Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Mammal study explains 'why females live longer'

A new study that looks at lifespan in wild mammals shows that females live substantially longer than males.
The research finds that, on average, females live 18.6% longer than males from the same species.
This is much larger than the well-studied difference between men and women, which is around 8%.
The scientists say the differences in these other mammals are due to a combination of sex-specific traits and local environmental factors.

In every human population, women live longer than men, so much so that nine out of 10 people who live to be 110 years old are female.
This pattern, researchers say, has been consistent since the first accurate birth records became available in the 18th Century.
While the same assumption has been held about animal species, large-scale data on mammals in the wild has been lacking,
Now, an international team of researchers has examined age-specific mortality estimates for a widely diverse group of 101 species.
In 60% of the analysed populations, the scientists found that females outlived the males - on average, they had a lifespan that's 18.6% longer than males.

"The magnitude of lifespan and ageing across species is probably an interaction between environmental conditions and sex-specific genetic variations," said lead author Dr Jean-Francois Lemaître, from the University of Lyon, France.
He gives the example of bighorn sheep for which the researchers had access to good data on different populations.
Where natural resources were consistently available there was little difference in lifespan. However, in one location where winters were particularly severe, the males lived much shorter lives.
"Male bighorn sheep use lots of resources towards sexual competition, towards the growth of a large body mass, and they might be more sensitive to environmental conditions," said Dr Lemaître.
"So clearly the magnitude of the difference in lifespan is due to the interaction of these sex-specific genetics, the fact that males devote more resources towards specific functions compared with females, and to the local environmental conditions."
Even if females lived longer than males, the team found that it did not mean that the risks of dying are increasing more in males than females as they get older. The expected male mortality is always higher, but the rate of mortality is about the same in both sexes as they age.

One recent study in this field suggested that the genetic differences between males and females were key.
In humans, our cells contain different chromosomes, depending on sex. Females have two X chromosomes while males have an X and a Y. The theory is that the extra X in women has a protective effect against harmful mutations and that this holds true in other species.
The author of the new study on mammals says that both pieces of research are complementary.
"They show that in XX or XY systems, the XX, or the female, lives longer, so clearly there is an effect of sex chromosomes," said Dr Lemaître.
"What we show in our paper is that the difference is very variable across species, meaning there are other factors that need to be considered to explain this variability."
The study has been published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52007780

Cannes opens its doors to homeless after coronavirus delays film festival France

March 24, 2020
PARIS (Reuters) – The Palais des Festivals should be preparing to welcome the hottest names in cinema onto its red carpet. Instead the Cannes Film Festival venue is opening its doors to the town’s homeless who have nowhere to go during the coronavirus lockdown.
The annual film festival in the palm-fringed French Riviera resort had been due to take place from May 12-23 but last week organisers postponed the event until late June. The festival hall opened its doors to the destitute on Friday.
“We have between 50 and 70 people here every night,” said Dominique Aude-Lasset, an official at Cannes Town Hall.
Eight days ago, President Emmanuel Macron told France’s 67 million people to stay at home to protect themselves from the pandemic, and to slow its spread. That’s a big problem for the country’s estimated 12,000 homeless who live on the streets.
There is concern the coronavirus could have an outsized impact on the homeless who often live without access to proper sanitation and sometimes suffer underlying illnesses. Many rely on handouts from a public now confined indoors.
At the entrance, a worker in a face mask takes the temperature of each homeless person each time they enter the site. Inside, there is an eating area, shower block and communal space with television and games. In a cavernous, low-ceiling room, camp-beds are set up in three long lines.

There are also four kennels to house man’s best friend.
“We know dogs are precious for people living on the streets,” Aude-Lasset said.
https://www.oann.com/cannes-opens-its-doors-to-homeless-after-coronavirus-delays-film-festival/

Trump Weighs Scaling Back Social Distancing Guidelines


Trump Weighs Scaling Back Social Distancing Guidelines

(Article from the AP in "NewsMax":)

With lives and the economy hanging in the balance, President Donald Trump was weighing Tuesday how to refine nationwide social-distancing guidelines to put some workers back on the job amid the coronavirus outbreak.

The White House is eyeing ways to ease the advisories that have sidelined workers, shuttered schools and led to a widespread economic slowdown. The U.S. is now more than a week into an unprecedented 15-day effort to encourage all Americans to drastically scale back their public activities.

“We have to get back to work," Trump said during a virtual town hall Tuesday afternoon hosted by Fox News from the Rose Garden. He argued that tens of thousands of Americans die from the seasonal flu or in automobile accidents and “we don't turn the country off.”
"I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter," he added.

