huffpost--2020-04-23--Congress Sets Up Another Mad Dash For Small Business Cash

Despite mounting criticism of the small business relief scheme , after large and publicly traded firms received huge loans , the second round of the Paycheck Protection Program will have essentially the same structure , with desperate companies scrambling for cash and banks deciding who gets it based on their own preferences .
“ I can count on one hand — literally on one hand — the number of businesses in my district who have received assistance , ” Rep. Adriano Espaillat ( D-N.Y. ) , who represents Upper Manhattan , said Thursday during a hearing on Capitol Hill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mad as hell .
I am mad as hell.
” The National Restaurant Association and the National Federation of Independent Business , for instance , have said Congress should let firms use the forgivable payroll loan for a two month period later this year , after local governments have actually allowed nonessential business to resume .
Under the current terms of the program , funds must be used within eight weeks of the date when the loan is funded .
The trade groups also said more than 25 % of the loan should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as rent and utilities , since payroll is a proportionately smaller share of costs for some firms , such as restaurants .
“ It ’ s kind of unworkable for a lot of businesses , ” said the NFIB ’ s Elizabeth Milito , who noted that there may have been more optimism about the coronavirus outbreak and the extent of its economic effects when lawmakers first created the payroll initiative .
Several business owners told HuffPost they didn ’ t get loans before the program first ran out of money , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come through .
A digital marketing firm in Florida and a brewery in North Carolina both said the money hit their accounts in the last week .
First , there should be a ban on any public company receiving money , Fischer said .
Those businesses have other ways of raising cash — public businesses can easily sell shares .
Shake Shack , for example , was able to turn down its $ 10 million loan because it could tap another line of credit .
More than 80 other publicly traded companies tapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , according to a Financial Times analysis .
“ They definitionally have more access to financial markets , ” she said .
Plus , if a fund shuts down , the overall harm to the public is small .
It ’ s not an essential business .
“ There should be minimal collateral consequences if a hedge fund shuts down no one is going to go without milk or bread.
” Another way to keep the money out of the hands of the biggest and most well-resourced businesses would be to require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the last wave of lending , 4 % of the loans represented 44.5 % of the $ 349 billion lent out .
In other words , close to half the money went to the biggest companies in the form of large loans .
The new bill sets aside $ 60 billion for lending institutions with assets under $ 50 billion — such as community banks — and it reserved $ 30 billion of that money for banks with less than $ 10 billion .
Democrats pushed for the changes to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in minority communities who do not have prior lending relationships .
Fischer said that some restrictions in the program sound be loosened .
For example , the requirements to keep a certain number of staff on payroll may be too onerous for businesses that still have no idea when they ’ ll reopen , and have other costs to maintain .
“ The smallest of small businesses have other costs they need to pay down before they can even think about re-hiring people.
” The Small Business Administration should also be more closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
Are minority-owned businesses or women-owned businesses getting discriminated against ?
Anecdotally , it would appear so , but there was no tracking under the first tranche of money .
For now , at least , larger companies who applied for loans under the program face no punishment apart from public shaming .
But that might change .
During a press conference earlier this week , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin threatened “ severe consequences ” for firms that improperly take advantage of the program and fail to pay back the government .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The House on Thursday is set to allocate another $310 billion to a small business loan program it established to provide relief to Americans out of work due to the coronavirus epidemic.
The bill, which the Senate passed earlier this week, also includes additional funding for hospitals, emergency disaster loans, and a national program to expand testing for the disease.
Advertisement
Despite mounting criticism of the small business relief scheme, after large and publicly traded firms received huge loans, the second round of the Paycheck Protection Program will have essentially the same structure, with desperate companies scrambling for cash and banks deciding who gets it based on their own preferences.
“I can count on one hand — literally on one hand — the number of businesses in my district who have received assistance,” Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), who represents Upper Manhattan, said Thursday during a hearing on Capitol Hill. “They got bamboozled. They are mad as hell. I am mad as hell.”
Business groups pleaded for changes to the program, which covers two months of payroll costs for any company with fewer than 500 employees so long as it doesn’t lay off workers or slash their pay this summer.
The National Restaurant Association and the National Federation of Independent Business, for instance, have said Congress should let firms use the forgivable payroll loan for a two month period later this year, after local governments have actually allowed nonessential business to resume. Under the current terms of the program, funds must be used within eight weeks of the date when the loan is funded.
Advertisement
The trade groups also said more than 25% of the loan should be allowed to cover non-payroll expenses such as rent and utilities, since payroll is a proportionately smaller share of costs for some firms, such as restaurants.
“It’s kind of unworkable for a lot of businesses,” said the NFIB’s Elizabeth Milito, who noted that there may have been more optimism about the coronavirus outbreak and the extent of its economic effects when lawmakers first created the payroll initiative.
Several business owners told HuffPost they didn’t get loans before the program first ran out of money, but some have said the program has since come through. A digital marketing firm in Florida and a brewery in North Carolina both said the money hit their accounts in the last week.
There are a bunch of things Congress could also do to make this program work more equitably and keep the money out of deep-pocketed companies’ hands, said Amanda Fischer, policy director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
First, there should be a ban on any public company receiving money, Fischer said. Those businesses have other ways of raising cash — public businesses can easily sell shares. Shake Shack, for example, was able to turn down its $10 million loan because it could tap another line of credit. More than 80 other publicly traded companies tapped the fund before it ran dry last week, according to a Financial Times analysis.
Advertisement
Fischer also suggested prohibiting financial service companies from tapping the program, following some reports that hedge funds ― which are technically small businesses ― were applying. A hedge fund’s business is raising money.
“They definitionally have more access to financial markets,” she said. Plus, if a fund shuts down, the overall harm to the public is small. It’s not an essential business. “There should be minimal collateral consequences if a hedge fund shuts down no one is going to go without milk or bread.”
Another way to keep the money out of the hands of the biggest and most well-resourced businesses would be to require a certain number of small dollar loans. During the last wave of lending, 4% of the loans represented 44.5% of the $349 billion lent out. In other words, close to half the money went to the biggest companies in the form of large loans.
“It’s a case of a very tiny number of companies making up a very high percentage of the total of money,” she said.
Banks also gave preferential treatment to the most well-resourced and richest companies.
The new bill sets aside $60 billion for lending institutions with assets under $50 billion — such as community banks — and it reserved $30 billion of that money for banks with less than $10 billion. Democrats pushed for the changes to make PPP loans more widely available to individuals in minority communities who do not have prior lending relationships.
Advertisement
Fischer said that some restrictions in the program sound be loosened. For example, the requirements to keep a certain number of staff on payroll may be too onerous for businesses that still have no idea when they’ll reopen, and have other costs to maintain. “The smallest of small businesses have other costs they need to pay down before they can even think about re-hiring people.”
The Small Business Administration should also be more closely tracking who gets this money, Fischer added. Are minority-owned businesses or women-owned businesses getting discriminated against? Anecdotally, it would appear so, but there was no tracking under the first tranche of money.
“We need to know if there are racial or ethnic or gender implications of who got this money to understand its impact on inequality.”
There are no additional reporting requirements for recipients of the loans in the new bill. The Trump administration has so far only provided general data on how many loans were approved.
For now, at least, larger companies who applied for loans under the program face no punishment apart from public shaming. But that might change. During a press conference earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin threatened “severe consequences” for firms that improperly take advantage of the program and fail to pay back the government.
Advertisement


huffpost--2020-04-23--What Is A Coronavirus Antibody Test And What Does It Reveal?

