RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/14/politicizing-the-demographic-disparities-in-death-rates-from-coronavirus/

If progressive politicians have their way, the premier healthcare system and the heroic healthcare workers who are saving so many lives will themselves become victims of the legacy of the Coronavirus in the continued march to single-payer healthcare.

Although African Americans constitute just 13.4 percent of the U.S. population, they account for more than 42 percent of all COVID-19 deaths. African Americans are our “sickest sick” with the virus as they comprise more than 33 percent of all those hospitalized with Coronavirus.

During an April 8 press conference, Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed the significant racial disparities in hospitalizations and death rates from coronavirus and advised that “when all this is over . . . and we will get over coronavirus, there will still be health disparities, which we really do need to address in the African American community.”

While there had been no attempt to politicize the fact that males of all races and ethnicities are dying from COVID-19 at significantly higher rates than females, the racial disparity data has opened the floodgates of blame directed toward the Trump Administration. Not a single lawmaker has tried to claim that unequal access to healthcare is contributing to the disproportionate number of males who have died from Coronavirus, but lawmakers are already claiming that African Americans are dying because of our privatized health care system.

On March 27—long before the public release of the official racial disparity data—U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), as well as U.S. Representatives Robin L. Kelly (D-Ill.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass) demanded that the Department of Health and Human Services publicize racial data on coronavirus cases. The lawmakers knew that, as with all public health crises, the people who suffer the greatest casualties will be those with the greatest number of preexisting conditions.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/14/coronavirus-racial-disparities-miss-the-bigger-picture/

Public officials and activists are sounding the alarm about alleged racial disparities in the coronavirus death rate. New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams claimed last week that the city’s official responses to the virus have “clearly” discriminated against black and brown New Yorkers, as evidenced by fatality data. Blacks make up 22 percent of New York City’s population. As of April 6, they made up 27.5 percent of virus fatalities where the race of the deceased was recorded. (Such data were compiled in 63 percent of all cases.) White New Yorkers are about 33 percent of the city’s population. They made up 27.3 percent of virus fatalities where the race was recorded.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said that the black fatality rate for coronavirus in her city—68 percent of all such fatalities—was “among the most shocking things” she had seen. Blacks are a little under one-third of the city’s population. “Those numbers take your breath away, they really do,” she said.

The chief equity officer of the American Medical Association invoked the “widely known history that American health institutions were designed to discriminate against blacks” as an explanation for the disparities.

The racialization of the coronavirus discourse is now pervasive. News outlets across the country are rushing to compile racial data on their local caseloads. President Donald Trump, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Surgeon General Jerome Adams have all addressed the issue; questions about racial disparities are now an almost inevitable part of local or federal press briefings.

These black and Hispanic virus deaths are a tragedy, especially for the victims’ families and acquaintances. But many of the same politicians and race activists who are now so incensed by coronavirus deaths have been virtually silent for years about far greater disparities in black-white fatality rates: those that result from urban crime.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/04/15/who-will-get-blamed-if-coronavirus-shutdown-turns-out-to-be-a-massive-overreaction/

As the Trump administration tries to figure out when to reopen the economy, and Democrats try to blame President Donald Trump for every coronavirus death, there’s another question lurking in the background. What if we learn that trillions of dollars in economic costs from the coronavirus shutdown bought us little or nothing in terms of public health?

As the disease progresses and our understanding of it increases, that possibility grows.

Consider these facts:

Death projections were wildly exaggerated. On March 16, epidemiologists at Imperial College London predicted that 2.2 million could die here if the country didn’t impose draconian lock-down orders. Even with those in place, it said, the deaths would likely top 1 million.

The White House later downgraded the death toll, but still predicted that as many as 200,000 could die. In late March, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington released a model that projected more than 80,000 deaths, assuming the U.S. maintained its lockdown, which prompted the Trump administration to extend the shutdown through April.

But within a week, that projection dropped to a little more than 60,000, as actual deaths started to come in much lower than expected. In the past week alone, the death toll has been 2,267 lower than the model initially forecast. That puts coronavirus deaths more in line with deaths attributed to a bad flu season.

Reports of overwhelmed health care were exaggerated. There was a steady stream of warnings that the coronavirus would overwhelm the U.S. health system.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/04/what-will-change-after-virus-crisis-bruce-thornton/

We’ve reached that point in the Wuhan pandemic when we start talking about how the world will change after the crisis passes. The impact on everything from the media to globalism is being reassessed, and prognostications about the future, both good and bad, are being promulgated. But those hoping for improvement are likely to be disappointed, just as those who said “this changes everything” were after the terrorist attacks on 9/ll. To quote Adam Smith, “there is a lot of ruin in a nation,” as stubborn inertia created by entrenched vested interests and received wisdom protect the status quo.

The media’s performance during the virus crisis has been par for the course in their unhinged zeal to damage the Trump administration, which has made the president’s attempt to handle the crisis even more difficult. From claims that Trump called the outbreak a “hoax,” to accusations that his comments about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine were “snake oil,” the media have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on their usual repertoire of fake “facts,” anonymous leaks, bought-and-paid-for “experts,” dishonest editing, and outright lies––even to the point of impeding treatment that might save lives.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/13/six-feet-under/

There will be plenty of soul searching after this crisis abates: demanding to know the scientific rationale for keeping us six feet apart when people needed each other most should be at the top of the list.

During a run over the weekend, I approached a couple walking in front of me. They appeared to be in their mid- to late-60s and had just crossed a somewhat busy 10-lane highway in southwestern Florida after shopping at a large grocery store. (They were carrying a few bags.)

But apparently my looming presence posed a lethal threat to the couple: As I came closer, the two nearly lept into a row of hedges to avoid any chance they would share air space with me for more than three seconds. They bolted in a panic as if I were wielding a flaming machete.