The reassessment comes as the White House is encouraging lawmakers on Capitol Hill to pass a roughly $2 trillion stimulus package to ease the financial pain for Americans and hard-hit industries.

Appearing before the president at the virtual town hall, Vice President Mike Pence said Trump has asked for recommendations from the White House coronavirus task force for how he can send people back to work while minimizing the public health risk. He said Trump wants to find a way “to open America back up.”

Trump's enthusiasm for getting people back to work comes as he takes stock of the political toll the outbreak is taking. It sets up a potential conflict with medical professionals, including many within his government, who have called for more social restrictions to slow the spread of the virus, not fewer.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases and a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, told WMAL on Tuesday that Trump has always heeded his recommendations.

“The president has listened to what I have said and to what the other people on the task force have said, when I have made recommendations he has taken them. He's never countered or overridden me, the idea of just pitting one against the other is just not helpful,” Fauci said.
Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economic adviser, told reporters Tuesday that “public health includes economic health."

“That’s the key point. And it’s not either-or. It’s not either-or, and that’s why we’re taking a fresh look at it,” he said.

Earlier Tuesday, Trump took to Twitter.

“Our people want to return to work,” the president tweeted. “They will practice Social Distancing and all else, and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly. We can do two things together. THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM!”
During a private conference call with roughly 30 conservative leaders on Tuesday, Pence reinforced Trump’s eagerness to lift coronavirus-related work and travel restrictions “in a matter of weeks, not months.”

Pence said there would be no formal decisions made until the current 15-day period of social distancing was complete when pressed on a specific timeline for lifting restrictions, according to a conference call participant who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the private discussion.

Pence told the group that accommodations would need to be made for the highest-risk populations if and when restrictions begin to be lifted.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/coronavirus-trump-social-distancing/2020/03/24/id/959727/

Mr. Bumbles – Candidate Joe Biden Attempts Teleprompter Briefing on Coronavirus


Some people have been wondering what happened to Joe Biden and why he has been quarantined by the Biden campaign.  Well, today the presidential candidate said he was going to deliver a periscope briefing to share his insight about the U.S. response to the coronavirus… and, well… things didn’t quite go according to plan.

Apparently Mr. Biden had trouble reading the teleprompter, or something. WATCH:


Another perspective:


Darwin Award Winners drink fish tank cleaner, blame Trump

Media promotes story of two perfectly healthy Darwin Award winners who ingested fish tank medicine to treat a virus neither had as a way to attack Trump.


A couple of Darwin Award winners decided to self-medicate ingesting a fish tank additive intended to treat sick aquarium fish.  The husband died and the wife is blaming Trump.

She’s not the only one blaming Trump.  The news media latched onto this story like a tick on a dog’s back and quickly framed it as an indictment against President Trump’s “recklessness.”

Because apparently President Trump is out there encouraging people to ingest aquarium fish medicine.

NBC News sought out the surviving Darwin Award winner and she explained, “We saw Trump on TV – every channel – and all of his buddies and that it was safe.”
Really? Trump and his buddies said “hey, taking fish medicine to treat Wuhan virus is totally safe?” Really?

“I was in the pantry stacking dog food and I just saw it sitting in the back shelf and thought, ‘Hey, isn’t that the stuff they’re talking about on TV?’ And it was.” 
[Spoiler alert: No it wasn’t.]

Again, President Trump never said root through your cabinets and find fish medicine and ingest it.

He wasn’t talking about fish tank medicine at all.

It’s amazing that NBC News thinks this latest example of Darwin Award stupidity makes Trump, and not this woman, look like a reckless idiot.

Now, neither of the two geniuses was sick; that’s the most ridiculous part of the story.  They were perfectly healthy when they decided to dose themselves with fish medicine.  “Because Trump said!!!!”

She went on, giving the media the money quote they so desperately desired:

“Don’t believe anything that the President says and his people because they don’t know what they’re talking about. And don’t take anything–be so careful and call your doctor. This is a heart ache I’ll never get over.”

Again, Trump didn’t tell you to dose yourself with fish tank medicine, you idiot!

Yes, it is heartbreaking. But it’s a heartache of your own making.

I’ll tell you what, genius.  If President Trump “and his people” ever suggest we ingest fish tank medicine, I promise not to believe anything that he says.

The fact that the news media is actually promoting this story of two incredibly stupid people as a way to attack Trump is mind-boggling.

But it’s having the desired effect.

The Resistance😂 is sputtering with self-righteous indignation because two idiots swallowed fish tank medicine AND IT’S ALL TRUMP’S FAULT!!!!

