF services ?
How insane would that actually be ?
How could a rational person think that America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpreted ’ in such a brutal and anti-scientific manner ?
How could itbe extremist , in thesense ?
After all , medical doctors have been shot , murdered , in America , for performing abortions .
Is this something that America ’ s Founders would have wanted ?
When their Constitution , OUR Constitution , opened with a supreme commitment to “ We , the People ” and to “ promote the general welfare , ” were they referring to fertilized human eggs etc .
until death , or insteadto conscious human beings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to around 20 weeks ?
And , if to fertilized human eggs , then why not also to any mere vegetable , not even animals at all — biological entities that lack any nervous system , even at their maturity ?
Even mere bacteria and viruses are forms of “ life.
” But did any of the Founders so much assuch insanity as this which some U.S. Supreme Court ‘ Justices ’ believe and are religiously committed to ?
For such judges to believe it for themselves , as part of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve a right to that , but for them to impose it as if this belief had any foundation in the U.S. Constitution is simply bizarre , insane , if not outright stupid .
What is theof Amy Coney Barrett ’ s approach to these matters ?
Or : is there ?
We now know what her views are .
She has stated them .
There is no logic to them .
Certainly it ’ s not based in what is written in our Constitution .
It is nowhere there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is alien to the U.S. Constitution .
Neither Trump nor Barrett can hide it any longer , because it was already published , back in 2006 .
So , now , everybody knows it .
Senator KENNEDY .
Thank you , Mr. Chairman .
Our ranking Member , Senator Biden , is currently on the floor with the introduction of legislation dealing with drug regulation , and he will be over here very shortly .
But I will proceed , if I might .
Judge Scalia , if you were confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe v. Wade ?
Senator KENNEDY .
DO you expect to overrule the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision if you are confirmed ?
Judge SCALIA .
Senator , I do not think it would be proper for me to answer that question .
The CHAIRMAN [ Senator Strom Thurmond , Republican , South Carolina ] .
I agree with you .
I do not think it is proper to ask any question that he has to act on or may have to act on .
Judge SCALIA .
I mean , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume that I have people arguing before me to do it or not to do it .
I think it is quite a thing to be arguing to somebody who you know has made a representation in the course of his confirmation hearings , and that is , by way of condition to his being confirmed , that he will do this or do that .
I think I would be in a very bad position to adjudicate the case without being accused of having a less than impartial view of the matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least some reports that that was one of the considerations in your nomination .
There are a lot of other , clearly , strengths which you bring to your own qualifications .
But I am interested in what precedence you put on that decision being on the lawbooks .
I am interested in your own concept in stare decisis .
Do you believe in it ?
What is it going to take to overrule an existing Supreme Court decision ?
Judge SCALIA .
AS you know , Senator , they are sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in your view .
Judge SCALIA .
My view is that they are sometimes overruled .
And I think that — Senator KENNEDY .
But what weight do you give them ?
Judge SCALIA [ continuing ] .
I will not say that I will never overrule prior Supreme Court precedent .
Senator KENNEDY .
Well , what weight do you give the precedents of the Supreme Court ?
Are they given any weight ?
Are they given some weight ?
Are they given a lot of weight ?
Or does it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It does not depend on my view .
It depends on the nature of the precedent , the nature of the issue .
… I assure you , I have no agenda .
I am not going onto the Court with a list of things that I want to do .
My only agenda is to be a good judge .