Here I was—an obviously healthy person jogging in the middle of the afternoon in the Florida heat and humidity—deemed a public risk simply because I would violate their personal space outside for a fleeting moment.

What in the world would prompt otherwise sane people to act so irrationally?

The explanation, of course, is the six-feet “social distancing” policy recommended by the Centers for Disease Control allegedly to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus. What initially sounded like reasonable suggestions—keep some space between yourself and someone exhibiting symptoms, don’t touch your face, stay home if you’re sick—has quickly devolved into a nearly comical world where people dive off sidewalks to avoid a momentary invasion of their six-feet perimeter from clearly healthy countrymen.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15885/coronavirus-primer

Important note to our readers: As a public service, the Gatestone staff has gathered the following information from established and credible internet sources along with published medical journals to try to give you a deeper understanding of the COVID-19 and the means to contain it.

However, Gatestone is not a medical authority and you will definitely want to consult your personal physician or health care professional first please as a precaution.

As a reminder, please continue to stay social distanced: we all hope to have many years ahead of us to pursue our shared examination of public policy, foreign affairs, and our nation’s domestic agenda.

Cordially,
The Staff at Gatestone continue reading

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-california-

We’re fighting an epidemic of untruths pushed by unscrupulous reporters.

California is touchy, and yet still remains confused, about incomplete data showing that the 40-million-person state, as of Sunday, April 12, reportedly had 23,777 cases of residents who have tested posted for the COVID-19 illness. The number of infected by the 12th includes 674 deaths, resulting in a fatality rate of about 17 deaths per million of population. That is among the lowest rates of the larger American states (Texas has 10 deaths per million), and lower than almost all major European countries, (about half of Germany’s 36 deaths per million).

No doubt there are lots of questionable data in all such metrics. As a large state California has not been especially impressive in a per capita sense in testing its population (about 200,000 tests so far). Few of course believe that the denominator of cases based on test results represent the real number of those who have been or are infected.

There is the now another old debate over exactly how the U.S. defines death by the virus versus death because of the contributing factors of the virus to existing medical issues. Certainly, the methodology of coronavirus modeling is quite different from that of, say, the flu. The denominator of flu cases is almost always a modeled approximation, not a misleadingly precise number taken from only those who go to their doctors or emergency rooms and test positive for an influenza strain. And the numerator of deaths from the flu may be calibrated somewhat more conservatively than those currently listed as deaths from the coronavirus.

Nonetheless, the state’s population is fairly certain. And for now, the number of deaths by the virus is the least controversial of many of these data, suggesting that deaths per million of population might be a useful comparative number.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-art-of-an-oil-deal-11586819335?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

“So credit to Mr. Trump for using U.S. global influence to mitigate the mayhem. Russia and Saudi Arabia have agreed to take on the bulk of the cuts. After Mexico balked at an order to cut its production by 400,000 barrels a day, President Trump volunteered the U.S. to cover 300,000 barrels of its share.”

President Trump has been chasing a diplomatic victory, and he got one this weekend when he brokered a deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Russia to limit their production that may also limit the bloodbath in the U.S. shale patch.

OPEC and Russia have agreed to curtail their production by 9.7 million barrels a day—about 10% of global output—in May and June amid a steep falloff in demand due to the coronavirus that is expected to exceed 20% of last year’s consumption. After Russia last month refused Riyadh’s calls to cut supply, Saudi Arabia opened up its tap and slashed its crude price.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/beware-government-overreach-protect-our-health

When two important goals conflict, sensible people try to strike a sensible balance. This sense of proportion and mutual forbearance is central to living peacefully in a liberal society like ours.

It is important to remember these values as we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The most striking aspect of the American public’s response has been the extensive, purely voluntary compliance with city, state, and local guidelines and orders. That phrase “purely voluntary” is crucial. Some of the guidelines have hardened into legal mandates, but even in those cases people have cooperated willingly because they want to do the right thing, both for themselves and for their community.

What about cases where voluntary compliance breaks down, where people don’t follow the guidelines or even the laws? If personal values and social pressures don’t work, the authorities have to step in. But their first step should be a warning, unless a violations are malicious or pose serious danger. If finger wagging at lessor violations fails, the next step should be a fine or sometimes even jail. But punishment should be a last resort.

Balancing the right to assemble with public safety

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/12/herd-immunity-vs-herd-mentality/

Although we do not yet know every detail of the end of our infatuation with the coronavirus, it’s clear that the historian of this episode will include a chapter called “Mistakes Were Made.”

If I might adapt Keats, “much have I travell’d in the realms online, / And many goofy states and kingdoms seen.” And if my experience wasn’t quite like that of the “watcher of the skies / When a new planet swims into his ken” (or even “like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes / He star’d at the Pacific”), still there have been discoveries that produce a little frisson of recognition.

The most recent was the distinction I saw somewhere between herd immunity, on the one hand, and herd mentality, on the other.

We’ve been hearing a lot about “herd immunity” lately. Along with the phrases “social distancing,” “flattening the curve,” and “sheltering in place,” “herd immunity” is one of the chief flecks of jargon adopted by newly minted amateur epidemiologists in this age of (new master word) coronavirus. (And it seems we’re all epidemiologists now, in more or less the same sense that the future King Edward VII was correct when he observed, in 1895, that “we’re all socialists now.”)

“Herd immunity” is a settled concept in epidemiology. It occurs when “a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.”

“Herd mentality,” on the contrary, provides immunity from independent thought. It protects a population from thinking clearly by spreading a spirit of conformity. It increases a people’s docility, thus rendering them more susceptible to the blandishments of usurping authority.