Displaying posts published in

March 2020

What makes the Palestinian Authority run? A reminder! Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

 https://bit.ly/2UuISEO
Is the vision of the Palestinian Authority limited to the establishment of a state in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)?  Is the vision of the Palestinian Authority amenable to alteration through financial inducements? Shouldn’t the pursuit of peace be based on a realization of the de facto – rather than hopeful – vision of the Palestinian Authority?

The Middle East context

In the Arab/Muslim Middle East – contrary to Western democracies – regimes are authoritarian, suppressing the majority. They are not scrutinized by legislators and constituents, unconstrained by checks and balances, unchallenged by election cycles, and highly motivated by long-term visions. These visions quash constituents’ preference, and supersede tempting Western financial packages.

Therefore, unlike the relatively short-term, election-driven strategy pursued by Western policy-makers, Arab policy-makers are driven by long-term strategy and vision, supported by short term tactics, which frequently aim to mislead, while camouflaging the actual vision.

The de facto, pre-1967 Palestinian vision 

According to the de facto Palestinian vision – as documented by the current K-12Palestinian hate curriculum – Palestine extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, erasing the “infidel” Jewish State (The term Palaistine was coined by the Greeks in the 5th century BCE, referring to the Land of Israel).

COVID-19 and it’s initial deadly spread are 100% due to the policies & dishonesty of China

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1241483097570332672.html

 ‘The media has acted disgracefully throughout this entire episode. They continue to reveal themselves as partisan activists and have little use for honest reporting. Some of their stories defy logic if not basic math.’

COVID-19 and it’s initial deadly spread are 100% due to the policies & dishonesty of China

China’s actions & cover-ups expose the risks of economic dependence the US and many countries have with that country

The WHO and other corrupt international organizations are run by the same criminals that these organizations were intended to protect us from. Any future appeals to their authority will fall on deaf or highly skeptical ears.

No country is or ever was ready to handle a pandemic. Some are better equipped to respond & mitigate due to immigration policies, healthcare infrastructure, demographics and other factors.

Saying that the US should have been ready with test kits before the outbreak is a give away that you don’t know what you’re talking about

The main US responding organization is the CDC, they made mistakes and have been transparent about that.

Neither President Trump or a President Hillary would have had any direct impact in preventing the CDC’s mistakes. And, I think we can all agree that the President shouldn’t be overriding the CDC’s decisions, regardless of party.

When Will It End? By Theodore Kupfer

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/when-will-it-end/

Congressman Chip Roy (R., Texas) argued on the homepage Friday that the “government needs to make a decision about when we are going to free up the economy.” From the true premises that uncertainty is bad for the economy and that an indefinite shutdown of social life is as uncertain as it gets, Roy makes the case that the government must select a date to lift the shutdown — a virus “D-Day.” By that date, the government will vow to have the epidemic under control, and it’ll mobilize all federal, state, and local resources toward keeping that vow. Our current path risks economic devastation and its attendant downsides.

There’s something attractive about this argument, but in an article in The New Atlantis, Ari Schulman gives the obvious objection:

It is not possible to place meaningful estimates on the true economic cost of [the worst-case scenario in which the virus spreads unchecked], except to say that there is good reason to believe it would be worse than the current shutdown. We simply do not have a good frame through which to view this future. Our world is too different from 1918 for the Spanish flu pandemic to offer much guidance. . . .

The most urgent task for the president and national leaders is to articulate the purpose of the shutdown, what it aims to achieve, and how we will know when we have. The current answer — “15 days to slow the spread” — is arbitrary and unpersuasive. The question is not How many more weeks or months? but Under what conditions can we relax blanket national closures?

Various answers suggest themselves. We might say that the shutdown can end when the case curve bends: That is, when new daily confirmed cases peak and decline. We might also look for the share of tests returning positive to steadily decline, suggesting that testing is finally widespread enough to capture most cases. Perhaps most importantly, we might look for a peak and decline in Covid-19 hospitalizations and deaths.

That doesn’t mean the shutdown is the only way to deal with the pandemic. As Schulman goes on to argue, the U.S. was forced to take such an extreme measure only because our early response was insufficient:

We already have a gold standard for fighting epidemics: early identification of symptomatic patients, contact tracing, isolation of those infected and exposed, and widespread random sampling of the population to detect new outbreaks among unidentified contacts. Only by identifying and isolating the sick can the healthy get back to work.

NR Coronavirus Update: 10 U.S. States with 500+ Cases By Daniel Tenreiro

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nr-coronavirus-update-10-u-s-states-with-500-cases/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=fourth

Ten American states now have more than 500 confirmed cases of coronavirus. In comparison, twelve Chinese clusters reached 500 cases (according to the available data, which is by no means totally trustworthy). Most of the outbreaks outside of Wuhan seem to have been contained early, whereas in the U.S., the number of cases within each cluster continues to grow exponentially. 