Eric Zuesse
The only poll about the morning-after pill in which any sort of blanket legal restriction against its use was even listed as being an option was a 2013 NPR poll that offered, as an option, “A prescription should be required for all women regardless of age.” Only 16.7% of the 3,008 randomly sampled Americans chose that option, and all others chose options in which no prescription, at all, would be required above various age-limits, ranging upwards from 21 down to 15 years of age. Consequently, the percentage of Americans who might have felt that terminating a fertilized human egg within 5 days of its conception (as the morning-after pill is designed to do) should be treated as murdering a person, was something less than that 16.7%. For example, it might have been 8%. But, in any event, far fewer than 16.7% of Americans agree with Amy Coney Barrett, that use of the morning-after pill constitutes murder (because it intentionally terminates a “human life”). Far fewer than 16.7% of Americans think that a woman who uses a morning-after pill deserves to be sent to prison as a murderer. But Amy Coney Barrett is one of them. (Unless she thinks that some murderers shouldn’t go to prison. But how could she then justify that belief?)
Furthermore, only 24% of Americans agree with her view of abortion (that it is murder).
Here is what Amy Coney Barrett believes about both abortion and the morning-after pill:
That statement, in which she made clear that, to her, an intentional termination of a human “life” at any time, from the moment of fertilization (conception) on, constitutes murder, was signed in 2006, both by Amy Coney Barrett and her husband Jesse. That statement was attached to another, which was being published in the South Bend Tribune, which headlined “Roe v. Wade ‘an exercise of raw judicial power’ (Supreme Court Justice Byron White)” . This statement, likewise, made clear her belief, that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, and that abortions need to be outlawed in the United States, or else left to each individual state to outlaw or not — just like in the old back-alley, abortion-by-coat-hanger, days.
Wall Street Journal Back in 2006, Ms. Barrett was a professor of law at the Roman Catholic Notre Dame University. As the noted on October 1st , “During a segment about Judge Barrett in Tuesday’s presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, said Roe v. Wade was effectively an issue on the ballot because of the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump responded: ‘You don’t know her view on Roe v Wade.’” But, now, everyone knows, because she has publicly stated it, as clearly as possible, though both she and President Trump have been hiding it, till now.
Guardian Guardian, said, “We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions. At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women. We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF [in-vitro fertilization] process.” However, if a woman takes an “emergency contraception” or “morning after” pill, and murder is intentionally killing a human “life,” and the pill kills a fertilized egg, then how can they say that “At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women”? Is that merely a political statement in order to deceive the public into believing that these people aren’t as extreme as they actually are? But how not-extreme would it even be to criminalize the medical doctors who perform abortions, and the ones who provide IVF services? How insane would that actually be? How could a rational person think that America’s Founders would have wanted their Constitution to be ‘interpreted’ in such a brutal and anti-scientific manner? How could it not be extremist, in the worst sense? After all, medical doctors have been shot, murdered, in America, for performing abortions. Is this something that America’s Founders would have wanted? When their Constitution, OUR Constitution, opened with a supreme commitment to “We, the People” and to “promote the general welfare,” were they referring to fertilized human eggs etc. until death, or instead only to conscious human beings, which don’t even exist prior to around 20 weeks? And, if to fertilized human eggs, then why not also to any mere vegetable, not even animals at all — biological entities that lack any nervous system, even at their maturity? Even mere bacteria and viruses are forms of “life.” But did any of the Founders so much as imagine such insanity as this which some U.S. Supreme Court ‘Justices’ believe and are religiously committed to? For such judges to believe it for themselves, as part of their personal religion, is one thing, they’ve a right to that, but for them to impose it as if this belief had any foundation in the U.S. Constitution is simply bizarre, insane, if not outright stupid. What is the logic of Amy Coney Barrett’s approach to these matters? Or: is there any? We now know what her views are. She has stated them. There is no logic to them. Certainly it’s not based in what is written in our Constitution. It is nowhere there, not at all. Not a bit. It is alien to the U.S. Constitution. As Britain’s reported on October 1st , the organization that sponsored the ad that Barrett and her husband had signed onto, Saint Joseph County Right to Life, when interviewed by the, said, “We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions. At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women. We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF [in-vitro fertilization] process.” However, if a woman takes an “emergency contraception” or “morning