The media can now say, “We simply have to stop airing the President’s daily briefings because he’s getting people to poison themselves!!!”

Only he never ever encouraged anyone to self-medicate with whatever crap they find in their pantry.  He certainly never told them to ingest a freaking fish tank additive. And every person with six working brain cells understands that.

Which might explain why that gelatinous oaf George Conway doesn’t understand.







Again. President Trump (and Governor Cuomo) talked about promising treatment using hydroxychloroquine, not chloroquine phosphate found in fish tank medicine.

But these irresponsible assholes don’t care.  They want people to refuse to be treated with a medication that can save their lives because they want more Americans to die. All so they can destroy a President they despise.

And if that means airing the idiotic story of two Darwin Award winners, then they’re on the case!

Now do you understand why I say the news media is the one non-essential industry that should absolutely be shut down right now?

New Business Opportunity

This is a tad risqué coming from AuntiE. 



If It Saves Even One Life, It's Totally Worth It?

 
Article by Sarah Hoyt in "PJMedia":

As deaths from the Xi Flu mount in the U.S., the media keeps announcing them as if it’s absolutely the end of the world. I have no idea what we’ll be up to by the time this article goes up, but I’d guess probably around 500 or a little under.

And sure, it’s easy to get panicked by that. Five hundred is a lot of dead people.

If you tell people on social media that yeah, it’s a big number, but not as much – not by far – as the number of annual flu deaths in the U.S., you’re going to get called a monster, asked what if this person were your spouse, your mother or your child, and told that all these measures, and destroying our economy, are completely worth it, if we ‘save even one life.’

But the problem is that you can’t save that one life. Not forever.

If we were an immortal species, which only dies under unusual circumstances, say when we drop from buildings, or when we contract a flu that crossed the species barrier because someone in Wuhan, China, needed him (or her) some yummy bat soup, then the “if it saves just one death” part would be completely justified.

As it is, though, we all die, sooner or later. At most, death-like taxes this year might be postponed.

And given the average age of the people dying of the Xi-Flu, the truth is that if they don’t die of this, they will die of the next epidemic cold or flu (btw, did you know China now seems to have an outbreak of a new bird flu?) that comes near them.

It’s terrible, but it is also part of the human condition.

The truth is that while the media tries to stampede us with constant harping on the percentage of people who die of China virus, we in fact do not know what it is and have reason to suspect it’s markedly lower. Why? Well, because we don’t know the total number of people who are infected with the virus, particularly since it’s possible the virus was in the U.S. in early December; it was in China and recognized by mid-November. (Note the first confirmed case was almost certainly not patient zero. And there was chatter about a weird virus in China from October on.) Also, given what we know from various studies, like the one linked above, or the one in Iceland, most people who get infected show no symptoms or very mild symptoms.

Given those two conditions, we can’t tell how many people in the population have the virus. Right now we’re only testing for active cases (not antibodies) and we’re only testing those people who show symptoms strong enough to go to the doctor (you need a doctor's note to get a test.) Which won’t include the potentially vast number of very mild or no-symptoms cases.

Keep that in mind when you hear the scary, scary numbers, which, as of early morning March 23, 2020, are 34,754 active cases (i.e. people who were sick enough to get a note from their doctor and be tested for the China Virus) and 471 deaths, which is around (it’s early and I refuse to do math) 1.5% mortality. But again, this is from people sick enough to look for help, not from the—estimating from the Diamond Princess, because a controlled experiment—80% of people who simply shrug this off.

Now both the number of active cases and the number of deaths are going to go up, as more tests become available. And knowing our media, they’ll report being infected as a death sentence. Which it is not. The highest mortality rate is in the 80+ age range, with significant comorbidities and even that isn’t precisely 100%. In fact, it’s around 10%. Horrible of course, but not a death sentence.

But, you’ll say, what if it were your grandmother? Isn’t it justified to put everyone under lockdown and extreme emergency measures and destroy the economy to save your grandmother?

My personal grandmother, if she were still alive, and they told me I’d need to kill all of you in batch lots to keep her alive – and get to have tea with her – one more day? Let’s just say I’d prefer not to be tempted.

However, that doesn’t make it a good idea.

Why not?

Because by sacrificing our wealth, we’re sacrificing our ability to care for other grandmothers in the future. Absent in the barrage the media is blasting at people is that part of the reason for the triage – known as letting people die – in Italy is the lack of money for the medical system. Now, part of this is because it’s government-run, part is because the Italian economy has been sinking for several years.

Which means that by destroying the economy we’re condemning a lot of grandmas to death. (And that’s without taking into account how poverty increases illness.)

But let’s say – for the sake of argument – we take the left’s idea that it’s worth putting everyone on lockdown to avoid one death.

