RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://asiatimes.com/2020/03/downplaying-virus-could-lose-trump-the-election/

Panic returned to the US stock market on Thursday as the federal government fumbled in the face of a health crisis of unknown proportions, and President Donald Trump appeared to downplay the scale of the problem in a Fox News interview. Someone should tell the president that reality shows don’t go as scripted when the studio is on fire.

Meanwhile, no one in the United States knows how fast Covid-19 has spread, where it is spread, or how it is spreading. The nationwide shortage of test kits has become an election-year issue, with Democratic officials denouncing the Trump Administration, and President Trump blaming regulatory decisions by the Obama Administration. That is a fight that the incumbent president only can lose: the incumbent president always will take the fall for a perceived fumble in a national emergency. The Obama-era policy, which required hospitals and private laboratories to submit test procedures to lengthy Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review, was an obstacle to rapid testing. But it wasn’t rescinded until February 29, six weeks after Washington State authorities believe that the first case appeared in that state.

Federal officials, meanwhile, are backtracking on promises of a rapid response.

Earlier this week FDA chief Stephen Hahn told Congress that a million test kits would be in use by Friday, but Republican senators warned Thursday that it would take much longer for testing to get underway. “There won’t be a million people to get a test by the end of the week,” Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida told Bloomberg News. “It’s way smaller than that. And still, at this point, it’s still through public health departments.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/03/guilt-accusation-bruce-hendry/

Editors’ note: Below is Part 3 of a new essay written by Bruce Hendry: Democrats, Progressives and Socialists. Stay tuned for the ensuing chapters. [See links to previous chapters below this article].

 Guilt By Accusation.

Brett Kavanaugh is an outstanding jurist who was nominated by Donald Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nothing from his judicial past could be seriously be challenged by the Democrats, so at the exact moment when it would cause the most damage, they charged him with groping Christine Blasey Ford at a party 37 years before, when he was all of 15 years old.

Ford, couldn’t initially remember in what year it happened, although she eventually decided on 1982, or where it occurred, or how she got to the party or home from the party.  She did remember the names of four people that were at the party, including her best girlfriend.  Not one of those four people, including her own girlfriend, remember the incident. Her girlfriend said that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh.

End of story, right?  To any fair minded person this woman is either mentally unbalanced or a liar, and the fact that this accusation was withheld for 37 years and then made at the precise moment that would cause the most damage to the Supreme Court nominee would strike any normal person as being staged. The Democrats, both Group Two Democrats, the politicians and Group One Democrats, the loyal but clueless big hearted group rallied behind this ridiculous and destructive tale.

“Guilty until proven innocent;” “she wouldn’t lie because she’s a woman;” “If you don’t believe her, you are insulting every woman that has been sexually assaulted;” they said. But to believe Christine Ford one would also have to believe that every accusing woman always tells the truth and that every accused man lies.

In a “how to sell” seminar one learns about the “assumptive close.” One assumes that the other party agrees with one’s assumption without actually talking about it, then one proceeds to the close. The assumption here was that if Brett Kavanaugh dry humped a girl when he was 15 years old, then 37 years later, as an adult, he would be disqualified from any responsible position. There is no evidence that he did such a thing, but even if he did, as a teenager, that certainly would not in itself disqualify him for responsible positions for the rest of his life. That’s ridiculous. But that’s what the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee argued.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-ginsburg-to-recuse-herself-11583367515?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

President Trump recently lashed out at Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters!” he tweeted. He’s wrong about Justice Sotomayor but has a point about Justice Ginsburg.

In a lone opinion dissenting from the court’s order in Wolf v. Cook County, Justice Sotomayor said she wouldn’t stay a lower court’s injunction against a Trump immigration policy. “Claiming one emergency after another,” she wrote, “the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each.” (Three other justices dissented without issuing opinions.)

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion doesn’t disparage Mr. Trump. She criticizes the government’s position, but she’s harsher on her colleagues in the majority, writing that their “recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.” Mr. Trump is the one personalizing a legal dispute, and it would pervert justice if litigants could force judges to remove themselves from cases simply by denouncing them publicly.