However, New York is carrying out more tests per capita than other states, so the numbers don’t necessarily reflect the severity of each statewide outbreak. Fifty-five percent of those infected in New York are between the ages of 18 and 55, which, while troublesome, bodes well for the death rate, as COVID-19 is most deadly in elderly populations. New York governor announced that he would send 1 million N95 facemasks to New York City and would continue purchasing medical resources, such as ventilators, to combat the virus.

After initial obstacles, the U.S. has succeeded in massively increasing its testing capacity. Over the past few days, the number of tests administered domestically has grown by nearly 40 percent each day. Yesterday, the FDA approved a test that could diagnose coronavirus in just 45 minutes. As the U.S. ramps up its ability to diagnose the virus, the most severe social-distancing measures could possibly be rolled back, but only if authorities pair testing efforts with tracing efforts, ensuring that those tested remain in strict quarantine. We’ll be watching tracing measures in the next few days to see whether states can capitalize on testing to reduce lockdowns.

Covid-19: The Blunt Instrument of Suppression Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/03/covid-19-the-blunt-instrument-of-suppression/

“‘A country which is fully employed, or close to it, is in a better position to fight a public health emergency than one confronting an impending recession or depression. As jobs are shed and stock markets plummet the need is to at least consider a different approach to the coronavirus pandemic.”

The precautionary principle was in vogue some years ago in the context of the climate debate. However, the argument is a general one. It turns on the outcome of something being so bad that even a small probability of it occurring is unacceptable. In other words, its expected cost (the probability of it occurring multiplied by the costs it would impose if it were to occur) would almost certainly exceed any costs of putting in place measures to prevent it from occurring.

The precautionary principle has a frailty as a guide for taking preventive action. The costs of taking action are real and tangible, whereas the costs of not taking action are speculative. What has this to do with combatting the coronavirus pandemic? It provides a foil. The situation facing us effectively stands the precautionary principle on its head.

To explain. Whereas the costs of inaction on the health of the population due to the virus can be calculated with a fair degree of confidence by epidemiologists, albeit along a scale; the costs of taking a range of aggressive actions to curb the spread of the virus are speculative. At worst, the social and economic costs of such actions could be so high as to outweigh their public-health benefits. And this is what I would like to discuss in light of an influential report (“Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand”) issued on March 16 by the Imperial College London on behalf of its Covid-19 Response Team. The “IC Report” is based on epidemiological modelling.

Chinese Authorities Underreporting New Infections in Epicenter of Wuhan: Leaked Documents By Nicole Hao

https://www.theepochtimes.com/chinese-authorities-underreporting-new-infections-in-epicenter-of-wuhan-leaked-documents_3280343.html

The Chinese regime has maintained that there have been no new domestic infections of the CCP virus in the entire country since March 18.

Local authorities say that the epidemic has leveled off, as they ease travel restrictions and allow people to return to work.

But the situation in the ground zero of China’s epidemic, the city of Wuhan, is much worse than what has been officially reported, according to a series of internal government documents obtained by The Epoch Times.

The Epoch Times refers to the novel coronavirus, which causes the disease COVID-19, as the CCP virus because the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) coverup and mismanagement allowed the virus to spread throughout China and create a global pandemic.

The documents include four reports from the Wuhan health commission, which were statistical data sheets about diagnostic test results in the city on March 14.

The data showed that there were 91 newly diagnosed patients in Wuhan on March 14. China’s National Health Commission only reported 4 cases for that date. That is 22.75 times less than the internal data.

Meanwhile, two residential compounds in Wuhan posted notices to alert their residents that there were people living there who were diagnosed with the CCP virus on March 19—another indication that the Chinese regime is concealing the epidemic’s true scale.

Researchers Look To Old Drugs For A Possible Coronavirus Treatment – It Might Just Work Mary Beth Pfeiffer

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethpfeiffer/2020/03/18/science-works-to-use-old-cheap-drugs-to-attack-coronavirus–it-might-just-work/#124588355c49

Update on March 19: In a press conference, President Trump announced that the FDA was fast-tracking use of hydroxycholoquine and other anti-viral drugs for COVID-19 patients.

  An old malaria and autoimmune drug is showing promise as a potential treatment for COVID-19 – although health officials are urging caution until clinical trials are done.

  The drug, hydroxychloroquine, sold under the brand name Plaquenil, was reportedMarch 9 in Clinical Infectious Diseases journal to be effective at killing the virus in laboratory experiments. In a letter in Cell Discovery Wednesday, the study’s authors, mainly from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Wuhan, wrote, “(W)e predict that the drug has a good potential to combat the disease.” 