Researchers and hospital systems across the country have started conducting antibody tests on thousands of people to map out just how far the novel coronavirus spread over the past few months .
Initial antibody test results out of California suggest that up to 4 % of residents in hard-hit counties may have already had COVID-19 , whether or not they realized it .
Though the tests are giving us a stunning snapshot of just how many people may have already been infected , too many unknowns still surround COVID-19 ― mainly the ” are recovered people immune ?
” question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our ticket out .
But , used in conjunction with other testing and tracking efforts , they could very well help us get control of the pandemic .
First , what is an antibody ?
Then , depending on the virus and how dangerous it is , the immune system mounts a response that involves a whole bunch of different cells banding together to wipe out the invader .
One of the system ’ s tools in its fight are antibodies , these large Y-shaped proteins that fuse with a part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , Campbell said .
And those antibodies don ’ t just do their job and disappear .
They linger in the body , for varying amounts of time depending on the illness , so that if the virus strikes again , the body can act fast and knock it out .
( For reference , SARS antibodies were maintained for about two years after infection , MERS antibodies seem to last at least 34 months .
We still don ’ t know how long COVID-19 antibodies hang around . )
Antibody tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a test , sometimes with just a finger prick .
The blood is then taken to a lab , where the serum and plasma are isolated from the sample .
The patient ’ s plasma is then exposed to a part of the coronavirus ( the antigen ) to see if the antibodies remember the virus .
If antibodies to the coronavirus are present thanks to a past infection , they ’ ll stick and bind to the virus .
The presence of antibodies shows that a person has been infected with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantee that person is now immune .
Nor does it tell us for how long they may be immune .
As Iwasaki puts it , antibodies tell us about the history of an infection .
“ Since we do not know what type of immune responses are needed to protect someone from COVID-19 , antibodies alone may not tell us whether someone is protected from reinfection , ” Iwasaki said .
“ The immune system can be sloppy , ” Campbell said , so we can ’ t always discern which specific antibody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common cold is also a type of coronavirus , so many of the antibodies generated to fight that illness may also react to a COVID-19 test .
That can result in a mix-up .
Also , some people with autoimmune diseases and other health conditions generate a ton of antibodies that bind and stick to anything , commonly causing false-positive tests , according to Campbell .
A false positive could cause someone to think they ’ re in the clear , and presume they ’ re protected from reinfection when they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us an idea of how many people have been infected

LOADING ERROR LOADING
By now, you’ve probably heard about the coronavirus antibody tests, and how they may be the best shot we’ve got at opening up the economy and returning to some sort of normalcy.
Researchers and hospital systems across the country have started conducting antibody tests on thousands of people to map out just how far the novel coronavirus spread over the past few months. Initial antibody test results out of California suggest that up to 4% of residents in hard-hit counties may have already had COVID-19, whether or not they realized it.
Advertisement
Though the tests are giving us a stunning snapshot of just how many people may have already been infected, too many unknowns still surround COVID-19 ― mainly the ”are recovered people immune?” question ― to say that antibody tests are our ticket out. But, used in conjunction with other testing and tracking efforts, they could very well help us get control of the pandemic.
Here’s how the antibody tests work, and what they mean for our health.
First, what is an antibody?
When a virus gets into the body, it attaches to a cell and begins to replicate itself.
At the same time, our cells realize that something’s not right and send out distress signals. Those distress signals zip through the body and jump-start the immune system, our body’s defense system against any harmful germ, virus or bacteria.
“They say, ‘Virus here!’ and the immune system gets those messages and shows up and starts trying to figure out what virus it is,” said Sheldon Campbell, associate director of Yale Medicine’s Clinical Microbiology Lab and associate professor of laboratory medicine at the university.
Then, depending on the virus and how dangerous it is, the immune system mounts a response that involves a whole bunch of different cells banding together to wipe out the invader. One of the system’s tools in its fight are antibodies, these large Y-shaped proteins that fuse with a part of the virus called the antigen, and disarm it, Campbell said.
Advertisement
Typically, the antibodies — along with all the other ammo the immune system has in its arsenal — control the infection and protect us from harm’s way.
And those antibodies don’t just do their job and disappear. They linger in the body, for varying amounts of time depending on the illness, so that if the virus strikes again, the body can act fast and knock it out. (For reference, SARS antibodies were maintained for about two years after infection, MERS antibodies seem to last at least 34 months. We still don’t know how long COVID-19 antibodies hang around.)
The tests examine a blood sample for COVID-19 antibodies
Antibody tests start with a physician drawing blood for a test, sometimes with just a finger prick. The blood is then taken to a lab, where the serum and plasma are isolated from the sample. The patient’s plasma is then exposed to a part of the coronavirus (the antigen) to see if the antibodies remember the virus. If antibodies to the coronavirus are present thanks to a past infection, they’ll stick and bind to the virus.
“What it tells you is if the person has been exposed to the virus and had an immune response to the virus,” said James Zehnder, director of clinical pathology at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
It’s worth noting that antibody tests are not the same as diagnostic tests, like the nasal and throat swabs. Antibodies tell us a person has been infected after the fact, not during.
Advertisement
It takes antibodies a couple of weeks to develop after being exposed to a virus, according to Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology at Yale’s School of Medicine. Therefore, an antibody test should not be conducted on a person until they’ve been recovered for at least two weeks.
solarseven via Getty Images Antibody tests are giving us a snapshot of just how many people may have already been infected by the coronavirus, which could help us -- along with other measures -- get control of the pandemic.
There’s a catch with current coronavirus antibody tests
However — and this is a big however — just because someone has antibodies for COVID-19 does not mean they’re out of the woods.
The presence of antibodies shows that a person has been infected with the virus before, but it does not guarantee that person is now immune. Nor does it tell us for how long they may be immune.
As Iwasaki puts it, antibodies tell us about the history of an infection. “Since we do not know what type of immune responses are needed to protect someone from COVID-19, antibodies alone may not tell us whether someone is protected from reinfection,” Iwasaki said.
Advertisement
Also concerning: People who have antibodies to the coronavirus could still be infectious and actively spreading the virus, Iwasaki added. We just don’t know yet.
Zehnder, who helped coordinate Stanford’s antibody test development, said it’s reasonable to assume the antibodies provide some level of protection, since most other viruses generally confer immunity after exposure. But out of an abundance of caution, we cannot say for sure if these antibodies grant immunity to COVID-19.
“It’s important to not make assumptions of being protected before you actually know because that could lead to dangerous behavior and spreading of a disease,” Zehnder said.
The antibody tests for COVID-19 aren’t perfect
Antibody tests can also be a bit glitchy.
“The immune system can be sloppy,” Campbell said, so we can’t always discern which specific antibody a test is picking up. The common cold is also a type of coronavirus, so many of the antibodies generated to fight that illness may also react to a COVID-19 test. That can result in a mix-up.
“They’re related and they’ve got bits in them that are very similar,” Campbell said, noting that researchers do try to differentiate the two as best as possible.
Advertisement
Also, some people with autoimmune diseases and other health conditions generate a ton of antibodies that bind and stick to anything, commonly causing false-positive tests, according to Campbell. A false positive could cause someone to think they’re in the clear, and presume they’re protected from reinfection when they’re really not.
On a bigger scale, risk exists that if and when we start conducting antibody tests on everyone, we could end up with a bunch of false positives. That could give people a false sense of security, Campbell said.
Antibody tests do give us an idea of how many people have been infected
The main use of antibodies tests, at least now, is to help researchers understand the prevalence of COVID-19. We’re quickly learning that many people who were symptom-free, or even tested negative for COVID-19 on a diagnostic test, actually had the infection.
With that information, we can get a clearer read on how infectious the coronavirus is.
“If there are enough tests, it would be important to expand the testing to everyone so we understand the extent of viral spread in populations in the future,” Iwasaki said.
Antibody tests alone can’t open up the economy, but used alongside diagnostic tests, contact tracing, distancing and quarantining, these measures can help health officials get a better handle on the coronavirus. If we want to open up the economy, we need to know exactly what is going on with the infection, Zehnder said.
Advertisement
“To imagine reopening the economy without having the ability to know what the status of the population is, who’s infected, being able to take care of that quickly … you’re flying blind without having the testing ability,” he said.


huffpost--2020-04-23--Conspiracy Theorists Twist Country Singer Joe Diffie’s COVID-19 Death

CHICAGO ( AP ) — Conspiracy theorists are twisting facts online about country singer Joe Diffie ’ s death from COVID-19 complications in order to promote their claims that health officials are exaggerating the coronavirus pandemic ’ s threat .
Diffie , who topped the charts in the 1990s with honky-tonk singles like “ Home ” and “ Pickup Man , ” died on March 29 due to complications from COVID-19 , after he tested positive for the virus .
He was 61 when he died in Nashville , Tennessee .
In the days following his death , Facebook and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed media reports hid that he had lung cancer .
He did not .
The untrue online reports appear to have stemmed from an internet obituary for Diffie ’ s father , Joe Diffie Sr. , who died in November 2018 from cancer .
It ’ s the latest inaccurate claim from Facebook , Twitter and YouTube users who are seeking to sow doubt about the impact of the virus , and suggest that health officials , government leaders and media outlets have overblown its danger , despite millions being infected with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so troubling to Diffie ’ s family that his widow , Tara Terpening Diffie , made a plea on Instagram for people to stop sharing the misinformation .
In a statement , Tara Terpening Diffie said she hoped to set the record straight about her husband ’ s death so the family can focus on grieving Diffie and celebrating the Grand Ole Opry member ’ s legacy .
“ There have been some untrue statements about my late husband that are false and hurtful , ” Diffie said .
“ Joe did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , loving father , husband and friend .
He also kept a very busy touring schedule and loved his fans who ’ ve supported him all these years.
” Diffie , a Tulsa , Oklahoma native , died just days after announcing he had contracted the coronavirus .
He is survived by his wife , Tara , and seven children from four marriages .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
CHICAGO (AP) — Conspiracy theorists are twisting facts online about country singer Joe Diffie’s death from COVID-19 complications in order to promote their claims that health officials are exaggerating the coronavirus pandemic’s threat.
Diffie, who topped the charts in the 1990s with honky-tonk singles like “Home” and “Pickup Man,” died on March 29 due to complications from COVID-19, after he tested positive for the virus. He was 61 when he died in Nashville, Tennessee.
Advertisement
In the days following his death, Facebook and Twitter users posing as internet sleuths falsely claimed media reports hid that he had lung cancer. He did not. The untrue online reports appear to have stemmed from an internet obituary for Diffie’s father, Joe Diffie Sr., who died in November 2018 from cancer.
It’s the latest inaccurate claim from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube users who are seeking to sow doubt about the impact of the virus, and suggest that health officials, government leaders and media outlets have overblown its danger, despite millions being infected with the virus worldwide.
The false claims were so troubling to Diffie’s family that his widow, Tara Terpening Diffie, made a plea on Instagram for people to stop sharing the misinformation.
In a statement, Tara Terpening Diffie said she hoped to set the record straight about her husband’s death so the family can focus on grieving Diffie and celebrating the Grand Ole Opry member’s legacy.
Advertisement
“There have been some untrue statements about my late husband that are false and hurtful,” Diffie said. “Joe did not have lung cancer and was a healthy, loving father, husband and friend. He also kept a very busy touring schedule and loved his fans who’ve supported him all these years.”