Well, guys, we’re in trouble now.

Because the number of people who die in the U.S. every year from the strangest things is through the roof.

First of all let’s get the annual flu deaths from an average flu year in the U.S., from a site at random.

If you take the number of deaths year-wise, you will find a vast variation with a low of 3,349 deaths during the flu season of 1986-87 to a high of 48,614 in 2003-04.


222,000 Positively Tested for Flu and 22,000 deaths
Which is probably also a low estimate on how many people had it, because at least for me, the normal answer to calling my doctor and telling them I have the flu is “You probably do. Don’t come in.”

Now, with those numbers putting the COVID-Sars-Wuhan flu in perspective, let’s look at other ways to die that don’t seem to make our media run around with their hair on fire:

There are 60 people per year killed by an animal in the U.S.  Yes, I know those are rookie numbers, but it’s obvious that we must from now on destroy every animal in our near vicinity. Bonus, we’ll make Alexandria Occasional-Cortex happy by not eating cow.

For instance, we’re told that 100,000 people a year die of air pollution in the U.S. (which probably means that the Chinese, the Indians, and the people in the place where I grew up, including myself, are already dead, since air quality is and was markedly worse in most of the world).

Obviously this means no one is ever to go without a filtered mask, not even in the privacy of their own homes. Neighbors and children are encouraged to denounce those who refuse to do this. No exceptions. If it saves only one life, it’s worth it, much less 100 thousand lives.  How do you dare oppose it, you monster?


Unlike Cov-Sar-China virus, this scourge falls disproportionately on those under 14, who have their entire lives ahead of them and are of economic importance for the future, at least if you expect anyone to pay for the panic insanity of 2020.

That means they must be saved. Fortunately, the fix is relatively minor. All levels of government must ensure that all Americans wear a lifejacket at all times, even in bed, because the ground could open under your house and drop you into a long-forgotten underground river. If it saves even one life! You’ll sleep with filter-mask and lifejacket on and like it.

Also, since some percentage of these deaths are in the bathtub, these appliances shall now be ripped from every home.

Apparently 3655 people died from fires in the U.S. in 2018.  Weirdly the site insists the leading cause of house fires is smoking, not greenies deciding you can’t take dried and dead wood out of forests.  That was a surprise! Also, not global warming. Another surprise.

Anyway, even if you don’t smoke, you can get fires started by using fire for cooking.  Or by using electricity – one of our supposed surge-prevention strips caught fire last week and we were lucky it didn’t burn the house down – so the only possible approach to preventing all those potential fire deaths is that you’re not henceforth allowed to use fire or any electricity in the home.  Who knew North Korea was a trendsetter and even they didn’t go far enough?


So, it turns out that you mugs can’t actually be trusted to cook your own food and eat without killing yourselves.  From now on food will be distributed by government dieticians who will first sanitize it by spraying it with disinfectant.

Apparently, more than 27,000 falls led to death in 2014, out of 800,000 falls that led to injury. Like the China virus, this cruel harbinger of doom falls disproportionately on the old and the enfeebled.

From now on EVERY American must wear a complex apparatus composed of stabilizing and catching rods and buffers in case they trip. They will be followed by another American carrying pillows, in case they can’t avoid the fall, so they can cushion it.

Yes, that means Americans will do nothing but follow each other carrying pillows. But hey, if it saves even one life, who are you to say it’s not worth it? What if it were your mother, you unfeeling savage?

The alternative is making everyone crawl on their belly so they can’t fall, of course.

So you see, in the interest of saving even one life, you will now have to crawl on your belly wearing a filter mask and a life preserve, and be handed your vegan (all the animals being dead) disinfectant-impregnated food. (Yes, I do know disinfectant is usually poisonous. But this is a government program, so that’s what you’ll get.)

And you’ll like it! Because if it saves even one life, it’s totally worth it, right?

States Can’t Shut Down Non-Essential...


States Can't Shut Down Non-Essential Businesses 
Without Harming Essential Ones

The coronavirus outbreak offers another view of the limits of central planning.


sipaphotosten596674
(Bastiaan Slabbers/Sipa USA/Newscom) 

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) issued one of the more sweeping responses to the COVID-19 outbreak on Thursday evening: he ordered all "non-life-preserving" businesses in the state to close, indefinitely.

"To protect the health and safety of all Pennsylvanians, we need to take more aggressive mitigation actions," Wolf said in a statement announcing the new anti-virus measures. "We need to act with the strength we use against any other severe threat. And, we need to act now before the illness spreads more widely."

Acting "with strength" meant threatening fines, citations, and the loss of licenses to any business who defied Wolf's order for more than a day—the order to close took effect at 8 p.m. on Thursday, but enforcement would be postponed until Saturday morning, the governor's statement explained.

By the end of the day on Friday, governors in California, Illinois, and New York had issued statewide orders to shutter so-called "non-essential" businesses and telling people to stay home except for emergency situations. But all those states have more reported coronavirus cases than Pennsylvania does, and none of those other orders came with similar promises of punitive measures.

Republican lawmakers in the state's General Assembly criticized Wolf for the timing of his announcement. It was made after the close of normal business hours on Thursday, potentially leaving many businesses and employees unsure about what to do on Friday morning.

"The ill-prepared actions, announced after normal business hours, are not only an economic blow to every worker in the state right now but will have ramifications long into the future," Republican legislative leaders wrote in a joint statement. "It is incumbent upon all state leaders to recognize that long after we have defeated this public health threat, we must have the ability to create economic opportunities for all Pennsylvanians."

Even in the short-term, shutting off all supposedly nonessential economic activity poses a risk. "Many of the industries listed as 'non-life-sustaining businesses' in the governor's order are in fact part of the supply chain for other businesses listed as being a 'life-sustaining' business," the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce pointed out in a statement. To businesses subject to the order, the governor's announcement seemed confusing and arbitrary.

That's the difficult balance that elected officials and bureaucrats now must try to strike. How extreme should shut-down and shelter-in-place orders be, and how long should they last?

"If everything we do saves just one life, I will be happy," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said Friday, as he announced a new round of restrictions on businesses and individuals.


Yes, containing the virus' spread and helping prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed must be the top priority, of course, but it cannot be absolute in the way that Cuomo described. As the Pennsylvania Chamber pointed out, hospitals can't stay open without supply chains, and health care workers—and lots of other people—may need access to other nonessential services to get by.

Wolf's decision to include laundromats in his initial shut-down order is a good example. Those are indeed essential for many Pennsylvanians who may not have the necessary equipment to wash and dry their clothes—to say nothing of the people who own or work at laundromats—but they are also semi-public spaces where lots of people are touching the same handles, dials, and buttons.

By Friday night, however, the Wolf administration had reconsidered parts of the order. Now, laundromats can remain open, along with law firms, coal mines, hotels, accountants, and businesses connected to the timber industry—all of which had initially been subject to the shut-down order. The governor also postponed enforcement of the shut down until Monday morning, and the state announced a waiver process to allow other businesses to request permission to remain open as well.

Does that strike the right balance between protecting the economy and public health? Well, we can hope.

Under the best of circumstances, policymakers suffer from what the philosopher and economist F.A. Hayek famously called "the knowledge problem." Only a price-driven market can solve the endless complex questions of what is needed where, and in what amounts. The coronavirus has crippled markets to some degree, but they are finding ways to respond. Too often, policymakers seem determined to prevent that.

That being said, I'm honestly not sure that there is a right answer to the question of how far policymakers should be willing to go in pursuit of stopping the spread of COVID-19. But it seems plausible that we're underestimating the economic damage that these statewide shutdowns will do.

"I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life—schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned—will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself," writes David Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale, in The New York Times. "The path we are on may well lead to uncontained viral contagion and monumental collateral damage to our society and economy."

"We should be putting more weight on the economic and health damage that will be risked by extended business shutdowns," writes Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute. "Governments are offering emergency business loans, but that won't compensate for the massive income loss imposed if this extends for more than a few weeks."

Again, look to Pennsylvania. The New York Times' Jonathan Martin reported on Thursday that more than 180,000 of the state's residents had applied for unemployment benefits in the previous few days. And that was before Wolf's mandatory shutdown order took effect. For comparison's sake, there were 210,000 unemployment applications nationwide a week ago. Goldman Sachs expects more than 2 million Americans to seek unemployment this week alone—and that's before the more aggressive measures now being taken by some states.

In a press conference on Friday, Wolf said the shutdown order was necessary to protect Pennsylvania's health care system from becoming overwhelmed. He said the announcement was made after consultation with the federal government—including the White House and the Department of Homeland Security. That raises the prospect of similar orders being issued in other states in the days to come.

If so, then the question turns to enforcement. As Reason editor-at-large Matt Welch pointed out this week, enforcement of curfews and full-fledged economic shutdowns will require pulling limited resources away from other, likely more crucial purposes. And as Reason senior editor Robby Soave wrote, there are limits to what people are willing to endure. Total shutdowns cannot be expected to last for weeks or months. An equilibrium will be found—either purposefully and orderly by official policy, or haphazardly when people simply can't take it anymore.

Wolf deserves credit for backing down a bit from his initial order, and for trying to find that equilibrium, though it may be impossible. The coming days and weeks will tell if he has succeeded.

There is little to do at this point but hope that our elected and appointed officials can pull the right levers and steer the country and its economy through this. But under the best of circumstances, we should be skeptical about their ability to do that—and these are far from the best of circumstances.

Back to Work by March 30


Back to Work by March 30: 
A Coronavirus Imperative 


China and Russia are open for business and working at close to capacity, as America shutters most all business and industry in states such as Pennsylvania, New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut. In many cases only select manufacturing companies are allowed to operate, which means most manufacturers will be short of parts and services necessary to produce goods.

Our leaders are creating an economic crisis and a major national security risk with limited data. The cure is far worse than any perceived impact by COVID-19. Our economy is both fragile and interdependent, an economic reality not understood by our leaders as they order mass closings of many states’ business and industry.

Thomas Sowell wrote, “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” Sowell was informing us that wise and sound judgments are imperative during any crisis.

An opinion piece by John P. A. Ioannidis, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health at Stanford University, is headlined, “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.”

This season the flu has killed 22,000 Americans 
versus 388 dead from COVID-19. 

This the hard data available. There has been no national discussion about the flu but complete panic on the coronavirus.

The restaurant industry, which is the largest employer in America, is closed in most states. Now we will begin to witness the industries that support restaurants and hotels begin to shutter.

Marriott Corporate in Bethesda, Maryland, has furloughed 66 percent of its employees and cut the pay of the remaining employees by 20 percent. Such actions by major employers will have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy.

The Big Three automakers and their suppliers are closed, which means hundreds of thousands of workers are laid off and at home. This will quickly lead to more layoffs and many small business failures. There is no amount of government money that can make up for an economy closed and workers staying home.

We all know that food and supplies are critical to families. Most individuals assume these products and services will be available. But as we have witnessed, when demand exceeds supply and businesses are shuttered, supply runs out.

Supply of goods and services is quickly becoming a more important national issue than the COVID-19 panic. The virus will not adversely impact most Americans, but they will sustain substantial financial losses and at some point supplies will run out.

Schools can shut down, and sick people should stay home, along with older or at-risk individuals, until the panic subsides, but the healthy must be allowed to work.

Every family, state, city, and business can make the best decisions during this crisis, but we cannot have simplistic top-down mandates.

We are quickly moving toward a supply problem. Just-in-time inventory means we make products as needed. If the producers are closed, we run out of goods quickly.

Wiring $3,000 to most Americans may seem like a solution, but unless we have a supply of the goods families need, the money will not help. The best way for families to have income is for America to be open for business and not risk shortages and civil unrest. It is noteworthy that liquor, ammo, and guns sales are robust.

The federal government has no money and is $23 trillion in debt. Now Congress contemplates a $2 trillion economic bailout, which is pushing the limits of how much Congress can borrow and will eventually create a major financial meltdown. The solution is a robust economy producing goods, services, and financial stability.

All healthy Americans who want to work must be allowed to return to work no later than March 30. This common-sense approach will allow new production and for the healthy to support those in need.

I urge our President Trump to speak to Americans from a Midwest manufacturing plant, away from the Swamp, and appeal to all governors and Americans to overcome their fears and take reasonable precautions, but allow America to open for business by March 30.

Bob Luddy is CEO & Founder CaptiveAire.

Pandemic Nationalism


The headwinds of the coronavirus outbreak threaten to derail the Left’s anti-nationalist program in a serious, and perhaps permanent, way. As Nigel Farage declared recently, in the Age of Corona, “We are all nationalists now.”


Even in the grip of virus-related panic, most liberals are demonstrating a remarkable ability to remain focused on what they regard as Job One: trashing Donald Trump. Nevertheless, in some quarters on the Left, one can perceive glimmerings of uneasiness. In addition to ordinary human concern over the fate of themselves, their friends and family, and mankind as a whole (a concern from which leftists, despite their neurotic fixation on Trump, are not immune), this uneasiness has two primary causes.

First, leftists are beginning to perceive the danger in Trump’s newfound status as what is, in effect, a wartime president.

Trump is leading America’s—and, to a point, the world’s—response to an unprecedented crisis. These are circumstances in which a chief executive can bolster his image greatly, unless he fumbles the opportunity in legendary fashion. Leftists and the “gentlemen of the press” are working diligently to create the impression that Trump is indeed floundering, but unfortunately for them, the relative success of the United States, versus the Euro-socialists, in containing and managing the pandemic, makes these smears less than credible.

There is compelling evidence that Trump is plowing right through the blizzard of misinformation and connecting with the American people in a positive and reassuring way. Once the “curve” really does get “flattened,” and infections and deaths begin to decline, it’s hard to imagine that President Trump would not be credited with helping to rescue the American people from a terrible threat.

Second, and less obvious in the heat of epidemiological battle, is the fact that the worldwide response to the crisis has not followed the pattern that leftists would prefer.
While global and supranational coordination of the virus response has been important, the most critical decisions about how to respond are occurring at the national, state/provincial, and even local levels. The Left has been laboring for decades to create a world that is seamlessly interconnected, that is borderless and multicultural, that is devoid of ethnic and nationalist prejudices, and that transcends as much as possible the concept of the nation-state and national sovereignty in favor of the construction of a new world order in which bureaucratic, corporate, and academic elites enact progressive change on a wide, regional basis, at a minimum (think: the European Union), and on a global scale, if at all possible (think: the United Nations).

The coronavirus pandemic has scrambled these assumptions and aspirations, to say the very least.

While leftists would like for Americans, and others, to think of themselves as members of a “global village,” in the current climate of high anxiety, things have moved quickly in the opposite direction. President Trump was criticized, from a globalist perspective, for his early decisions to cut off airline travel with China, and then with the European Union. Days later, the very Euro-socialists who had chided him were acceding to the implementation of identical policies in their own homelands.

Everywhere we look, countries are closing their borders, denying entry to foreigners, forbidding the exportation of critical medical supplies, nationalizing vital industries and infrastructure, and raising the proverbial drawbridge of global oneness. It would seem that, alarmed by the rapid, transnational spread of the virus, most people’s reaction, understandably, has been to focus first and foremost on “taking care of one’s own.” Even Germany, arguably the headquarters of internationalism, is rapidly reconstructing and securing its borders.

Not surprisingly, under these circumstances, some Europeans are beginning to ask if the E.U. and the U.N. are so powerless and useless in a moment of crisis, and if most people turn instead to their national leaders for guidance and protection, then what is the bloc’s future?

What is the point of pursuing internationalism even as an ideal, when interconnectedness itself exposes us to such serious risks?

After all, the pandemic would have been far easier to manage if cross-border trade and travel were not so pervasive—if people, all along, had stuck closer to home. These are perfectly reasonable and natural questions to ask right now. They are also questions that the Left has done its level best either to ignore or to suppress for decades.

As always, the Left has attempted to achieve its long-term ideological goal—the obliteration of nationalism and the creation of a globalist mass consciousness—in a gradual, insidious manner. In many ways, their project has been crowned with remarkable success, at least if the widespread opposition to border protection, to the enforcement of immigration laws, and to the pursuit of trade fairness and reciprocity is any indication.

The headwinds of the coronavirus pandemic threaten to derail the Left’s anti-nationalist program in a serious, and perhaps permanent, way. As Nigel Farage declared recently, in the Age of Corona, “We are all nationalists now.”

If he’s right, President Trump’s reelection prospects will start to look brighter—and the sneering know-it-alls who have shoved the E.U. and the U.N., and much else besides, down humanity’s collective throat for more than 60 years may finally be forced into a strategic retreat.

Much of Problems With Our Wuhan Virus Response Can Be Laid at the Door of One Federal Agency




If there is any sort of a silver lining in the aftermath of the Wuhan virus thrashing our economy and reducing the progeny of the men and women who conquered the wilderness, beat the British in two wars, destroyed slavery, and eradicated the Axis to sniveling, hand-scrubbing, bemasked serfs it may very well be that the role and basic competence of some federal agencies will be examined in  excruciating detail.

At the center of just about every delay and misstep in this sorry saga one does not find politicians or even political appointees, rather one finds the incompetent, turf-conscious, implacable bureaucrats in two of the agencies directly responsible for public health: the CDC and the FDA. In particular, the FDA seems to be at ground zero as a lackadaisical workforce used to being kowtowed to by Pharma and the medical device industry suddenly found itself under intense pressure to at least pretend it cared about what it was supposed to be doing.

This is a great thread that lays out the critical missteps by both CDC and FDA. I don’t agree with some of the views this guy has. For instance, testing at the early stages of this crisis took about 5 days to get results, making it less data than a Trivial Pursuit answer. But the overall picture he paints is not only accurate but damning:

Thread by @AlecStapp: 

1/ I wrote 3,000 words for The Dispatch on what exactly went wrong with coronavirus testing in the US


2/ The first coronavirus case in the US and South Korea was detected on January 21.

South Korea quickly ramped up widespread testing.