after” pill, and murder is intentionally killing a human “life,” and the pill kills a fertilized egg, then how can they say that “At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women”? Is that merely a political statement in order to deceive the public into believing that these people aren’t as extreme as they actually are? But how-extreme would it even be to criminalize the medical doctors who perform abortions, and the ones who provide IVF services? How insane would that actually be? How could a rational person think that America’s Founders would have wantedConstitution to be ‘interpreted’ in such a brutal and anti-scientific manner? How could itbe extremist, in thesense? After all, medical doctors have been shot, murdered, in America, for performing abortions. Is this something that America’s Founders would have wanted? When their Constitution, OUR Constitution, opened with a supreme commitment to “We, the People” and to “promote the general welfare,” were they referring to fertilized human eggs etc. until death, or insteadto conscious human beings, which don’t even exist prior to around 20 weeks? And, if to fertilized human eggs, then why not also to any mere vegetable, not even animals at all — biological entities that lack any nervous system, even at their maturity? Even mere bacteria and viruses are forms of “life.” But did any of the Founders so much assuch insanity as this which some U.S. Supreme Court ‘Justices’ believe and are religiously committed to? For such judges to believe it for themselves, as part of their personal religion, is one thing, they’ve a right to that, but for them to impose it as if this belief had any foundation in the U.S. Constitution is simply bizarre, insane, if not outright stupid. What is theof Amy Coney Barrett’s approach to these matters? Or: is there? We now know what her views are. She has stated them. There is no logic to them. Certainly it’s not based in what is written in our Constitution. It is nowhere there, not at all. Not a bit. It is alien to the U.S. Constitution.
Neither Trump nor Barrett can hide it any longer, because it was already published, back in 2006. So, now, everybody knows it.
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our ranking Member, Senator Biden, is currently on the floor with the introduction of legislation dealing with drug regulation, and he will be over here very shortly. But I will proceed, if I might. Judge Scalia, if you were confirmed, do you expect to overrule the Roe v. Wade?
Judge SCALIA. Excuse me?
Senator KENNEDY. DO you expect to overrule the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision if you are confirmed?
Judge SCALIA. Senator, I do not think it would be proper for me to answer that question.
The CHAIRMAN [Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican, South Carolina]. I agree with you. I do not think it is proper to ask any question that he has to act on or may have to act on.
Judge SCALIA. I mean, if I can say why. Let us assume that I have people arguing before me to do it or not to do it. I think it is quite a thing to be arguing to somebody who you know has made a representation in the course of his confirmation hearings, and that is, by way of condition to his being confirmed, that he will do this or do that. I think I would be in a very bad position to adjudicate the case without being accused of having a less than impartial view of the matter.
Senator KENNEDY. There have been at least some reports that that was one of the considerations in your nomination. There are a lot of other, clearly, strengths which you bring to your own qualifications. But I am interested in what precedence you put on that decision being on the lawbooks. I am interested in your own concept in stare decisis. Do you believe in it? What is it going to take to overrule an existing Supreme Court decision?
Judge SCALIA. AS you know, Senator, they are sometimes overruled.
Senator KENNEDY. I am interested in your view.
Judge SCALIA. My view is that they are sometimes overruled. And I think that —
Senator KENNEDY. But what weight do you give them?
Judge SCALIA [continuing]. I will not say that I will never overrule prior Supreme Court precedent.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, what weight do you give the precedents of the Supreme Court? Are they given any weight? Are they given some weight? Are they given a lot of weight? Or does it depend on your view
Judge SCALIA. It does not depend on my view. It depends on the nature of the precedent, the nature of the issue. … I assure you, I have no agenda. I am not going onto the Court with a list of things that I want to do. My only agenda is to be a good judge.
approving of Antonin Scalia, to interpret the U.S. Constitution. A precedent therefore exists to Amy Coney Barrett, and Scalia is it. He was confirmed in a vote of the U.S. Senate, a vote of 98 to 0 — it was unanimous, every Senator, including, of course, Joe Biden (who now campaigns against Amy Coney Barrett),of Antonin Scalia, to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
Roe v. Wade decision. America is anything but a democracy . There is plenty of precedent for that. Dictatorships are a dime a dozen, especially prior to the U.S. Revolution (which has long-since been overturned, by a quiet and gradual counter-revolution by America’s super-rich ). In no sense does the majority rule in today’s America. National politics in this country is just for show: a “good-cop, bad-cop,” show. That’s all it now is. And that’s just as obvious as is the fact that Amy Coney Barrett intends to terminate thedecision.
—————


investmentwatchblog--2020-10-03--Mainstream Investors About To Pile Into Gold

Money managers who don ’ t recommend gold to their clients are becoming the exception rather than the rule .
This week saw a couple more big-name banks join the pro-gold parade : UBS advises investors to put money in gold as hedge against economic uncertainty ( RT ) – The recent weakness of gold represents a “ great entry point for investors ” ahead of risk events such as the US election , said UBS Global Wealth Management .
“ We like gold , because we think that gold is likely to actually hit about $ 2,000 per ounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the firm ’ s regional chief investment officer Kelvin Tay told CNBC .
He explained that “ in [ the ] event of uncertainty over the US election and the Covid-19 pandemic , gold is a very , very good hedge.
” According to Tay , the precious metal is also attractive due to the low interest rate environment .
He pointed out that if interest rates stay low as the US Federal Reserve has indicated , the opportunity cost of holding gold ( which is a non-yielding asset ) will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because investors are not forgoing interest that would be otherwise earned in yielding assets .
This is the time to buy gold , says Wells Fargo ( Kitco ) – Gold prices saw a $ 200 tumble in September , which Wells Fargo is viewing as a great buying opportunity during a well-expected correction .
“ We ’ re buyers of gold , ” Wells Fargo head of real asset strategy John LaForge wrote on Monday .
“ After a great seven-month run , gold cooled off in August and September .
Gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower than its all-time high of $ 2,075 , per ounce set in August.
” Gold ’ s correction was bound to happen after the 2011-high was breached and prices rose above $ 2,070 an ounce in August .
However , Wells Fargo ’ s optimistic view on gold has not changed with the bank remaining bullish on the yellow metal .
“ The fundamental backdrop looks good .
Interest rates remain low , money supplies excessive ( quantitative easing ) , and we are doubtful that the U.S. dollar ’ s September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ We view gold at these prices as a good buying opportunity and , as evidenced by our 2021 year-end targets , expect higher gold prices.
” Back in July , Wells Fargo released its updated gold price forecasts , stating that gold could rise all the way up to $ 2,200 – $ 2,300 by the end of next year , which means there is still a lot of upside potential .

BY JOHN RUBINO
Money managers who don’t recommend gold to their clients are becoming the exception rather than the rule. This week saw a couple more big-name banks join the pro-gold parade:
(RT) – The recent weakness of gold represents a “great entry point for investors” ahead of risk events such as the US election, said UBS Global Wealth Management.
“We like gold, because we think that gold is likely to actually hit about $2,000 per ounce by the end of the year,” the firm’s regional chief investment officer Kelvin Tay told CNBC.
He explained that “in [the] event of uncertainty over the US election and the Covid-19 pandemic, gold is a very, very good hedge.”
According to Tay, the precious metal is also attractive due to the low interest rate environment. He pointed out that if interest rates stay low as the US Federal Reserve has indicated, the opportunity cost of holding gold (which is a non-yielding asset) will be “quite low.” That’s because investors are not forgoing interest that would be otherwise earned in yielding assets.
(Kitco) – Gold prices saw a $200 tumble in September, which Wells Fargo is viewing as a great buying opportunity during a well-expected correction.
“We’re buyers of gold,” Wells Fargo head of real asset strategy John LaForge wrote on Monday. “After a great seven-month run, gold cooled off in August and September. Gold spot prices today sits about $200 lower than its all-time high of $2,075, per ounce set in August.”
Gold’s correction was bound to happen after the 2011-high was breached and prices rose above $2,070 an ounce in August.
However, Wells Fargo’s optimistic view on gold has not changed with the bank remaining bullish on the yellow metal.
“The fundamental backdrop looks good. Interest rates remain low, money supplies excessive (quantitative easing), and we are doubtful that the U.S. dollar’s September rally has long legs,” LaForge said. “We view gold at these prices as a good buying opportunity and, as evidenced by our 2021 year-end targets, expect higher gold prices.”
Back in July, Wells Fargo released its updated gold price forecasts, stating that gold could rise all the way up to $2,200 – $2,300 by the end of next year, which means there is still a lot of upside potential.


investmentwatchblog--2020-10-03--Measuring the Emotional Impact of COVID-19 on the U.S. Population