huffpost--2020-04-23--Your Survival Of COVID-19 May Depend On How Much Your Governor Fears Trump

“ One explanation is that they fear the Trump base .
Another possibility is that they are the Trump base , ” said Mac Stipanovich , who served as chief of staff to Republican Florida Gov .
Bob Martinez in the late 1980s but who has become increasingly critical of his party under Trump .
“ It may be the case they are as dumb as they appear to be.
” There are notable exceptions to the Democratic-Republican split .
The Democratic governor of Maine , Janet Mills , did not issue a stay-at-home order until April 2 , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonessential businesses nine days earlier .
And Republican Brad Little in Idaho declared an “ extreme emergency ” with an accompanying stay-at-home order on March 25 .
California , Oregon and Washington were among the first states to issue stay-at-home orders , and , as a result , slowed the spread of the virus and COVID-19 , the disease it causes , to a manageable level .
California ’ s order came March 19 , the first in the country , while the other two states followed four days later .
All three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that hospitals in the state would be able to resume elective surgeries .
Meanwhile , a number of Republican governors who have aligned themselves with Trump bought into his false claims that the virus was not as serious as the seasonal flu and would go away on its own come spring .
“ Many Republicans seemingly can ’ t go to the bathroom without being given the implicit OK by the president , ” said David Turner with the Democratic Governors Association .
“ Democrats are making decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advice of medical experts .
I think that ’ s the reason Americans continue to put more faith in their Democratic governor to make the right decision than the president ’ s daily , ad hoc advice.
” Ohio Gov .
Mike DeWine issued a stay-at-home order on March 23 , becoming the first GOP governor in the country to do so , followed four days later by New Hampshire ’ s Chris Sununu .
Both won in 2018 despite a wave election that saw Democrats pick up hundreds of legislative seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. House of Representatives .
On Wednesday evening , DeWine posted a series of statements on Twitter criticizing protests against the lockdown that compared it to Nazi Germany , ending with the declaration : “ Ultimately , I am responsible for the decisions in regard to the coronavirus .
The buck stops with me ” – a stunning contrast with Trump ’ s statement on March 13 that he didn ’ t “ take responsibility at all ” for the country ’ s coronavirus response .
DeWine has a decades-old reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump , said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia ’ s Center for Politics .
“ I think he ’ s more free to do what he thinks is right , ” Kondik said , but added that DeWine has avoided antagonizing Trump and thereby endangering the delivery of federal assistance .
“ He ’ s really done a good job of threading the needle.
” Sununu , in New Hampshire , has also taken action that diverged from Trump ’ s message , said Fergus Cullen , a former GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think his tone has been really measured .
He ’ s avoided controversy on it .
He hasn ’ t gotten baited on it , ” Cullen said , referring to a small protest at the state Capitol against the lockdown that Sununu chose not to comment on at all .
Sununu ’ s actions are in marked contrast to those a thousand miles to the south in Trump ’ s new home state , where Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis may have made himself the most notorious Republican chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take any statewide action during the heart of spring break , with thousands of college students gathering in South Florida and many of them taking the virus back to their hometowns all across America .
DeSantis , who won the GOP primary almost entirely on the basis of Trump ’ s endorsement , had nevertheless spent his first year in office governing as a relatively mainstream Republican — until the coronavirus pandemic .
He refused to issue a stay-at-home order until April 1 , by which time the number of COVID-19 cases was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million doses of the anti-malaria drug Trump had been touting despite the lack of scientific evidence that it would work .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Whether you live or die because of this pandemic could very well depend on how afraid your governor is of President Donald Trump.
Across the country, how readily the coronavirus is spreading in your state roughly correlates with how early your governor issued a stay-at-home order – which in turn tracks how willing your governor was to buck Trump’s attempts to downplay the outbreak.
Advertisement
And that correlation is showing a strong partisan break, with Democratic governors typically taking action days or weeks before their Republican counterparts. Of the eight states that still do not have stay-at-home orders, all are led by Republicans.
“One explanation is that they fear the Trump base. Another possibility is that they are the Trump base,” said Mac Stipanovich, who served as chief of staff to Republican Florida Gov. Bob Martinez in the late 1980s but who has become increasingly critical of his party under Trump. “It may be the case they are as dumb as they appear to be.”
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) greets President Donald Trump as he steps off Air Force One on March 6, 2020, at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
There are notable exceptions to the Democratic-Republican split. The Democratic governor of Maine, Janet Mills, did not issue a stay-at-home order until April 2, although she had ordered the closure of all nonessential businesses nine days earlier. And Republican Brad Little in Idaho declared an “extreme emergency” with an accompanying stay-at-home order on March 25.
Advertisement
But in general, the governors who acted promptly are in solidly Democratic states, where they are less affected by Trump’s attacks, or in “purple” states with Republican governors who must be responsive to a broad electorate.
California, Oregon and Washington were among the first states to issue stay-at-home orders, and, as a result, slowed the spread of the virus and COVID-19, the disease it causes, to a manageable level. California’s order came March 19, the first in the country, while the other two states followed four days later. All three have Democratic governors, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that hospitals in the state would be able to resume elective surgeries.
Meanwhile, a number of Republican governors who have aligned themselves with Trump bought into his false claims that the virus was not as serious as the seasonal flu and would go away on its own come spring.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey proclaimed on March 27: “Y’all, we are not Louisiana. Right now is not the time to order people to shelter in place.” She signed a stay-at-home order a week later, on April 3.
Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said on March 23: “Mississippi’s never going to be China. Mississippi’s never going to be North Korea.” He, too, instituted a stay-at-home order on April 3.
Advertisement
And while South Dakota’s Kristi Noem has ordered schools closed and has told the elderly and other at-risk groups to remain home, she has refused to issue a general shelter-in-place order, even though the state is home to a Sioux Falls meatpacking plant that hosted a COVID-19 cluster with hundreds of cases.
“It’s hard to social distance when you’re kissing the ring.” - Kevin Cate, Democratic consultant
“Many Republicans seemingly can’t go to the bathroom without being given the implicit OK by the president,” said David Turner with the Democratic Governors Association. “Democrats are making decisions based on science, facts, and the advice of medical experts. I think that’s the reason Americans continue to put more faith in their Democratic governor to make the right decision than the president’s daily, ad hoc advice.”
Not all GOP governors, though, were waiting on permission from Trump, who from Jan. 22 through March 15 downplayed the lethality and extent of the virus, even calling concerns about it a “hoax” at a Feb. 28 rally.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine issued a stay-at-home order on March 23, becoming the first GOP governor in the country to do so, followed four days later by New Hampshire’s Chris Sununu. Both won in 2018 despite a wave election that saw Democrats pick up hundreds of legislative seats, seven governors mansions, and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Advertisement
On Wednesday evening, DeWine posted a series of statements on Twitter criticizing protests against the lockdown that compared it to Nazi Germany, ending with the declaration: “Ultimately, I am responsible for the decisions in regard to the coronavirus. The buck stops with me” – a stunning contrast with Trump’s statement on March 13 that he didn’t “take responsibility at all” for the country’s coronavirus response.
DeWine has a decades-old reputation in Ohio that has nothing to do with Trump, said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “I think he’s more free to do what he thinks is right,” Kondik said, but added that DeWine has avoided antagonizing Trump and thereby endangering the delivery of federal assistance. “He’s really done a good job of threading the needle.”
Sununu, in New Hampshire, has also taken action that diverged from Trump’s message, said Fergus Cullen, a former GOP state chairman and a frequent Trump critic. “I think his tone has been really measured. He’s avoided controversy on it. He hasn’t gotten baited on it,” Cullen said, referring to a small protest at the state Capitol against the lockdown that Sununu chose not to comment on at all.
Sununu’s actions are in marked contrast to those a thousand miles to the south in Trump’s new home state, where Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis may have made himself the most notorious Republican chief executive of them all by failing to take any statewide action during the heart of spring break, with thousands of college students gathering in South Florida and many of them taking the virus back to their hometowns all across America.
“It’s hard to social distance when you’re kissing the ring,” joked Kevin Cate, a Democratic consultant who worked for former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, whom DeSantis narrowly defeated in 2018.
Advertisement
Then Florida Gov.-elect Ron DeSantis (R) sits with President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room at the White House on Dec. 13, 2018. Mark Wilson via Getty Images
DeSantis, who won the GOP primary almost entirely on the basis of Trump’s endorsement, had nevertheless spent his first year in office governing as a relatively mainstream Republican — until the coronavirus pandemic. He refused to issue a stay-at-home order until April 1, by which time the number of COVID-19 cases was already soaring, and then ordered a million doses of the anti-malaria drug Trump had been touting despite the lack of scientific evidence that it would work.
DeSantis’ office did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Gwen Graham, a Democrat who also ran for governor in 2018 and who previously served with DeSantis in Congress, said his handling of the crisis undid any independence from Trump he had achieved in his first year.
“It’s been a disaster. DeSantis is doing what Trump tells him to do,” she said. “He’s there because of Donald Trump, and he returned to the mothership when things got the toughest.”
Of course, a warning for DeSantis and others hoping to stay in Trump’s good graces may well have been issued this week to Florida’s neighbor to the north.
Advertisement
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) was among the first in the country to follow Trump’s suggestions for “re-restarting” the economy by allowing businesses to reopen on Friday, including establishments like nail salons and tattoo parlors.
But rather than back Kemp, Trump said on Thursday that as much as he wants to get the economy going again, he personally could not support Kemp’s actions.


huffpost--2020-04-22--HHS Chief Alex Azar Had Aide, Former Dog Breeder, Steer Pandemic Task Force

The first test created by the CDC , meant to be used by other labs , was plagued by a @ @ @ @ @ and wasn ’ t fixed for weeks .
It wasn ’ t until March that @ @ @ @ @ into production .
The lack of tests “ limited hospitals ’ ability to monitor the @ @ @ @ @ , ” the HHS Inspector General said in a report this month .
The equipment @ @ @ @ @ patients at risk.
” Reached by phone , Harrison declined to answer Reuters ’ questions @ @ @ @ @ , he did not address questions about the task force but said he was proud @ @ @ @ @ “ Americans would be well served by having more government officials who have started and @ @ @ @ @ and fewer trying to use that experience to attack them and distort the record , @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On January 21, the day the first U.S. case of coronavirus was reported, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services appeared on Fox News to report the latest on the disease as it ravaged China. Alex Azar, a 52-year-old lawyer and former drug industry executive, assured Americans the U.S. government was prepared.
“We developed a diagnostic test at the CDC, so we can confirm if somebody has this,” Azar said. “We will be spreading that diagnostic around the country so that we are able to do rapid testing on site.”
Advertisement
While coronavirus in Wuhan, China, was “potentially serious,” Azar assured viewers in America, it “was one for which we have a playbook.”
Azar’s initial comments misfired on two fronts. Like many U.S. officials, from President Donald Trump on down, he underestimated the pandemic’s severity. He also overestimated his agency’s preparedness.
As is now widely known, two agencies Azar oversaw as HHS secretary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, wouldn’t come up with viable tests for five and half weeks, even as other countries and the World Health Organization had already prepared their own.
Shortly after his televised comments, Azar tapped a trusted aide with minimal public health experience to lead the agency’s day-to-day response to COVID-19. The aide, Brian Harrison, had joined the department after running a dog-breeding business for six years. Five sources say some officials in the White House derisively called him “the dog breeder.”
Advertisement
Azar’s optimistic public pronouncement and choice of an inexperienced manager are emblematic of his agency’s oft-troubled response to the crisis. His HHS is a behemoth department, overseeing almost every federal public health agency in the country, with a $1.3 trillion budget that exceeds the gross national product of most countries.
Azar and his top deputies oversaw health agencies that were slow to alert the public to the magnitude of the crisis, to produce a test to tell patients if they were sick, and to provide protective masks to hospitals even as physicians pleaded for them.
The first test created by the CDC, meant to be used by other labs, was plagued by a glitch that rendered it useless and wasn’t fixed for weeks. It wasn’t until March that tests by other labs went into production. The lack of tests “limited hospitals’ ability to monitor the health of patients and staff,” the HHS Inspector General said in a report this month. The equipment shortage “put staff and patients at risk.”
A promised virus surveillance program failed to take root, despite assurances Azar gave to Congress. Rather than share information, three current and three former government officials told Reuters, Azar and top staff sidelined key agencies that could have played a higher-profile role in addressing the pandemic. “It was a mess,” said a White House official who worked with HHS.
Officials across the government, from President Trump on down, have been blasted for America’s halting response to the pandemic. Critics inside and outside the administration say a meaningful share of the responsibility lies with HHS and Trump appointee Azar.
Advertisement
“You have to blame the problem on the virus, but it’s Azar’s operation,” said Lynn Goldman, the dean of the public health school at George Washington University, who has served on advisory boards of the FDA and CDC. “And the buck stops there.”
HHS declined to make Azar available for an interview. Michael Caputo, the new chief HHS spokesman, declined to answer Reuters questions about Azar’s stewardship, saying in a statement: “We are communicating to the American public during a deadly pandemic.”
DALLAS LABRADOODLES
Azar is a Republican lawyer who once clerked for the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and counts current Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a friend. Under George W. Bush, Azar worked for HHS as general counsel and deputy secretary. During the Obama years, he cycled through the private sector as a pharmaceutical company lobbyist and executive for Eli Lilly. After Trump’s first HHS secretary was forced out in a travel corruption scandal, Azar stepped in, in January 2018.
Two years later, at the dawn of the coronavirus crisis, Azar appointed his most trusted aide and chief of staff, Harrison, as HHS’s main coordinator for the government’s response to the virus.
Harrison, 37, was an unusual choice, with no formal education in public health, management, or medicine and with only limited experience in the fields. In 2006, he joined HHS in a one-year stint as a “Confidential Assistant” to Azar, who was then deputy secretary. He also had posts working for Vice President Dick Cheney, the Department of Defense and a Washington public relations company.
Advertisement
Before joining the Trump Administration in January 2018, Harrison’s official HHS biography says, he “ran a small business in Texas.” The biography does not disclose the name or nature of that business, but his personal financial disclosure forms show that from 2012 until 2018 he ran a company called Dallas Labradoodles.
The company sells Australian Labradoodles, a breed that is a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle. He sold it in April 2018, his financial disclosure form said. HHS emailed Reuters that the sales price was $225,000.
At HHS, Harrison was initially deputy chief of staff before being promoted, in the summer of 2019, to replace Azar’s first chief of staff, Peter Urbanowicz, an experienced hospital executive with decades of experience in public health.
This January, Harrison became a key manager of the HHS virus response. “Everyone had to report up through him,” said one HHS official.
One questionable decision, three sources say, came that month, after the White House announced it was convening a coronavirus task force. The HHS role was to muster resources from key public health agencies: the CDC, FDA, National Institutes of Health, Office of Global Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
Advertisement
Harrison decided, the sources say, to exclude FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn from the task force. “He said he didn’t need to be included,” said one official with knowledge of the matter.
When task force members were announced January 29, neither Hahn nor the FDA were included. Hahn wasn’t put on the task force until Vice President Mike Pence took over in February. Two of Hahn’s high-profile counterparts were on it from the start: CDC director Robert Redfield and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The HHS denied it was Harrison’s decision to leave out Hahn and the FDA, but declined to say who made the call. The agency lauded Harrison’s work on the task force.
In a statement, Hahn said the FDA was focused on the coronavirus epidemic, “not on when we were added to the task force,” and that the agency was not “excluded.”
Fauci, who has become a public face of the Trump Administration’s COVID-19 effort, said he wasn’t sure including the FDA was necessary at the start. Initially, the Chinese government was saying the virus spread through animals, not human to human, he said. “You would include the FDA when you want to expedite drugs or devices,” Fauci said.
Advertisement
Others said the lack of a strong FDA role early on had direct consequences. Two sources familiar with events say the White House wasn’t getting information from the FDA about the state of the testing effort, a crucial element of the coronavirus response.
Reached by phone, Harrison declined to answer Reuters’ questions. In a later statement, he did not address questions about the task force but said he was proud of his work history. “Americans would be well served by having more government officials who have started and worked in small family businesses and fewer trying to use that experience to attack them and distort the record,” he wrote.
In a statement to Reuters, Azar said Harrison has been an asset. “From day one, Brian has demonstrated remarkable leadership and managerial talents,” Azar wrote.
LOW RISK?
In the pandemic’s early days, Azar offered words of both concern and assurance in public. On January 31, a day after the WHO declared COVID-19 a global health emergency, Azar declared it a public health emergency.
That same day, during the first Coronavirus Task Force briefing, Azar told the public: “I want to stress: The risk of infection for Americans remains low.”
Advertisement
The United States, he said, had taken adequate precautions. Travel restrictions and 14-day quarantines on Americans who had been to Wuhan, where the virus originated, were imposed. Americans returning from other parts of China had to self-quarantine.
The next week, on February 7, in another press conference, Azar repeated the message. “The immediate risk to the American public is low at this time,” he announced.
Behind the scenes, his aides say, Azar had alerted the White House in early January, and then later that month spoke directly to the president. It is unclear exactly what Azar told the president, because transcripts are not available.
“There’s a lot of CYA going on,” said one senior administration official, who said Azar never spelled out that stockpiles of protective equipment might be inadequate or the tests were not working. “We were told the test was ready. That turned out to be flat-out wrong.”
Trump denied Azar sent out alarms. “@SecAzar told me nothing until later,” he tweeted earlier this month.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Azar continued to say “the immediate risk” to Americans was low and that travel restrictions had worked. “So I think so far, our measures have been quite effective,” he told NPR on February 14.
Others were raising alarms. “It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen any more, but rather more of a question of exactly when this will happen,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at a February 25 news briefing.
MORE GLITCHES
Responding to Congressional concerns, Azar said HHS had launched a coronavirus surveillance system in five cities. The plan was to test patients who showed up with flu symptoms, to see if they actually were infected with the novel coronavirus.
But the system was either delayed or not implemented in the cities and now is seen by epidemiologists as irrelevant given the massive community spread and continued inadequate testing.
By the end of February, Azar sought more money to attack the crisis as he testified before Congress. “This is an unprecedented potentially severe health challenge globally, and will require additional measures,” he said.
Advertisement
Still, he assured senators his agency was in control. “We have enacted the most aggressive containment measures in the history of our country,” he said.
He again provided words of calm, appearing on Fox News. “But thanks to President Trump’s historically aggressive containment efforts, we’ve actually contained the spread of this virus here in the United States at this point,” he said February 25. “I think part of the message to the American people is we all need to take a bit of deep breath here.”
“The government is working on this. You’ve got the right people on this.”
By the end of February, Azar and Harrison were no longer running the White House task force. That month, Vice President Pence took control. The FDA and Hahn are now actively involved. A Pence spokesperson said the issue of precluding the FDA from the task force “pre-dates the VP’s leadership” and declined further comment.
Azar seemed caught off guard by the change. “I’m still chairman of the task force,” he told the press after Pence took over.
Given Azar’s early struggles, the White House should have taken a stronger role over the task force from the outset, said Ashish Jha, director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute. “It was very clear that Azar wasn’t able to marshal the forces across the government like he needed to,” he said.
Advertisement
Jeffrey Flier, a former Harvard Medical School dean, said the HHS role remains as vital as ever. As of Wednesday, 45,336 Americans have died of COVID-19, and more than 800,000 have been infected.
“Clearly there was a need for better coordination of the FDA and CDC and other agencies,” he said. “HHS has to be operating effectively in a crisis like this.”


huffpost--2020-04-23--With More Than 10,000 Coronavirus Deaths, Nursing Homes Plead For More Testing

ASSOCIATED PRESS In this Monday , April 20 , 2020 , file photo , emergency medical technicians transport a patient from a nursing home to an emergency room bed at St. Joseph 's Hospital in Yonkers , N.Y. ( AP Photo/John Minchillo , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — After two months and more than 10,000 deaths that have made the nation ’ s nursing homes some of the most terrifying places to be during the coronavirus crisis , most of them still don ’ t have access to enough tests to help control outbreaks among their frail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government nor the leader in nursing home deaths , New York , has mandated testing for all residents and staff .
An industry group says only about a third of the 15,000 nursing homes in the U.S. have ready access to tests that can help isolate the sick and stop the spread .
And homes that do manage to get a hold of tests often rely on luck and contacts .
“ It just shows that the longer that states lapse in universal testing of all residents and staff , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a very long time , ” said Brian Lee of the advocacy group Families for Better Care .
“ Once it ’ s in , there ’ s no stopping it and by the time you ’ re aware with testing , too many people have it .
And bodies keep piling up.
” That became clear in some of the nation ’ s biggest nursing home outbreaks .
After a home in Brooklyn reported 55 coronavirus deaths last week , its CEO acknowledged it was based entirely on symptoms and educated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were unable to actually test any of the residents or staff .
This Wednesday , April 1 , 2020 , file photo , shows an entrance to the Lakeland Health Care Center , a nursing home in Wanaque , N.J .
Multiple people at the facility have died of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus , according to the borough 's Mayor Dan Mahler .
Several others , including residents and staff members , are infected .
( AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey , File ) At a nursing home in suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far seen 49 deaths , the medical director said testing of all residents was delayed nearly two weeks because of a shortage of testing supplies and bureaucratic requirements .
By the time they did , the spread was out of control , with 92 residents positive .
“ Those nursing home leaders who have developed good relationships with their local hospitals and health departments seem to have better luck , ” said Laxton , whose organization represents more than 50,000 long-term care professionals .
“ Those that are not at the table must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have long argued that current measures like temperature checks aren ’ t sufficient .
They can ’ t stop workers with the virus who aren ’ t showing signs from walking in the front door , and they don ’ t catch such asymptomatic carriers among residents either .
What is needed is rigorous and frequent testing — “ sentinel surveillance , ” White House virus chief Deborah Birx calls it — to find these hidden carriers , isolate them and stop the spread .
The U.S. is currently testing roughly 150,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million results reported , according to data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project .
Public health experts say that needs to be much higher .
“ We need likely millions of tests a day , ” said Dr. Ashish Jha , director of the Harvard Global Health Institute .
The federal Health & Human Services Department told The Associated Press that ” there are plenty of tests and capability for all ” priority categories and that all should be tested .
The agency also noted one of President Donald Trump ’ s briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ’ role in coordinating testing .
Only one governor , West Virginia ’ s Jim Justice , appears to be mandating testing for all nursing homes without conditions .
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan ordered tests at all 26 nursing in the city , using new kits that can spew out results in 15 minutes .
Massachusetts abruptly halted a program to send test kits directly to nursing homes this week after 4,000 of them turned out to be faulty .
New Hampshire teamed with an urgent-care company to test care workers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland , Tennessee and Wisconsin have dispatched National Guard testing strike teams .
In this Friday , April 17 , 2020 , photo , Dr. Gabrielle Beger , left , prepares to take a nose-swab sample from Lawrence McGee , as she works with a team of University of Washington medical providers conducting testing for the new coronavirus at Queen Anne Healthcare , a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility in Seattle .
Sending `` drop teams '' from University of Washington Medicine to conduct universal testing at skilled nursing facilities in collaboration with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region 's approach to controlling the spread of the coronavirus .
( AP Photo/Ted S. Warren ) While the federal government promised this week to start tracking and publicly releasing nursing home infections and deaths , which could help identify hotspots , that work was only beginning .
In the meantime , The AP ’ s own tally from state health departments and media reports put the count at 10,217 deaths from outbreaks in nursing homes and long-term care facilities nationwide .
About a third of those are in New York .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has described COVID-19 in nursing homes as “ fire through dry grass , ” said he would ideally like to see any resident , staffer or visitor seeking to enter a nursing home take a rapid test that would come back in 20 minutes .
But , he said , “ that ’ s millions of tests.
” After the first of two deaths at a Sheboygan , Wisconsin , nursing home and other residents and staffers started falling ill , administrator Colinda Nappa got on the phone and pleaded with state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is going on .
”

