RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-labor-market-extends-gains-134130082.html

The U.S. labor market strengthened in October, defying expectations for more subdued gains amid an intensifying pandemic and lack of additional fiscal relief.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 638,000 after an upwardly revised 672,000 gain the prior month, according to a Labor Department report Friday. That compared with the 580,000 median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, and reflected a decline of 147,000 in temporary Census workers.

The unemployment rate fell by 1 percentage point to 6.9% — a bigger drop than economists projected and double the prior month’s decline — though the number of long-term jobless Americans surged and now makes up a third of those out of work.

Progress in the U.S. labor market is holding up as household savings help fuel spending and business investment rebounds, putting the economy in better shape than many analysts expected just six months ago. The improvement, though, may have come too late to help President Donald Trump, who’s on the verge of losing to Democrat Joe Biden in this week’s election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/06/jobs-report-october-2020.html

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 638,000 in October and the unemployment rate fell to 6.9%.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had forecast 530,000 and 7.7%, respectively.
Hospitality and professional and business services showed the biggest gains. Government job losses subtracted from the total.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/11/16/white-supremacy-in-a-magic-lantern/?utm_source=

An outsider’s perspective on America’s racial discontent

For several years I have marveled at, and become worried by, the depiction of America that has been playing around the world. Despite being a lifelong admirer of this country, I’ve not been in America for a couple of years, and during that time even I have occasionally wondered whether my image of America might have been wrong all along. Might the country have been — or become — what its detractors both internal and external say it is? Now I have had a month traveling around the United States, and I feel as though I may have come to a better understanding of a problem that afflicts this country. Perhaps an outsider might share a modest insight?

The problem first clarified during a conversation in New York with several people, two of whom happened to be comedians. Looking forward to shooting the breeze, I found myself instead marveling at the forensic detail in which everyone was going over the death of Breonna Taylor. Why were we talking about this so furiously? Why were comedians discussing ballistics reports? Why did everybody — whatever his viewpoint — need to have this much knowledge? And the obvious truth dawned on me that in this era every single detail of every single wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing on the part of America matters, because the focus of light on America today operates in the manner of a magic-lantern projector. The light shining on this country today is so great that it does not just illuminate — it magnifies. Shift the tiniest detail in the picture and the image projected is monstrously altered.

Over recent years I have watched a very particular image of America projected onto the wall of the world and worried about it as much as any other friend of America. For it is an image of a society riven by many conflicts, just one of which (but worst of all) is the racism problem from which America is said to suffer. It is hard to exaggerate how starkly this is perceived by the rest of the world. While Americans argue over and eventually litigate every police interaction gone wrong, the rest of the world sees only one vast blown-up version of the problem.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16708/shame-on-the-girl-scouts-thin-skin-instead

The Tweet was anything but partisan or political. It was a girl’s organization dedicated to educating young women about their unlimited possibilities in life. The Tweet itself was innocuous. Here is what it said: “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”

When the Girl Scouts can’t even congratulate a woman for helping to break a longstanding glass ceiling, we know that we are in trouble.

The reason I am so angry at the Girl Scouts’ decision to withdraw their original Tweet is that it is a reflection of the divisive nature of our nation and the growing intolerance, particularly by the hard left, of dissenting speech that is seen as supporting the other side.

I don’t know why I am so mad at the Girl Scouts for having withdrawn their Tweet congratulating Justice Amy Coney Barrett for being the fifth woman nominated to the Supreme Court in its long history. The Tweet was anything but partisan or political. It was a girl’s organization dedicated to educating young women about their unlimited possibilities in life. The Tweet itself was innocuous. Here is what it said: “”Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”

It was accompanied by a collage of photographs of the five women who have served on the high court – three of them liberals and two conservatives. But when a few angry leftists led by Cambridge U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley and actor Amber Tamblyn complained, the Girl scouts quickly removed the Tweet and apologized for doing something that could be “viewed as a political and a partisan statement.”

Megyn Kelly responded quite appropriately to that absurd claim saying:

“This is pathetic. It’s not ‘partisan’ to generically congratulate the 5th woman ever to join the High Court. It’s patriotic. Taking your tweet down is partisan, however, and a real disappointment.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16716/autocratic-future-united-states

If institutions of democracy — the state, the judiciary, opposition parties and the free press — suppress verifiable information instead of informing the public about it — as has just taken place for more than two weeks regarding alleged financial corruption and the possible resultant compromise — by China, Russia, and Ukraine among other countries — of an allegedly financially compromised family as possible a national security threat — these institutions of democracy instead become vehicles to sabotage a democracy.