The COVID-19 pandemic has ripped through almost every country on the planet , causing devastating decay to the mental health of millions of people .
While most of us are experiencing higher levels of emotional distress than normal , the severity of stress may change based on factors such as age , race , education level , or even where you live .
This graphic uses data from the National Pandemic Emotional Impact Report to illustrate how each demographic subgroup in the U.S. is feeling .
The emotional upheaval of such a unique event impacts people in different ways , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many direct and indirect factors associated with it .
For the report referenced in the graphic , researchers created a detailed methodology to measure the impact of COVID-19 across a sample of 1,500 adults .
Surveys were conducted in May 2020 , when the majority of people were under strict lockdown orders .
Unemployment levels mirrored those seen only during the Great Depression , and of course , the death rate was rising quicker than anyone could have anticipated .
A Pandemic Distress Index Score ( PDIS ) was calculated based on participant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided into low ( bottom 25 % ) , moderate , and high ( top 25 % ) quartiles of pandemic distress .
Findings uncovered that almost 40 % of participants have lost their jobs , or experienced a reduction in income due to the COVID-19 outbreak .
However , the reverberations of such stressors vary by demographic subgroup .
According to the report , pandemic-related emotional distress decreases by age group .
People in the 18-34 year bracket reported the most pandemic-related distress overall—with respondents citing high stress at nearly double the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , respondents in the 65+ age group had reported the lowest distress scores of all .
Of all ethnicities in the survey , Hispanics/Latinos and Blacks had the highest average Pandemic Distress Index Scores , and Whites had the lowest average scores .
It is also worth noting that the research concluded five days after the death of George Floyd , so the majority of responses may not include the influence of this event , and the subsequent movement against systematic racism .
In other subgroups , there were slight differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a communities perspective , people who live in rural areas were less likely to experience high pandemic distress compared to people living in towns or cities .
When it comes to the battle of the sexes , men and women experience similar levels of distress .
Moreover , the level of emotional distress related to COVID-19 did not differ much between people with children under 18 and those with older children .
However , women with children under 18 reported more symptoms of anxiety compared to women with no minor children .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research presents several important insights , understanding what it means is crucial in providing people with the support they need .
For example , participants with high pandemic-related distress are 40 times more likely to have clinically significant levels of anxiety and 20 times more likely to have clinically significant symptoms of depression , compared to those on the lower end of the spectrum .
In fact , a report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that 1 in 4 people in the 18-24 age bracket have seriously considered committing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of June 2020 , which is in line with the emotional distress scores for this age group .
While nobody can escape the devastating impacts of COVID-19 on mental health , it is clear that some people are more at risk than others .
Unfortunately , younger adults and people of racial and ethnic minorities have carried higher psychological burdens from the pandemic so far , and we have yet to see the long-term effects that could transpire as a result .
Although at times the pandemic may feel inescapable , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health—so we can build immunity for what ’ s to come .

by visualcapitalist
The COVID-19 pandemic has ripped through almost every country on the planet, causing devastating decay to the mental health of millions of people.
While most of us are experiencing higher levels of emotional distress than normal, the severity of stress may change based on factors such as age, race, education level, or even where you live.
This graphic uses data from the National Pandemic Emotional Impact Report to illustrate how each demographic subgroup in the U.S. is feeling.
The Methodology
The emotional upheaval of such a unique event impacts people in different ways, and is difficult to measure given the many direct and indirect factors associated with it.
For the report referenced in the graphic, researchers created a detailed methodology to measure the impact of COVID-19 across a sample of 1,500 adults. Surveys were conducted in May 2020, when the majority of people were under strict lockdown orders. Unemployment levels mirrored those seen only during the Great Depression, and of course, the death rate was rising quicker than anyone could have anticipated.
A Pandemic Distress Index Score (PDIS) was calculated based on participant’s responses, which were then divided into low (bottom 25%), moderate, and high (top 25%) quartiles of pandemic distress.
Emotional Distress Levels, by Demographic Group
Findings uncovered that almost 40% of participants have lost their jobs, or experienced a reduction in income due to the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the reverberations of such stressors vary by demographic subgroup.
Age
According to the report, pandemic-related emotional distress decreases by age group. People in the 18-34 year bracket reported the most pandemic-related distress overall—with respondents citing high stress at nearly double the rate of people over 50 years old. Meanwhile, respondents in the 65+ age group had reported the lowest distress scores of all.
Race
Of all ethnicities in the survey, Hispanics/Latinos and Blacks had the highest average Pandemic Distress Index Scores, and Whites had the lowest average scores.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
It is also worth noting that the research concluded five days after the death of George Floyd, so the majority of responses may not include the influence of this event, and the subsequent movement against systematic racism.
Other Categories
In other subgroups, there were slight differences worth mentioning. For example, from a communities perspective, people who live in rural areas were less likely to experience high pandemic distress compared to people living in towns or cities.
When it comes to the battle of the sexes, men and women experience similar levels of distress. Moreover, the level of emotional distress related to COVID-19 did not differ much between people with children under 18 and those with older children. However, women with children under 18 reported more symptoms of anxiety compared to women with no minor children.
What Does the Data Mean?
While the research presents several important insights, understanding what it means is crucial in providing people with the support they need.
For example, participants with high pandemic-related distress are 40 times more likely to have clinically significant levels of anxiety and 20 times more likely to have clinically significant symptoms of depression, compared to those on the lower end of the spectrum.
In fact, a report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that 1 in 4 people in the 18-24 age bracket have seriously considered committing suicide at some point during the month of June 2020, which is in line with the emotional distress scores for this age group.
Building Immunity
While nobody can escape the devastating impacts of COVID-19 on mental health, it is clear that some people are more at risk than others.
Unfortunately, younger adults and people of racial and ethnic minorities have carried higher psychological burdens from the pandemic so far, and we have yet to see the long-term effects that could transpire as a result.
“Even when the pandemic is brought under control, grief, anxiety and depression will continue to affect people and communities.”
—António Guterres, United Nations
Although at times the pandemic may feel inescapable, we must continue to prioritize both our physical and mental health—so we can build immunity for what’s to come.


investmentwatchblog--2020-10-03--PRE-PANDEMIC ECONOMY WAS REACHING UNPRECEDENTED HEIGHTS FOR BLACK AND HISPANIC AMERICANS, NEW DATA S

PRE-PANDEMIC ECONOMY WAS REACHING UNPRECEDENTED HEIGHTS FOR BLACK AND HISPANIC AMERICANS, NEW DATA SHOW:

It ’ s worth considering : Does the Trump administration ’ s policy approach deserve credit for the massive economic successes during the president ’ s pre-pandemic first term ?
It ’ s true that some poor policy management on issues prevented the economy from hitting even higher heights during this period , such as the weight of an increasing national debt and the fallout from Trump ’ s harmful trade restrictions .
And , of course , no president of any party is entirely responsible for the country ’ s economic outcomes , even if that is , unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the press and political class .
There are , quite literally , millions of factors in play that determine the state of the economy .
But there ’ s no denying the fact that the laissez-faire approach of deregulation the Trump administration implemented during its first three years contributed to the economic growth and rise in the stock market that fueled surges in household net worth .
The 2017 tax reform lowered punitive corporate taxes , which fueled growth by making the US more internationally competitive .
Thus , the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic trends we ’ ve experienced .

via fee.org:
It’s worth considering: Does the Trump administration’s policy approach deserve credit for the massive economic successes during the president’s pre-pandemic first term?
It’s true that some poor policy management on issues prevented the economy from hitting even higher heights during this period, such as the weight of an increasing national debt and the fallout from Trump’s harmful trade restrictions.
And, of course, no president of any party is entirely responsible for the country’s economic outcomes, even if that is, unfortunately, how the economy is often portrayed by the press and political class. There are, quite literally, millions of factors in play that determine the state of the economy.
But there’s no denying the fact that the laissez-faire approach of deregulation the Trump administration implemented during its first three years contributed to the economic growth and rise in the stock market that fueled surges in household net worth. The 2017 tax reform lowered punitive corporate taxes, which fueled growth by making the US more internationally competitive. Thus, the Trump administration does deserve major credit for the positive economic trends we’ve experienced.


investmentwatchblog--2020-10-03--Maybe the Dems have been going on about Russia to distract from their own involvement with China.