   Repurposing established drugs like Plaquenil — which was approved in 1955 — may be a quick, safe and economical way to attack emerging illnesses. In this vein, specialists have adapted long-standing leprosy and alcoholism drugs, for example, for patients suffering another global epidemic, Lyme disease.

Time for Trump To Address the Dread

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/time-for-trump-to-address-the-dread/91057/

President Trump may have had his reasons for denouncing an NBC reporter at the press briefing this week, but we thought the question from reporter Peter Alexander — “What do you say to Americans who are scared?” — was a slow pitch, meaning an opportunity for the President. Our sense is that the country is filled with dread over the pandemic. Its’s aching for an answer from the president of the country in a presidential setting. The country is waiting.

The question sent us back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first inaugural on March 4, 1933. It was the last inaugural on the date originally set in the Constitution. Roosevelt delivered the speech from the East Front of the Capitol moments after being sworn to the Constitution. The speech is one of America’s most memorable — and echoes powerfully in the current crisis.

Roosevelt began by saying that he was certain his fellow Americans expected him to address them with candor. We were, after all, well into what came to be known as the Great Depression. FDR called it a time to speak the whole truth. “Nor need we shrink,” he said, “from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive, and will prosper.”

And then the famous words: “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.”

“COVID-19 – Perspective is Needed” Sydney Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Among the many comments I received on my essay of four days ago – “COVID-19 Pandemic – Random Thoughts” – was one from a woman in Australia that gave me a start. She referred to my last sentence: “We cannot and should not let fear and panic catapult us into a recession or worse – where Constitutional rights are abrogated.” She wrote that she fears this is where we are headed and “that something about this doesn’t add up.” She’s right; the response to the pandemic seems more onerous than the virus itself. Since last Thursday, a number of states, including New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut have issued measures aimed at keeping residents in their homes. While those measures are not strictly enforced, the New York Times reported on their front page yesterday: “By the end of the weekend, at least 1 in 5 Americans will be under orders to stay home.” Over 3,300 National Guardsmen have been deployed across 28 states in COVID-19 support roles. An overreaction?

Perspective is needed. For example, comparisons have been made to other pandemics, and the favorite of those who deal in hyperbole is the Spanish flu. It lasted two years and was the deadliest since the Black Death killed a third of the population in mid-Fourteenth Century Europe. While the origin of the Spanish flu is disputed, most authorities believe it began in a UK staging and hospital camp in Étaples, on France’s northern coast near Le Touquet, in late 1917. Allies chose not to publicize the pandemic, for fear of alarming folks at home. It finally died out in late 1919. By then an estimated 500 million people had been infected (a quarter of the world’s population), with 50 million dead – more than combined military and civilian deaths due to the War. Estimated U.S. deaths were 675,000, almost six times the 117,000 U.S. soldiers killed in the War. A comparable number of deaths in the U.S. today would be more than two million. But apart from its infectious nature, the comparisons make little sense. Then, news of the disease was hushed up. Today we have daily White House briefings. Then, the disease spread through crowded Army camps, hospitals and troop ships. Today, we have “social distancing.” Modern medicine, in 1919, was a thing of the future. Penicillin was not developed until the start of the Second World War. Today, public-private partnerships have been deployed seeking tests, curative drugs, immunizations and vaccines. One has only to look at old photographs to recognize that hygiene was not the same then as today.

Mark Penn: In coronavirus fight, America needs a 60-day plan to battle virus and save our economy By Mark Penn |

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mark-penn-in-coronavirus-fight-america-needs-a-60-day-plan-to-battle-virus-and-save-our-economy

It’s time for the Trump administration to take the next steps now to stop the uncertainty gripping America by adopting a responsible 60-day plan for both retarding the coronavirus and saving our economy.

America can go on lockdown for a month or more, but those days need to be used to prepare to emerge and get back to the essentials of daily life. We have to defeat the coronavirus, not let the virus defeat us.

The back-to-work plan must ensure certainty regarding: plans to deal with liquidity to avoid another full-blown financial crisis, programs to encourage retention of employees during the crisis and benefits for those laid off, and confidence in the health care system to ensure that it is safe enough to go back to work.

Right now we are led by a group of health care experts who have little understanding of the economy, and a group of economists with little understanding of health care. We have turned our country over to the health care experts, but we need a balance. We need our leaders to come together and bridge these disciplines to chart a clear path forward.

We know the worst is yet to come. The statistics show that in most places we are seeing a geometric increase in the spread of the coronavirus that we are working to slow and even reverse.