A danger to American democracy in the past years — with threats to undo the Constitution by, for example, abolishing the electoral college, banning guns and, in 2014, eliminating free speech — has therefore become imminent.

There has been talk about killing the filibuster, to pass just about anything with a simple majority, and talk about enlarging the Senate by adding more states, presumably to enable one side to hold a permanent majority. Also on the agenda has been adding more members to the Supreme Court to turn it into a branch of legislative government, eliminating America’s historic system of checks and balances. There are also plans to raise taxes on everyone (remember, “You can keep your healthcare”?), abolish fossil fuels and fracking, and establish a Marxist-socialist economy of redistribution to replace a free economy.

There seems to have been an attempt for the last four years to instill among the population a hatred of America and of the president, to present them both as a criminal and to try to overthrow them. In any event, it is the first time in American history that there has been an attempted coup d’état against a duly elected president.

If institutions of democracy — the state, the judiciary, opposition parties and the free press — suppress verifiable information instead of informing the public about it — as has just taken place for more than two weeks regarding alleged financial corruption and the possible resultant compromise — by China, Russia, and Ukraine among other countries — of an allegedly financially compromised family as possible a national security threat — these institutions of democracy instead become vehicles to sabotage a democracy.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/23/new-york-city-restaurateurs-can-no-longer-swallow-subjective-unscientific-covid-restrictions/

Restaurants, delis, and pubs are the lifeblood of our neighborhoods. They’re places we go to congregate with colleagues, celebrate with family, and catch up on “hyperlocal” news and gossip with neighbors. Much of the character and vibrancy of a neighborhood is found in its eateries.

On April 13, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a Northeast regional plan to reopen the state’s economy in coordination with New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Delaware: “We have reached a plateau in the number of cases and . . . should start looking forward to reopening but with a plan. The art form will be doing it smartly, in a coordinated way, cooperatively and share intelligence.”

Unfortunately, Cuomo long ago ditched the idea of coordinating the full reopening of New York City with nearby states, and the Big Apple lagged months behind other regions in the state—and in the entire Northeast—to allow indoor dining and drinking.

Coincidentally or not, days after a planned class-action suit by more than 450 restaurants in New York City got local media coverage in early September, Cuomo relented—exactly one iota—and announced restaurants in the five boroughs could offer limited indoor seating starting September 30.

Restaurants in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and other suburban counties have been allowed to offer indoor seating at half of maximum occupancy since the middle of June, and are subject to significantly laxer mandatory practices.

https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-next-populist-revolt/

The combustible politics of a coronavirus ‘dark winter’….

For the past half decade, Europe has acted as a preview of coming attractions in American politics. The reaction to the confluence of immigration and terrorism on the continent foreshadowed the direction the Republican Party would take under Donald Trump. The surprise victory of “Leave” in the Brexit referendum hinted at Trump’s unexpected elevation to the presidency. The terrible images from coronavirus-stricken Italy last March offered a glimpse into New York City’s future. This week, when Italian authorities reimposed curfews, restrictions on business, and bans on communal gatherings, violent protests broke out in Turin, Milan, and Naples. Consider it a taste of the next populist revolt.

Lockdowns remain the preferred tool of governments whose public-health authorities decide the coronavirus is out of control. In September, Israel shut down for a month during the Jewish holidays to reduce its coronavirus-infection rate. In October, New York City targeted certain neighborhoods. In recent days, Newark, N.J., ordered “nonessential” businesses to close at 8 p.m., a county judge imposed a curfew on El Paso, Texas, and Massachusetts has gone back-and-forth on whether schools should be open or closed.

This response has placed the public under extraordinary strain. When officials tell businesses to close, they not only deny individuals who can’t work from home the opportunity to earn a living. They also impose social costs that much of the public is increasingly unwilling to bear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation increased during the spring. Extended families limited contact. Religious practice was curtailed. Having canceled spring holidays, Americans are now informed that Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas need to be reconsidered as well. When individuals inevitably question, disregard, or disobey the commands of science, they are censored, stigmatized, condescended to, or punished.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/?utm_term=

The following is adapted from a panel presentation on October 9, 2020, in Omaha, Nebraska, at a Hillsdale College Free Market Forum.