Justice Ginsburg is a different case. In public interviews in 2016 she called Candidate Trump a “faker” and said: “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.” She even mused about fleeing the country: “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” She apologized—kind of: “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” She admitted her remarks were “ill advised,” and that “in the future I will be more circumspect.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumer-threatens-the-court-11583368483?mod=opinion_lead_pos

Democrats like to accuse President Trump of violating institutional democratic norms, and often he does with his rhetorical broadsides. But at least he’s never directly threatened the U.S. Supreme Court the way Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did on Wednesday.

Speaking to a crowd on the Supreme Court steps, the leading Senate Democrat declared: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” He meant Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Justices who were appointed by President Trump.

Mr. Schumer was speaking before abortion-rights activists as the Supreme Court considers whether to curtail the ability of abortion providers to sue on behalf of women seeking abortions—a doctrine known as third-party standing. Mr. Schumer, still addressing Messrs. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, added: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The “whirlwind”? “What hit you”? We won’t go so far as to call that an incitement to violence, but it surely was a threat of political reprisal against the Justices if they don’t vote the way Mr. Schumer wants. Does he mean impeachment or packing the Court?

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html

There are many compelling reasons to conclude that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is not nearly as deadly as is currently feared. But COVID-19 panic has set in nonetheless. You can’t find hand sanitizer in stores, and N95 face masks are being sold online for exorbitant prices, never mind that neither is the best way to protect against the virus (yes, just wash your hands). The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2–3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people.

Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold. The true case fatality rate, known as CFR, of this virus is likely to be far lower than current reports suggest. Even some lower estimates, such as the 1 percent death rate recently mentioned by the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely substantially overstate the case.

We shouldn’t be surprised that the numbers are inflated. In past epidemics, initial CFRs were floridly exaggerated. For example, in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic some early estimates were 10 times greater than the eventual CFR, of 1.28 percent. Epidemiologists think and quibble in terms of numerators and denominators—which patients were included when fractional estimates were calculated, which weren’t, were those decisions valid—and the results change a lot as a result. We are already seeing this. In the early days of the crisis in Wuhan, China, the CFR was more than 4 percent. As the virus spread to other parts of Hubei, the number fell to 2 percent. As it spread through China, the reported CFR dropped further, to 0.2 to 0.4 percent. As testing begins to include more asymptomatic and mild cases, more realistic numbers are starting to surface. New reports from the World Health Organization that estimate the global death rate of COVID-19 to be 3.4 percent, higher than previously believed, is not cause for further panic. This number is subject to the same usual forces that we would normally expect to inaccurately embellish death rate statistics early in an epidemic. If anything, it underscores just how early we are in this.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/can-we-please-be-sober-minded-about-the-coronavirus/

EXCERPT

The coronavirus may not prove as threatening as first feared, but one way to ensure that it isn’t is for American officials to take it seriously. Foolish happy talk aside, the administration has, by and large, acted appropriately. The targeted travel restrictions can at least slow the influx of infected people while researchers work to develop treatments and vaccines. In addition to providing resources to those researchers and streamlining the testing process, federal agencies should promptly disseminate the number of cases and work with localities to quarantine patients as warranted.

To hear the Democrats tell it, Trump has already stumbled into a debacle. They’ve hit him for alleged cuts to the CDC, but Congress has in fact increased funding to the agency during Trump’s presidency. The cool-headed analysts at the New York Times also chimed in. Readers of Gail Collins — who titled a column “Let’s Call It Trumpvirus” — can be forgiven for thinking the president concocted the virus in the West Wing. Paul Krugman absurdly said Trump’s fear of “scary brown people” left the government ill-prepared to combat the crisis.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/03/were-accumulating-more-critical-information-about-the-coronavirus-every-day/

With cases of the new coronavirus (officially SARS-CoV-2, and the illness it causes designated COVID-19) spreading, there is intense interest in what we know and what we can expect. Here’s a primer.

There are several factors that determine how damaging and worrisome outbreaks will be. The first is the degree of infectiousness, or ability to spread. Examples of the extremes are noroviruses, which can sweep rapidly through an institution or cruise ship, and the rabies virus, which is almost always transmitted to humans through the bite of a warm-blooded animal.