In this Monday, April 20, 2020, file photo, emergency medical technicians transport a patient from a nursing home to an emergency room bed at St. Joseph's Hospital in Yonkers, N.Y. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File) ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK (AP) — After two months and more than 10,000 deaths that have made the nation’s nursing homes some of the most terrifying places to be during the coronavirus crisis, most of them still don’t have access to enough tests to help control outbreaks among their frail, elderly residents.
Neither the federal government nor the leader in nursing home deaths, New York, has mandated testing for all residents and staff. An industry group says only about a third of the 15,000 nursing homes in the U.S. have ready access to tests that can help isolate the sick and stop the spread. And homes that do manage to get a hold of tests often rely on luck and contacts.
Advertisement
“It just shows that the longer that states lapse in universal testing of all residents and staff, we’re going to see these kinds of stories for a very long time,” said Brian Lee of the advocacy group Families for Better Care. “Once it’s in, there’s no stopping it and by the time you’re aware with testing, too many people have it. And bodies keep piling up.”
That became clear in some of the nation’s biggest nursing home outbreaks. After a home in Brooklyn reported 55 coronavirus deaths last week, its CEO acknowledged it was based entirely on symptoms and educated guesses the dead had COVID-19 because they were unable to actually test any of the residents or staff.
This Wednesday, April 1, 2020, file photo, shows an entrance to the Lakeland Health Care Center, a nursing home in Wanaque, N.J. Multiple people at the facility have died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, according to the borough's Mayor Dan Mahler. Several others, including residents and staff members, are infected. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey, File) ASSOCIATED PRESS
At a nursing home in suburban Richmond, Virginia, that has so far seen 49 deaths, the medical director said testing of all residents was delayed nearly two weeks because of a shortage of testing supplies and bureaucratic requirements. By the time they did, the spread was out of control, with 92 residents positive.
Advertisement
Mark Parkinson, CEO of the American Health Care Association, which represents long-term care facilities, says “only a very small percentage” of residents and staff have been tested because the federal and state governments have not made nursing homes the top priority.
“We feel like we’ve been ignored,” Parkinson said. “Certainly now that the emphasis has gone away from hospitals to where the real battle is taking place in nursing homes, we should be at a priority level one.”
Two-thirds of U.S. nursing homes still don’t have “easy access to test kits” and are struggling to obtain sufficient resources, said Chris Laxton, executive director of The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.
“Those nursing home leaders who have developed good relationships with their local hospitals and health departments seem to have better luck,” said Laxton, whose organization represents more than 50,000 long-term care professionals. “Those that are not at the table must fend for themselves.”
Public health officials have long argued that current measures like temperature checks aren’t sufficient. They can’t stop workers with the virus who aren’t showing signs from walking in the front door, and they don’t catch such asymptomatic carriers among residents either. What is needed is rigorous and frequent testing — “sentinel surveillance,” White House virus chief Deborah Birx calls it — to find these hidden carriers, isolate them and stop the spread.
Advertisement
The U.S. is currently testing roughly 150,000 people daily, for a total of 4.5 million results reported, according to data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project. Public health experts say that needs to be much higher. “We need likely millions of tests a day,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
The federal Health & Human Services Department told The Associated Press that ”there are plenty of tests and capability for all” priority categories and that all should be tested. The agency also noted one of President Donald Trump’s briefings this week in which he underscored the states’ role in coordinating testing.
Only one governor, West Virginia’s Jim Justice, appears to be mandating testing for all nursing homes without conditions. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan ordered tests at all 26 nursing in the city, using new kits that can spew out results in 15 minutes. Massachusetts abruptly halted a program to send test kits directly to nursing homes this week after 4,000 of them turned out to be faulty. New Hampshire teamed with an urgent-care company to test care workers. Several states including Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Tennessee and Wisconsin have dispatched National Guard testing strike teams.
“It’s a snapshot,” New Hampshire Health Care Association President Brendan Williams said of the national piecemeal approach. “We need a motion picture.”
In this Friday, April 17, 2020, photo, Dr. Gabrielle Beger, left, prepares to take a nose-swab sample from Lawrence McGee, as she works with a team of University of Washington medical providers conducting testing for the new coronavirus at Queen Anne Healthcare, a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility in Seattle. Sending "drop teams" from University of Washington Medicine to conduct universal testing at skilled nursing facilities in collaboration with public health officials is one aspect of the region's approach to controlling the spread of the coronavirus. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
While the federal government promised this week to start tracking and publicly releasing nursing home infections and deaths, which could help identify hotspots, that work was only beginning. In the meantime, The AP’s own tally from state health departments and media reports put the count at 10,217 deaths from outbreaks in nursing homes and long-term care facilities nationwide. About a third of those are in New York.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has described COVID-19 in nursing homes as “fire through dry grass,” said he would ideally like to see any resident, staffer or visitor seeking to enter a nursing home take a rapid test that would come back in 20 minutes. But, he said, “that’s millions of tests.”
Dr. Roy Goldberg, medical director of a nursing home in the Bronx that reported 45 deaths, said his facility still can’t test asymptomatic patients because of shortages that have limited testing to those showing fever or a cough.
“This isn’t what anyone signed up for,” Goldberg said. “It just breaks my heart that the long-term care industry is going to end up being totally scapegoated on this.”
Amid the tragedies have emerged hopeful cases in which early and aggressive testing has made huge difference.
Advertisement
After the first of two deaths at a Sheboygan, Wisconsin, nursing home and other residents and staffers started falling ill, administrator Colinda Nappa got on the phone and pleaded with state officials: “I got to know what is going on.”
A 65-member National Guard testing unit soon showed up, donned head-to-toe protective suits and quickly tested nearly 100 residents and 150 staffers.
In all, 19 residents and staffers tested positive and all are either now housed in a special section of the building or quarantined at home. There have been no more deaths.
In the Seattle area, which had the nation’s first major nursing home outbreak that eventually claimed 43 lives, health officials are targeting their testing efforts on homes that have shown little sign of the disease.
Their plans for testing at 19 such facilities are aimed at trying to head off hotspots by quickly identifying and containing cases. In conjunction with ramped-up capacity for tracing contacts of patients, it’s considered an important prerequisite to reopening he economy.
Advertisement
This past week, medical professionals led by the University of Washington’s Dr. Thuan Ong went room by room through a nursing home in a highly orchestrated ballet of swabbing and bagging. In all, 115 residents were tested and results came back the next day as all negative — a development that drew cheers from the facility’s staff.
“One of the greatest values,” Ong said, “is to catch it before it spreads.”
___


huffpost--2020-05-05--Mattel Pinning Its Christmas Hopes On Baby Yoda

May 5 ( Reuters ) - Mattel Inc will have a new line of “ Baby Yoda ” toys ready to hit shelves in time for Christmas , the toymaker said on Tuesday , as it joined rival Hasbro in charting a recovery from the financial damage caused by the coronavirus lockdowns .
Mattel said its global manufacturing and distribution facilities , including in China where it produces 60 % of its products , were largely back to operating at full capacity .
However , Mattel Chief Executive Officer Ynon Kreiz told Reuters that while he was expecting demand to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season , any ramp up in production would be dependent on evidence of consumer demand rising in the coming months .
Hasbro Inc said last week its supply chains had also been fully restored in China , but warned of a hit to sales in the second quarter as the health crisis drives the world into recession .
Mattel , known for its Barbie and Hot Wheels toys , said net sales fell 14 % to $ 594.1 million in the first quarter ended March 31 , as toy stores were forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the virus .
Kreiz said retail outlets , that normally account for about a third of Mattel ’ s sales volumes , were closed at the end of March .
Still , Mattel said it shipped about 750,000 plush toys based on the viral Baby Yoda character from the “ The Mandalorian ” Star Wars series on Disney+ , and would be ready to meet holiday demand .
The company ’ s net loss widened to $ 210.7 million , or 61 cents per share , in the first quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 51 cents per share , a year earlier.Mattel said it had $ 1.6 billion credit line and enough cash on hand to weather through the crisis .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
May 5 (Reuters) - Mattel Inc will have a new line of “Baby Yoda” toys ready to hit shelves in time for Christmas, the toymaker said on Tuesday, as it joined rival Hasbro in charting a recovery from the financial damage caused by the coronavirus lockdowns.
Mattel said its global manufacturing and distribution facilities, including in China where it produces 60% of its products, were largely back to operating at full capacity.
Advertisement
However, Mattel Chief Executive Officer Ynon Kreiz told Reuters that while he was expecting demand to increase towards the vital end-of-year holiday shopping season, any ramp up in production would be dependent on evidence of consumer demand rising in the coming months.
Hasbro Inc said last week its supply chains had also been fully restored in China, but warned of a hit to sales in the second quarter as the health crisis drives the world into recession.
Mattel, known for its Barbie and Hot Wheels toys, said net sales fell 14% to $594.1 million in the first quarter ended March 31, as toy stores were forced to close in strict government lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus.
Kreiz said retail outlets, that normally account for about a third of Mattel’s sales volumes, were closed at the end of March.
Advertisement
Still, Mattel said it shipped about 750,000 plush toys based on the viral Baby Yoda character from the “The Mandalorian” Star Wars series on Disney+, and would be ready to meet holiday demand.
The company’s net loss widened to $210.7 million, or 61 cents per share, in the first quarter, from $176.3 million, or 51 cents per share, a year earlier.Mattel said it had $1.6 billion credit line and enough cash on hand to weather through the crisis.


huffpost--2020-05-05--Netflix's Sterile Reality Hits Were Made For A World In Quarantine

Not only is the streaming giant poised to take advantage of bored quarantiners ’ thirst for bingeable series , but much of its programming for the next year and a half has already been filmed , according to Bloomberg .
“ We work really far out relative to the industry , ” an executive told investors during a recent earnings call .
While broadcast networks have been forced to abruptly halt production on shows midseason , Netflix has months of TV in the bank .
For the cast , filming was an unwitting training session for a time of social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking the rules and touching other people would cost not just cash , but lives .
For audiences already plunged into lockdown , it was a fun house mirror held up to a bleak new reality in which those of us huddled at home or forced out of it by essential job functions watch balefully as others crowd beaches , throw parties and protest to have their hairdressers reopened .
Some contestants , like Kelz “ The Accountant ” Dyke , committed immediately to preserving the prize at all costs ― only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mates decided they ’ d waited long enough and started making out or fooling around under the blankets , hoping to get away with it .
The consequences may be slightly delayed , but the announcement always comes : The COVID-19 cases have shot up , the prize pot has shrunk .
No one has gotten away with anything .
The uncanny symmetry between reality and Netflix ’ s 2020 slate extends beyond the broad central concepts .
The aesthetic , too , has evolved from the janky , chaotic productions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sloppy and intentionally cheap-looking shows , like the mockingly annotated classic “ Blind Date , ” today ’ s new dating shows tend to be crisp , aiming for a more high-end look .
Netflix pays relatively good money , allowing production companies to up their budgets .
Compared to longer-lived network shows like “ The Bachelor ” and its spinoffs , the streaming platform ’ s reality shows look polished and clean , and they don ’ t break the fourth wall .
Meanwhile , on-screen , I had never been confronted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poreless humans in solid-color spandex and trim swim trunks , enduring the Mexican heat with barely a shimmer of perspiration .
Every body hair has been neatly removed .
Most of the women suffer from unremitting Instagram face : contoured , blurred and held in neutral pouts .
The rules are introduced and enforced by Lana , a conical oil diffuser we ’ re meant to believe is an artificial-intelligence surveillance device .
If the participants all look as if they ’ d stepped out of Instagram , filters included , the host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an ad for a direct-to-consumer wellness brand that pops up on your feed .
It was meant to be sexy , all these gorgeous , horny young people marooned together in their swimwear , watched over by a stern white cone .
The entire tension of the show rested on the sexiness of this scenario .
And for the contestants , Lana ’ s cock-blocking does cause unbearable temptation .
They start breaking the rules almost immediately , and in between they struggle to even make enough conversation to flirt .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want him , it ’ s just like , do a little hair flip , make eye contact , and it ’ s game over , ” admits Francesca Farago , a professional influencer .
Once this maneuver is accomplished , there ’ s barely anywhere for a conversation between a budding couple to go , aside from pained references to how much they ’ d like to touch .
But for me , as a viewer , the extreme physical perfection and self-conscious posing almost made sex seem implausible , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create any friction or fluids .
When rule-follower Matt Smith jokingly flirts with Lana , it felt about as steamy as any encounter between two humans on the show .
Old-school reality shows have a perversely appealing grossness , perhaps a sign of lower production value but a sign of humanity as well .
On the “ Bachelor ” franchise dating show “ Bachelor in Paradise , ” contestants fight losing battles against humidity , which frizzes their hair and melts their makeup ; crabs , which invade their bedrooms ; and sand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re perpetually sweaty and red-faced and lounging on wooden furniture covered in natural-fiber cushions .
On “ Too Hot to Handle , ” every surface in the resort looks designed to be wiped down with a Clorox towelette , and every bit of upholstery is white or neon .
As I watched the early episodes of “ Love Is Blind , ” in the first days of lockdown , it was the sterility of the set that struck me .
Not only are the contestants kept separate from their romantic interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone in pods and speaking to each other through opaque glass walls , their surroundings are chilly and institutional .
Many dating reality shows are filmed in mansions or resorts — places designed for living .
The set of “ Love Is Blind ” is a custom-built facility designed for display : In the common areas shared by the men and the women , cavernous ceilings and clean lines ; in the dating pods , muted metallic fabrics and rows of tall panels on the wall .
Somehow both cozy and cheerless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set , or perhaps an upscale office space .
Every ray of light is artificial , as if the show were filmed underground .
In a Refinery29 interview , Kenny Barnes revealed that when not in the pods , contestants slept in trailers on “ correctional facility beds.
” After participants fell in love and got engaged , they were permitted to leave the pods and continue their courtship in person , first at a romantic getaway in Mexico and then in apartments in Atlanta .
But the pod facility defined the show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started social distancing measures soon after the show was released , fans and critics quickly noted the aptness of the concept for singles trying to date amid a pandemic .
Can one fall in love without ever having a chance to see the other person in the flesh , or smell their pheromone musk ?
Results for the pod couples were mixed ; the jury ’ s still out on when quarantine daters will be freed to spend a sensual weekend together at a Mexican resort .
In the meantime , many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible .
And yet the slick , institutional aesthetic of these shows , perhaps designed to speak to millennials who live in minimalist apartments and commute to funky co-working spaces in lofts , feels particularly right for a moment in which our bodies are mostly in messy apartments but our minds are elsewhere ― in hospital rooms and nursing home corridors , in warehouses and factories that corporate emails assure customers are being frequently disinfected for worker safety .
“ The Circle , ” a wildly popular show both in its British original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped in January , though it hits differently now , well into the worldwide outbreak of the coronavirus .
The contestants are confined to their individual suites for the duration of the competition , where they cook for themselves , cuddle with stuffed animal friends , and communicate with the others through a contained social platform called The Circle .
They build stripped-down profiles with strictly rationed opportunities to post photos and status updates , then build alliances via chat .
The goal : to win the highest ratings from other players .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ photos they believe will garner higher numbers ( typically hot women ) .
They ’ re only in isolation for around two weeks , but it starts to get to them .
Seaburn , who is playing with photos of his stunning girlfriend , sleeps with a framed picture of her in his bed .
After several contestants win a challenge , they ’ re awarded video messages from home ; most of them cry .
Though their friendships , surprisingly , become real , something is lost in the translation between screen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producers set up group events , like a cake-decorating contest or a party .
Watching each resident eat a personal-sized pizza and bop around their room , sipping a cocktail and grooving to dance music alone , may have once read as a send-up of how social media distracts us from real life .
Now , in the golden age of Zoom birthday parties and final goodbyes said over FaceTime , the scene just stings .
The odd topicality of these Netflix offerings is , in part , a simple question of timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baked-in kinship with quarantine .
Contestants on high-concept dating shows and social competitions , from “ Survivor ” to “ Are You the One ?
” are often secluded with each other for weeks on end , unable to run out for an errand or even communicate with loved ones back home .
Their movements and interactions with each other are artificially restricted .
No wonder Bachelor Nation is thriving on lockdown gossip about who is quarantining with whom — these reality stars all rose to fame by interacting entertainingly with the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Images from "Too Hot to Handle," left, "The Circle," right, and "Love Is Blind," background. HuffPost Illustration/Netflix
The Trump administration wasn’t ready for a pandemic, but apparently Netflix was.
Not only is the streaming giant poised to take advantage of bored quarantiners’ thirst for bingeable series, but much of its programming for the next year and a half has already been filmed, according to Bloomberg. “We work really far out relative to the industry,” an executive told investors during a recent earnings call. While broadcast networks have been forced to abruptly halt production on shows midseason, Netflix has months of TV in the bank.
And what TV. Netflix presciently (or serendipitously) released the documentary series “Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak” in January. Still more curiously, each of its three major reality shows of the spring — “The Circle,” “Love Is Blind” and “Too Hot to Handle” — captures a slice of quarantine life: total physical solitude, dating remotely, and an imperative to maintain social distance, respectively. These are shows with isolationist concepts and slick, clinical aesthetics, shows that reflect modern anxieties that the pandemic has only magnified, about touch and distance alike.
Advertisement