COLLUSION : Biden the Preferred Dem on China Trade Policy , Chinese State-Owned Firm Says .
A Chinese state-owned securities conglomerate singled out Joe Biden for praise as a “ rare candidate ” who supports trade policies favorable to the country ’ s Communist government , according to a translated copy of a company research report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
The analysis , drafted by Guotai Junan Securities and posted publicly on its website during the U.S. primaries , identified Biden as the best candidate out of the major Democratic contenders on China trade policy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assessment of Biden and other U.S. political leaders , as well as a list of U.S. states that China perceives as battlegrounds for its national policy interests in the 2020 election .
“ Former U.S. vice president Biden , who currently ranks first in the Democratic Party ’ s approval rating , is a rare candidate who opposes the Sino-U.S. trade friction , ” said the report .
“ Biden has expressed his opposition to Sino-US trade frictions on multiple public occasions and believes that ‘ all the wrong methods ’ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE : Hickenlooper Calls China a ‘ Great Nation.
’ Colorado Dem once met with CCP-linked influence operation .
Colorado Senate hopeful John Hickenlooper praised China as a “ great nation ” deserving of American respect and told voters that the Chinese do not seek global dominance .
The former Democratic governor ignored China ’ s recent military saber-rattling , crackdowns in Hong Kong , and role in the coronavirus outbreak to laud the regime ’ s lack of ambition .
“ They do not want to rule the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zoom call on Monday .
“ They don ’ t want to dominate .
They want to be safe and be respected as one of the great nations of the world , which they are .
And we should–I think that ’ s what we should recognize.
” Hickenlooper ’ s remarks are at odds with a bipartisan consensus emerging on Capitol Hill , as well as Chinese ruler Xi Jinping ’ s own rhetoric .
Since the coronavirus pandemic ’ s onset , Democrats and Republicans have targeted China ’ s malignant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties issuing reports on dangerous Chinese statecraft tools just this week .
Xi has explicitly said that he hopes China will be “ a global leader in terms of comprehensive national power and international influence ” by 2049 .
Experts assert this amounts to a call for a China-led world order .
Hickenlooper has maintained close ties with China over the course of his career .
He previously met with the Chinese People ’ s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries , which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls “ the public face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official foreign influence agency.
” The former Colorado governor has also interviewed with multiple Chinese state media outlets in the past few years , lauding the virtues of cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party , especially as it comes to reciprocal trade .
Millions of dollars in American intellectual property theft comes from China , and yet Hickenlooper told Chinese state media that Washington should use a “ thumbtack ” to manage the Sino-American relationship , rather than a “ sledgehammer.
” “ Grand Valley State University ( GVSU ) professor Joel Wendland-Liu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Television Network ( CGTN ) , which is owned and operated by the Chinese government .
According to detailed reports from the Guardian , Beijing has purchased several media outlets to ‘ tell China ’ s story well ’ as part of a larger worldwide propaganda campaign .
CGTN is one of them .
It pushes an anti-capitalist , anti-American narrative that many experts believe advances the Chinese Communist Party ’ s global influence.
” THAT ’ S WHAT XI SAID : The New York Times Publishes a Defense of the Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an op-ed by Regina Ip , a pro-Beijing politician widely known for her ambition to become chief executive of Hong Kong .
The piece is entitled “ Hong Kong Is China , Like It or Not.
” ( She seems to like it . )
Ip , a longtime apologist for Chinese Communist Party control over the city , led the charge on anti-subversion legislation that spurred mass protests in 2003 .
What does she think of democracy ?
“ Adolf Hitler was returned by universal suffrage , and he killed 7 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
So naturally , the Times is publishing this esteemed figure , whose comments on an issue of international concern are apparently more reliable than what a sitting U.S. senator has to say .
As far as the implications of Ip ’ s argument are concerned : The Chinese government ’ s crackdown in Hong Kong has obliterated the remaining freedoms that its residents once enjoyed , and provided it a thin veneer with which it targets free people everywhere , including U.S. citizens .
But don ’ t expect much outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this piece .
It ’ s a PR coup for the dictatorship that ’ s snuffed out the remaining elements of democratic governance in the city .
The only reasonable argument for publishing it would have been to expose the CCP ’ s aims — but these are already widely known .
And to think , this was the paper which had a mass case of the vapors over Tom Cotton ’ s op-ed in June on the use of the military during the Biden Riots , with some of their crybully staffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black @ NYTimes staff in danger.
” Do Hong Kongese lives matter also ?

COLLUSION: Biden the Preferred Dem on China Trade Policy, Chinese State-Owned Firm Says.
A Chinese state-owned securities conglomerate singled out Joe Biden for praise as a “rare candidate” who supports trade policies favorable to the country’s Communist government, according to a translated copy of a company research report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The analysis, drafted by Guotai Junan Securities and posted publicly on its website during the U.S. primaries, identified Biden as the best candidate out of the major Democratic contenders on China trade policy. The report provides a glimpse into Beijing’s assessment of Biden and other U.S. political leaders, as well as a list of U.S. states that China perceives as battlegrounds for its national policy interests in the 2020 election. “Former U.S. vice president Biden, who currently ranks first in the Democratic Party’s approval rating, is a rare candidate who opposes the Sino-U.S. trade friction,” said the report. “Biden has expressed his opposition to Sino-US trade frictions on multiple public occasions and believes that ‘all the wrong methods’ have been used to deal with Sino-U.S. trade.”
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE: Hickenlooper Calls China a ‘Great Nation.’ Colorado Dem once met with CCP-linked influence operation.
Colorado Senate hopeful John Hickenlooper praised China as a “great nation” deserving of American respect and told voters that the Chinese do not seek global dominance. The former Democratic governor ignored China’s recent military saber-rattling, crackdowns in Hong Kong, and role in the coronavirus outbreak to laud the regime’s lack of ambition. “They do not want to rule the world,” Hickenlooper told supporters on a Zoom call on Monday. “They don’t want to dominate. They want to be safe and be respected as one of the great nations of the world, which they are. And we should–I think that’s what we should recognize.” Hickenlooper’s remarks are at odds with a bipartisan consensus emerging on Capitol Hill, as well as Chinese ruler Xi Jinping’s own rhetoric. Since the coronavirus pandemic’s onset, Democrats and Republicans have targeted China’s malignant behavior and global ambitions, with both parties issuing reports on dangerous Chinese statecraft tools just this week. Xi has explicitly said that he hopes China will be “a global leader in terms of comprehensive national power and international influence” by 2049. Experts assert this amounts to a call for a China-led world order. Hickenlooper has maintained close ties with China over the course of his career. He previously met with the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls “the public face of the Chinese Communist Party’s official foreign influence agency.” The former Colorado governor has also interviewed with multiple Chinese state media outlets in the past few years, lauding the virtues of cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party, especially as it comes to reciprocal trade. Millions of dollars in American intellectual property theft comes from China, and yet Hickenlooper told Chinese state media that Washington should use a “thumbtack” to manage the Sino-American relationship, rather than a “sledgehammer.”
COLD WAR II: Public University Professor Routinely Writes Articles for Chinese Propaganda Outlet.
“Grand Valley State University (GVSU) professor Joel Wendland-Liu has written multiple articles for China Global Television Network (CGTN), which is owned and operated by the Chinese government. According to detailed reports from the Guardian, Beijing has purchased several media outlets to ‘tell China’s story well’ as part of a larger worldwide propaganda campaign. CGTN is one of them. It pushes an anti-capitalist, anti-American narrative that many experts believe advances the Chinese Communist Party’s global influence.”
Force the CCP to divest.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
THAT’S WHAT XI SAID: The New York Times Publishes a Defense of the Hong Kong Crackdown.
The New York Times published an op-ed by Regina Ip, a pro-Beijing politician widely known for her ambition to become chief executive of Hong Kong. The piece is entitled “Hong Kong Is China, Like It or Not.” (She seems to like it.) Ip, a longtime apologist for Chinese Communist Party control over the city, led the charge on anti-subversion legislation that spurred mass protests in 2003. What does she think of democracy? “Adolf Hitler was returned by universal suffrage, and he killed 7 million Jews,” she said at the time. So naturally, the Times is publishing this esteemed figure, whose comments on an issue of international concern are apparently more reliable than what a sitting U.S. senator has to say. As far as the implications of Ip’s argument are concerned: The Chinese government’s crackdown in Hong Kong has obliterated the remaining freedoms that its residents once enjoyed, and provided it a thin veneer with which it targets free people everywhere, including U.S. citizens. But don’t expect much outrage from the NYT’s newsroom about this piece. It’s a PR coup for the dictatorship that’s snuffed out the remaining elements of democratic governance in the city. The only reasonable argument for publishing it would have been to expose the CCP’s aims — but these are already widely known.
And to think, this was the paper which had a mass case of the vapors over Tom Cotton’s op-ed in June on the use of the military during the Biden Riots, with some of their crybully staffers actually tweeting, “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” Do Hong Kongese lives matter also?
h/t Ed


investmentwatchblog--2020-10-03--President Trump to hold VIRTUAL campaign rally after testing positive for COVID-19

SANFORD , Fla. – President Donald Trump ’ s planned rally in Sanford was canceled after he and first lady @ @ @ @ @ for the virus .
The president made the announcement about his diagnosis on Twitter early @ @ @ @ @ , @ FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19 .
We will begin our quarantine @ @ @ @ @ We will get through this TOGETHER !
” Trump is reportedly experiencing ‘ mild symptoms @ @ @ @ @

SANFORD, Fla. – President Donald Trump’s planned rally in Sanford was canceled after he and first lady Melania Trump both tested positive for the virus.
The president made the announcement about his diagnosis on Twitter early Friday morning.
“Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!”
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Trump is reportedly experiencing ‘mild symptoms’ of the virus.
Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2020
www.fox35orlando.com/news/rally-in-sanford-canceled-after-president-trump-tests-positive-for-covid-19.amp