My goal today is, first, to present the facts about how deadly COVID-19 actually is; second, to present the facts about who is at risk from COVID; third, to present some facts about how deadly the widespread lockdowns have been; and fourth, to recommend a shift in public policy.

1. The COVID-19 Fatality Rate

In discussing the deadliness of COVID, we need to distinguish COVID cases from COVID infections. A lot of fear and confusion has resulted from failing to understand the difference.

We have heard much this year about the “case fatality rate” of COVID. In early March, the case fatality rate in the U.S. was roughly three percent—nearly three out of every hundred people who were identified as “cases” of COVID in early March died from it. Compare that to today, when the fatality rate of COVID is known to be less than one half of one percent.

In other words, when the World Health Organization said back in early March that three percent of people who get COVID die from it, they were wrong by at least one order of magnitude. The COVID fatality rate is much closer to 0.2 or 0.3 percent. The reason for the highly inaccurate early estimates is simple: in early March, we were not identifying most of the people who had been infected by COVID.

“Case fatality rate” is computed by dividing the number of deaths by the total number of confirmed cases. But to obtain an accurate COVID fatality rate, the number in the denominator should be the number of people who have been infected—the number of people who have actually had the disease—rather than the number of confirmed cases.

In March, only the small fraction of infected people who got sick and went to the hospital were identified as cases. But the majority of people who are infected by COVID have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. These people weren’t identified in the early days, which resulted in a highly misleading fatality rate. And that is what drove public policy. Even worse, it continues to sow fear and panic, because the perception of too many people about COVID is frozen in the misleading data from March.

So how do we get an accurate fatality rate? To use a technical term, we test for seroprevalence—in other words, we test to find out how many people have evidence in their bloodstream of having had COVID.

This is easy with some viruses. Anyone who has had chickenpox, for instance, still has that virus living in them—it stays in the body forever. COVID, on the other hand, like other coronaviruses, doesn’t stay in the body. Someone who is infected with COVID and then clears it will be immune from it, but it won’t still be living in them.

What we need to test for, then, are antibodies or other evidence that someone has had COVID. And even antibodies fade over time, so testing for them still results in an underestimate of total infections.

Seroprevalence is what I worked on in the early days of the epidemic. In April, I ran a series of studies, using antibody tests, to see how many people in California’s Santa Clara County, where I live, had been infected. At the time, there were about 1,000 COVID cases that had been identified in the county, but our antibody tests found that 50,000 people had been infected—i.e., there were 50 times more infections than identified cases. This was enormously important, because it meant that the fatality rate was not three percent, but closer to 0.2 percent; not three in 100, but two in 1,000.

When it came out, this Santa Clara study was controversial. But science is like that, and the way science tests controversial studies is to see if they can be replicated. And indeed, there are now 82 similar seroprevalence studies from around the world, and the median result of these 82 studies is a fatality rate of about 0.2 percent—exactly what we found in Santa Clara County.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/10/31/the-truth-about-andrew-cuomos-deadly-covid-nursing-home-policy/

Wednesday morning on ABC’s “The View,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo gave a factually misleading explanation for the thousands of people who died with COVID-19 in N.Y. nursing homes.

After co-host Sunny Hostin praised Cuomo’s book “Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic” as “absolutely fantastic,” she said to the governor:

There has been a lot of confusion about an alleged March 25th order that directed nursing homes to accept in New York, infected COVID patients, possibly leading to the death of more than 6,000 seniors. Now you say in your book that that was a lie—that New York state never demanded or directed that any nursing home accept a COVID-positive patient. The Department of Justice however is now supposedly looking into this issue. Can you explain what really happened?

Cuomo replied:

Yea, what a shock that the Department of Injustice sends a letter a few days before an election trying to advance a political theory. I was shocked and amazed that the Trump administration was capable of such a thing. Sunny, they have played politics on this from day one, right? They have done a terrible job on COVID from day one, and they want a counter-defense, and what they were saying was, “Well, a lot of people died in nursing homes in Democratic states. It’s not just New York, it’s all the Democratic states.”

The truth is a lot of people did die in nursing homes in Democratic states. The truth is people are dying today in nursing homes in Republican states. It’s just that Democratic states had the disease worse and earlier, and older people are more vulnerable to COVID, right? We were introduced to COVID in the state of Washington in a nursing home.