Take “Too Hot to Handle,” which dropped in mid-April, as if to taunt horny singles confined to Zoom dates and sexting for the foreseeable future. The concept: Over a dozen gorgeous 20-somethings, all self-described fans of casual sex, cozy up together at a resort only to learn that all sexual contact is verboten. A $100,000 prize fund is taxed as punishment for infractions ranging from a kiss to full-on sex. Even self-gratification is off the table. The balls must remain blue, in short.
For the cast, filming was an unwitting training session for a time of social distancing, for a world in which breaking the rules and touching other people would cost not just cash, but lives. For audiences already plunged into lockdown, it was a fun house mirror held up to a bleak new reality in which those of us huddled at home or forced out of it by essential job functions watch balefully as others crowd beaches, throw parties and protest to have their hairdressers reopened. Some contestants, like Kelz “The Accountant” Dyke, committed immediately to preserving the prize at all costs ― only to look on helplessly as less disciplined cast mates decided they’d waited long enough and started making out or fooling around under the blankets, hoping to get away with it. The consequences may be slightly delayed, but the announcement always comes: The COVID-19 cases have shot up, the prize pot has shrunk. No one has gotten away with anything.
The uncanny symmetry between reality and Netflix’s 2020 slate extends beyond the broad central concepts. The aesthetic, too, has evolved from the janky, chaotic productions of the early aughts. Where once we had sloppy and intentionally cheap-looking shows, like the mockingly annotated classic “Blind Date,” today’s new dating shows tend to be crisp, aiming for a more high-end look. Netflix pays relatively good money, allowing production companies to up their budgets. Compared to longer-lived network shows like “The Bachelor” and its spinoffs, the streaming platform’s reality shows look polished and clean, and they don’t break the fourth wall.
Advertisement
As I dutifully clicked on the first episode of “Too Hot to Handle” recently, I was prepared to feel unkempt compared to the show’s seductive singles. At four months postpartum, I’d been feeling unkempt for a full third of a year at that point. In an odd twist, of course, my experience recently had become more widely shared; thanks to the pandemic, hordes of other middle-class Americans had joined the sweatpants and greasy ponytail lifestyle.
Meanwhile, on-screen, I had never been confronted with more perfectly sleek specimens. Fourteen poreless humans in solid-color spandex and trim swim trunks, enduring the Mexican heat with barely a shimmer of perspiration. Every body hair has been neatly removed. Most of the women suffer from unremitting Instagram face: contoured, blurred and held in neutral pouts. The rules are introduced and enforced by Lana, a conical oil diffuser we’re meant to believe is an artificial-intelligence surveillance device. If the participants all look as if they’d stepped out of Instagram, filters included, the host looks like she’s stepped out of an ad for a direct-to-consumer wellness brand that pops up on your feed.
Lana, the conical AI host of "Too Hot to Handle," is pretty in pink. Courtesy of Netflix
It was meant to be sexy, all these gorgeous, horny young people marooned together in their swimwear, watched over by a stern white cone. The entire tension of the show rested on the sexiness of this scenario. And for the contestants, Lana’s cock-blocking does cause unbearable temptation. They start breaking the rules almost immediately, and in between they struggle to even make enough conversation to flirt. “Usually if a guy is hot and I want him, it’s just like, do a little hair flip, make eye contact, and it’s game over,” admits Francesca Farago, a professional influencer. Once this maneuver is accomplished, there’s barely anywhere for a conversation between a budding couple to go, aside from pained references to how much they’d like to touch. But for me, as a viewer, the extreme physical perfection and self-conscious posing almost made sex seem implausible, as if their bodies were too smooth to create any friction or fluids. When rule-follower Matt Smith jokingly flirts with Lana, it felt about as steamy as any encounter between two humans on the show.
Old-school reality shows have a perversely appealing grossness, perhaps a sign of lower production value but a sign of humanity as well. On the “Bachelor” franchise dating show “Bachelor in Paradise,” contestants fight losing battles against humidity, which frizzes their hair and melts their makeup; crabs, which invade their bedrooms; and sand, which is stuck to everything. They’re perpetually sweaty and red-faced and lounging on wooden furniture covered in natural-fiber cushions. On “Too Hot to Handle,” every surface in the resort looks designed to be wiped down with a Clorox towelette, and every bit of upholstery is white or neon.
The little worlds of these shows are seamless, the surfaces gleam; the effect can be vaguely clinical. The show even introduces robot host Lana rather than nod to the fact the contestants live in a panopticon surrounded by human camera operators and producers glued to monitors.
As I watched the early episodes of “Love Is Blind,” in the first days of lockdown, it was the sterility of the set that struck me. Not only are the contestants kept separate from their romantic interests, feeling out possible flirtations by sitting alone in pods and speaking to each other through opaque glass walls, their surroundings are chilly and institutional. Many dating reality shows are filmed in mansions or resorts — places designed for living. The set of “Love Is Blind” is a custom-built facility designed for display: In the common areas shared by the men and the women, cavernous ceilings and clean lines; in the dating pods, muted metallic fabrics and rows of tall panels on the wall. Somehow both cozy and cheerless, the whole facility looks like a studio set, or perhaps an upscale office space. Every ray of light is artificial, as if the show were filmed underground. In a Refinery29 interview, Kenny Barnes revealed that when not in the pods, contestants slept in trailers on “correctional facility beds.”
Two contestants speak in pods on "Love Is Blind." Courtesy of Netflix
Advertisement
After participants fell in love and got engaged, they were permitted to leave the pods and continue their courtship in person, first at a romantic getaway in Mexico and then in apartments in Atlanta. But the pod facility defined the show. When American state and local governments started social distancing measures soon after the show was released, fans and critics quickly noted the aptness of the concept for singles trying to date amid a pandemic. Can one fall in love without ever having a chance to see the other person in the flesh, or smell their pheromone musk? Results for the pod couples were mixed; the jury’s still out on when quarantine daters will be freed to spend a sensual weekend together at a Mexican resort.
In the meantime, many of us are confined to our homes whenever possible. And yet the slick, institutional aesthetic of these shows, perhaps designed to speak to millennials who live in minimalist apartments and commute to funky co-working spaces in lofts, feels particularly right for a moment in which our bodies are mostly in messy apartments but our minds are elsewhere ― in hospital rooms and nursing home corridors, in warehouses and factories that corporate emails assure customers are being frequently disinfected for worker safety.
“Too Hot to Handle” and “Love Is Blind” arrived at their aptness by accident, but it makes sense. Quarantine life often seems like a cruel play on previously existing anxieties about modern life, how we live too much online but also care too much about superficial sexual attraction. Instead, these shows impose a world in which we are challenged to deepen that isolation in order to build stronger, deeper bonds.
“The Circle,” a wildly popular show both in its British original and in Netflix’s version, dropped in January, though it hits differently now, well into the worldwide outbreak of the coronavirus. The contestants are confined to their individual suites for the duration of the competition, where they cook for themselves, cuddle with stuffed animal friends, and communicate with the others through a contained social platform called The Circle. They build stripped-down profiles with strictly rationed opportunities to post photos and status updates, then build alliances via chat. The goal: to win the highest ratings from other players. Some play as themselves, others using photos they believe will garner higher numbers (typically hot women).
In the privacy of their rooms, some contestants lounge in sweats while others don full Insta-friendly looks daily; the rooms look like cheaply decorated, intentionally funky suites styled by an Airbnb landlord. Though the visuals are still more polished than old-school reality, there is a homeyness to this show not found in “THTH” or “Love Is Blind,” right down to the social network where they spend their days.
Advertisement
Seaburn Williams, who plays as "Rebecca," hangs out with his best friend on "The Circle." Courtesy of Netflix
They’re only in isolation for around two weeks, but it starts to get to them. Seaburn, who is playing with photos of his stunning girlfriend, sleeps with a framed picture of her in his bed. After several contestants win a challenge, they’re awarded video messages from home; most of them cry. Though their friendships, surprisingly, become real, something is lost in the translation between screen and reality. Every day or two producers set up group events, like a cake-decorating contest or a party. Watching each resident eat a personal-sized pizza and bop around their room, sipping a cocktail and grooving to dance music alone, may have once read as a send-up of how social media distracts us from real life. Now, in the golden age of Zoom birthday parties and final goodbyes said over FaceTime, the scene just stings.
The odd topicality of these Netflix offerings is, in part, a simple question of timing. Many social reality shows have some baked-in kinship with quarantine. Contestants on high-concept dating shows and social competitions, from “Survivor” to “Are You the One?” are often secluded with each other for weeks on end, unable to run out for an errand or even communicate with loved ones back home. Their movements and interactions with each other are artificially restricted. No wonder Bachelor Nation is thriving on lockdown gossip about who is quarantining with whom — these reality stars all rose to fame by interacting entertainingly with the people with whom they were trapped on set.
It’s as if middle-class and wealthy Americans, with our Amazon Prime subscriptions and Seamless accounts, were already rehearsing for a life when we couldn’t, by gruesome necessity, leave home. Once plunged in the reality, we, like the shows’ contestants, quickly realize: It’s one thing to offload your errands and obligations. It’s another thing to actually keep one’s distance.
Advertisement