Why did the US fail to do the same?

In short: the FDA dropped the ball. 

3/ There have been 3 major regulatory barriers to scaling up testing

- obtaining an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
- being certified for high-complexity testing under CLIA
- complying with HIPAA Privacy Rule and the Common Rule related to protection of human research subjects

4/ HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency on Jan 31.

That action initiated a new requirement — labs that wanted to conduct their own coronavirus tests must first obtain an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA. 
5/ EUAs were intended to speed up the normal authorization process.

But in this case, labs that were already conducting their own tests needed to cease operations until they were granted an EUA.

By not waiving the EUA requirement, the FDA was actually slowing down testing. 
6/ And obtaining an EUA was no easy task.

FDA required:

- validation by testing at least five known positive samples
- mailing a physical application on CD or thumb drive
- testing the protocol against MERS and SARS viruses 
7/ On Feb 4, the FDA issued an EUA to the CDC for its testing protocol.

The FDA wouldn't issue another EUA to any other entity until Feb 29.

By only issuing a single EUA in the month following the emergency declaration, the FDA was putting all its eggs in one basket. 
8/ And then they dropped the basket and all the eggs broke.

The CDC protocol failed when state and local public health labs tried to validate it.

The exact cause of failure is still under investigation, but a faulty reagent is suspected. 
9/ On Feb 24, an association of more than a 100 state & local public health labs sent the FDA a letter begging for enforcement discretion.

The FDA said they should apply for an EUA instead.

5 days later, the FDA reversed its position & exempted advanced labs from the EUA req. 
10/ But this exemption applied only to “laboratories that are certified to perform high-complexity testing consistent with requirements under CLIA.”

One researcher estimated 5,000 virology labs in the country met this standard.

Context: US has ~260,000 laboratory entities.

11/ On March 16, the FDA expanded the EUA exemption to all commercial manufacturers and labs (not just those certified to perform high-complexity testing under CLIA) & devolved regulatory oversight to the states.

"The FDA sped up the process by removing itself from the process." 
12/ The FDA did the right thing when it expanded the EUA exemption to all labs and manufacturers and devolved regulatory oversight to the states.

The Department of Health and Human Services did the right thing when it waived certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

13/ But these actions were six weeks too late.

Speed, not perfection, must be the focus of pandemic response.

A distributed approach would be much more resilient to the inevitable mistakes and accidents inherent to crisis management.

14/ Instead, in this crisis, the FDA bet big on a single testing protocol from the CDC and burned its ships.

And when the “perfect” test failed spectacularly, everyone was left wishing for a way to retreat.

Over and over, you see President Trump and political leadership at federal and state level stepping in to remove barriers to clinical trials, to agitate for therapies that seem to have been proven in use in Europe to be pushed to the head of the line (here I’m talking specifically about the combination of  hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic Zithromax that Trump has touted and now is undergoing a massive clinical trial at the direction of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo), promising tests were moved to the head of the line and the way cleared for home testing by major commercial labs.
One would think this public shaming would have galvanized the FDA into action and inspired them, in Twitter SJW vernacular, to ‘do better.’ You would be wrong.
At this very moment, stockpiles of masks, hand sanitizer, and other supplies are sitting in warehouses waiting for FDA inspectors to get around to them. Where other nations are expediting these deliveries, trusting proven suppliers in their deliveries, the FDA has resorted to its favorite fetish: bureaucratic lethargy.
The problem here is not simply that the FDA is insisting that its box-checking comes before exigent needs of public health, but also that the agency doesn’t have enough inspectors to get the job done quickly.
I spoke to one significant medical supplier who talked to me on the condition of anonymity, for fear of FDA retaliation. In one location on the Pacific coast, this supplier has had more than 20 pallets of coronavirus-specific medical supplies waiting in a warehouse for five days. Yes, five days.
At another depot in the south-central United States, this same supplier has had 500,000 level-three or level-four masks sitting in a warehouse for two days now. They expect the FDA delays to continue indefinitely.
And get this — some of what the supplier is delivering is supposed to be gifted to a hospital. But even in that case, the FDA has warned that the supplies cannot even be unpacked until an inspector arrives. If they are broken down before then, even if only to expedite delivery once the inspector’s approval is given, fines are threatened to follow.
The FDA has a role in keeping the medical supply chain safe and ensuring devices and drugs are effective. It is not, however, a gatekeeper. And in times like this it must work hand-in-glove with industry and research facilities to ensure things that work get to the public fast while making sure snake oil gets stopped. Right now, the FDA seems to have a business as usual attitude and they are in urgent need of a ‘tune up’ by President Trump.