The second is virulence — the severity or degree of pathogenicity of the infection. Using the same two examples as above, norovirus infections cause severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, but the symptoms are short-lived and almost never cause significant morbidity if treated symptomatically. Thus, although high in infectivity, they are low in virulence. By contrast, by affecting the brain, rabies gives rise to central nervous system symptoms and is almost always fatal once symptoms occur.

Not surprisingly, the most worrying events are a combination of high levels of both infectiousness and virulence. An example of that would be flu in a bad year — one in which the vaccines aren’t a good match for the viruses circulating in the population, which gives rise to high numbers of illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths. This flu season in the Northern Hemisphere is looking like a pretty average one; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that so far this season there have been at least 32 million flu illnesses, 310,000 hospitalizations and 18,000 deaths from flu. And those figures are in spite of pretty effective vaccines — again, about average, at 45%.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/03/hillarys-reckoning-isnt-over/

The increasingly desperate Democratic Party and its allies in the media weep tears of joy at the thought of Hillary Clinton riding in to save the party, perhaps after a deadlocked Democratic National Convention. No such luck. After a judge’s decision Monday, Clinton would be wise to lay presidential dreams aside and lawyer up.

It’s been a long time since Clinton’s unquestionably illegal private email and homebrew server have even been mentioned in the media. But legal activist group Judicial Watch didn’t forget.

It was Judicial Watch’s request five years ago about the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack that led to the uncovering of Clinton’s private email network.

On Monday, acting on a request from Judicial Watch, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would allow Judicial Watch to depose the one-time secretary of state, her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and two other State Department officials.

Not only will this bring back questions about Hillary’s actions before and after the Benghazi terrorist attack, in which four Americans were murdered, but it will at minimum serve as a reminder of the failure of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat.

In making his judgment, Lamberth made clear he doesn’t believe the government has been forthcoming in its responses thus far.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/so_maybe_trumps_response_to_coronavirus_didnt_destroy_the_american_economy.html

Since the moment coronavirus entered the media’s vocabulary, the media and the Democrat party have been working diligently to assure the American people that it’s the second coming of the Black Death and that it’s all Trump’s fault. Disgustingly, many of them have been insisting that it will destroy the American economy (which, after all, is one of Trump’s biggest selling points) and certain people who shall be named – Paul Krugman, I’m talking to you – seemed to celebrate the stock market’s big drop last week. The stock market, though, seems to be recovering already, posting huge gains on Monday.

Don Surber, one of the most astute bloggers around, was unsurprised by the market’s gyrations because he had predicted this event long ago:

 NPR reported, “Stocks took another steep dive Friday, deepening a multi-day rout fueled by fears about the coronavirus’ impact on the global economy.

“The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 357 points on Friday, capping a week in which the blue chip index fell 3,583 points or 12.4%. The Dow is down 16.3% from its recent peak on Feb. 12.”

This is the correction I predicted for 2020 in highlights on December 31.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/a_masterful_post_explains_why_coronavirus_in_china_and_america_may_differ.html

In San Francisco in the 1970s and 1980s, it was routine to see men from China spit in the streets, blow their noses in their fingers and then wipe their hands on anything nearby, and generally violate American hygienic norms.  Outside the tourist zones, Chinatown’s restaurants and grocery stores also suggested resistance to American hygiene.

The Chinese who came to America to escape communism were amazing people and model immigrants.  They worked hard and were so family-focused and education-oriented that, usually within one generation, they made the leap from Chinatown squalor to lovely suburbs.  However, unlike the Japanese, the Chinese did not bring with them a culture of cleanliness.

When it comes to epidemic diseases, these cultural norms matter — and political systems may matter even more.

One of the things noted here last week is that the coronavirus, unlike ordinary respiratory viruses, may also be transmitted through fecal matter (emphasis added):

Speaking of filthy, one of the problems with coronavirus is that, even though it’s an upper respiratory disease, it’s also spread by fecal matter.  It will be a disaster in places that don’t have good fecal matter control: China (primitive toilets and no culture of hand-washing); India (which is working hard to bring toilets to people, but it’s slow going); Africa (a world drowning in fecal matter); and San Francisco (also drowning in fecal matter).  

That reference to hygiene in China gained new meaning from reading a viral post from Regie Hamilton, who was in China eighteen years ago to adopt his daughter.  He vividly remembers the cultural comfort with fecal matter and other disease vectors: