The House Democrats’ Coronavirus Extortion Gambit Backfires By Dan McLaughlin

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-house-democrats-coronavirus-extortion-gambit-backfires/?utm_source=

The House’s voice vote passing the Senate’s version of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill puts the final nail in the coffin of House Democrats’ deeply misguided effort to pass their own version of the bill, an effort that delayed the badly needed relief package by days. Taking a cue from Majority Whip James Clyburn’s argument that “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” the 1,119-page House bill was larded with progressive policy priorities on topics with little or no connection to the pandemic: carbon emissions, corporate board diversity, federally imposed rules for early voting and voter registration, collective bargaining, a minimum wage hike, a Postal Service bailout, student loan forgiveness, permanent changes to Medicaid and Obamacare, minority-owned credit unions, funding for the arts, and many, many more.

 

Anyone who has followed Washington politics for any period of time knows that the habit of sticking unrelated goodies into big, must-pass bills is both longstanding and bipartisan. Every bill of this nature, especially one so massive and sprawling, will have a little gift here for some policy agenda, a payoff there for a favored constituency, and a giveaway, or several, for important donors. But what was striking here was the sheer piggishness of the grab. The House Democrats’ bill read less like an appropriation than like an entire presidential campaign platform, wedged into a bill that was supposed to pass a Senate and White House controlled by the opposite party. The point of cramming favors into a bill like this is to ensure passage of the favor, not sink the bill. And sink it did, like the soldiers of Hernán Cortés who drowned fleeing Tenochtitlan because they had loaded their armor with gold looted from its treasury.

Goodbye, Green New Deal By Kevin D. Williamson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/goodbye-green-new-deal/

After a couple of weeks of great economic sacrifice, it’s already proving hard for Americans to take. No one will sign up for a lifetime of it.

What will happen next with the coronavirus epidemic is unknown, but it seems certain to claim one very high-profile victim: the so-called Green New Deal.

Good riddance.

The current crisis in the U.S. economy is, in miniature but concentrated form, precisely what the Left has in mind in response to climate change: shutting down large sectors of the domestic and global economies through official writ, social pressure, and indirect means, in response to a crisis with potentially devastating and wide-ranging consequences for human life and human flourishing.

What is under way right now in response to the epidemic is in substance much like the Green New Deal and lesser versions of the same climate-change agenda: massive new government spending, political control of critical industries, emergency protocols modeled on wartime practice, etc.

But the characters of the two crises are basically different.

A Week of Coronavirus Pain and Progress Infections are rising, but markets are calmer and medical aid is surging.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-week-of-coronavirus-pain-and-progress-51585245116?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

As the number of Americans infected with the coronavirus surges, and hospitals are besieged, it can appear that America is losing the pandemic war. But in important ways the U.S. is better off at the end of March than it was a week ago, and it’s worth tracking the progress as well as the pain.

The most important good news this week is the ebbing panic in financial markets. The Federal Reserve unveiled new facilities to provide liquidity to corners of the market where anxiety had shut down trades or threatened a run. Think money-market and municipal-bond funds. The Senate bill that the House passed Friday adds $454 billion for Treasury that can backstop further Fed actions if they’re needed.

Our market sources say trading has calmed down and most sellers can find buyers for assets to raise cash when they need it. If you think this doesn’t matter to the real economy, imagine a cascade of defaults that become bankruptcies that become a banking panic. At least for now the panic toward a deflationary spiral has stopped. The Fed and the Senate legislation sparked this week’s modest rally in equities.

No Green New Deal in stimulus: Craig Rucker

https://www.cfact.org/about/

Despite efforts by radical greens to ram the bill full of climate “pork,” it looks like their expensive wish list didn’t make the cut.

This is good news, thanks largely to the President and many Senators who called out their crafty attempts to sneak in a radical wish list that has nothing to do with the virus into the bill.

Of course they have to pass it for us to see everything that’s in it… just as the founders intended.

“[The Democrats said] ‘We want green energy, let’s stop drilling oil’ — they had things in there that were terrible…Windmills all over the place and all sorts of credits for windmills — they kill the birds and ruin the real estate. A lot of problems,” President Trump explained during a town hall style broadcast.

Just because America has dodged one Green New Deal bullet, don’t think the climate radicals won’t be back.

New York Times Op-Ed Blames Christians, Not China, For Spread Of Wuhan Coronavirus By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/27/new-york-times-op-ed-blames-christians-not-china-for-spread-of-wuhan-coronavirus/

A New York Times op-ed published Friday is casting blame on the evangelical movement for the Wuhan coronavirus plaguing the nation.

The piece, titled, “The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved By Evangelicals,” written by Katherine Stewart is filled with undue condescension and mockery of Christians that is becoming the norm among our mainstream media elites.

The crux of Stewart’s piece is that the Republican Party has become embedded with a spiritual movement whose beliefs fly contradictory to science, blaming the idiocy and extreme actions of a few who defied public health orders against large gatherings to stigmatize half the country.

Stewart’s piece however, only further exposes a deep disdain for the Christian faith through the employment of hypocritical arguments in an attempt to smear the religious right.

“Religious nationalism has brought to American politics the conviction that our political differences are a battle between absolute evil and absolute good,” Stewart wrote. “When you’re engaged in a struggle between the ‘party of life’ and ‘party of death,’ as some religious nationalists now frame our political divisions, you don’t need to worry about crafting careful policy based on expert opinion or analysis.”

A NEW LOW FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES HATE MEDIA

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/coronavirus-trump-evangelicals.html

The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals

Trump’s response to the pandemic has been haunted by the science denialism of his ultraconservative religious allies.

By

Katherine Stewart

Ms. Stewart is the author of “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”

More Thoughts on Computing the COVID-19 Fatality Rate By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-fatality-rate-computing-difficult/#slide-1

It’s based on decisions about whom to include or exclude, which are often conjecture.

On the Corner last week, I groused a bit about the difficulty of tracking the coronavirus fatality rate. It appeared to be hovering at a bit over 1 percent in the United States. But those appearances can be deceiving.

The elusiveness, I noted, was evident from an observation by Anthony Fauci, the esteemed immunologist of the National Institutes of Health and President Trump’s White House Coronavirus Task Force. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine in late February, Dr. Fauci hypothesized that the fatality rate may be “considerably less than 1%” because many people who are infected experience either no symptoms or very mild symptoms and therefore do not report. The fatality-rate statistics are skewed toward the people who do report.

The question naturally arises: How much less than 1 percent could the fatality rate be?

More specifically, could the fatality rate for the coronavirus disease that sprang from China late last year (as our Jim Geraghty has comprehensively documented) approach a figure as low as the fatality rate for influenza? The question is important. President Trump frequently touts a comparison of the new coronavirus to flu. Americans longing to return to a semblance of normalcy — understandably so, given the gargantuan ruin the lockdown is causing — complain that closing the country due to coronavirus is overkill, since we don’t do it for flu.

Regrettably, I reckon the answer must be that even if the coronavirus dipped perceptibly below 1 percent, it would still be much worse than flu. Why? Because none less than Dr. Fauci (among others) says so. Though he recently wrote that the rate could be “considerably less than 1%,” he has also recently testified, in a House hearing, that the novel virus from China has a “mortality rate of ten times” that of seasonal flu. He put the latter at 0.1 percent, which would rate the new coronavirus at 1 percent.

Cuomo Deserves No Plaudits for His Handling of Crisis The facts prove that Cuomo put his state, and yes, the country as a whole, in danger with his last-minute disaster planning and fealty to open borders. That should spark outrage, not admiration. By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2020/03/26/cuomo-deserves-no-plaudits-for-his-handling-of-crisis/

It was a stunning confession.

During a press briefing on Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo admitted that closing schools and colleges in his state was a spur-of-the-moment decision based on a health crisis for which he was not prepared. “What we said at a moment of crisis is ‘isolate everyone,’” Cuomo told reporters while seated in front of boxes of medical supplies. “Close the schools, close the colleges, send everyone home, isolate everyone in their home. [It] wasn’t even smart, frankly, to isolate younger people with older people.”

Cuomo conceded that the reason he ordered public schools and colleges shut down was that he “didn’t have the knowledge [and] we needed to act.” The governor’s comments were made on March 24, more than two months after the first reported case of coronavirus was detected in Washington state.

New York, particularly the city, is the nation’s current hotbed of coronavirus activity. According to one tracking site, nearly 31,000 New Yorkers have tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in 3,800 hospitalizations and 285 deaths. On Wednesday, three army hospitals were deployed to New York and Washington to provide medical support and additional beds if needed.

The third-term Democratic governor, unsurprisingly, is earning media praise for his handling of the crisis.

“Andrew Cuomo shows how to lead during the coronavirus crisis,” swooned the Washington Post’s editorial board this week. Cuomo, according to his hometown newspaper, is the “politician of the moment” whose daily press briefings are must-watch events praised both by Democrats and Republicans like former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Even Billy Joel is impressed with the tough-talking political progeny. A recent poll places Cuomo towards the top on the list of officials Americans most trust to handle the Wuhan virus debacle.

Cuomo, his new admirers insist, is the antidote to President Trump—a leader who rose to the challenge, spoke the truth, and made the tough choices while the White House ducked and dithered.

Fauci’s Folly After 50 years in Washington, D.C., the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has become an overly cautious bureaucrat. By Ruth Papazian

https://amgreatness.com/2020/03/26/faucis-folly/

EXCERPT

“During the daily briefings of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, repeatedly referred to reports from frontline clinicians that the combination of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin can completely clear coronavirus from the body within six days as “anecdotal” evidence.

The coronavirus pandemic is a medical story, not a political story. Yet, there are no medical journalists in the White House Briefing Room. To a medical journalist, “anecdotal” evidence is what doctors in the field are reporting. To a political journalist, “anecdotal” evidence is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Fauci knew—or should have known—that political journalists would report his characterization of clinical reports on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ+AZ) not as something “you hear out there” but as the president overhyping (or “lying” about) the benefits of the treatment.

Over and over again, Fauci also gave the false impression that the experimental treatment regimen would not, or could not, be given to severely ill patients before data from large-scale, randomized double-blind clinical trials becomes available: “My job as a scientist is . . . to prove without a doubt that a drug is not only safe, but it actually works.”

All well and good, but a clinician’s job is to save lives. And in the midst of a burgeoning global pandemic when speed is of the essence, field experience with two drugs whose safety profiles are well understood suffices to treat patients who are likely to die. For this reason, the FDA-approved chloroquine and remdesivir, an Ebola treatment, for “compassionate use.” Both drugs can be administered immediately to patients who have serious or life-threatening cases of coronavirus. “

Logic, the first casualty-Aynsley Kellow

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/opinion-post/logic-the-first-casualty/

It is a fundamental principle of risk management that the benefits of any decision should be weighed against the costs. What is less often appreciated is that risk is an interactive phenomenon. Perceptions of risk often lead to people adjusting their behaviour in ways that reduce (or increase) the chances of a hazard occurring. Risk does not equal a hazard plus some fixed probability of it occurring.

University College London Professor Emeritus John Adams captured this with his idea of a ‘risk thermostat’, whereby we balance our propensity to take risks, risk perceptions and costs and benefits. Aaron Wildavsky perhaps captured this most parsimoniously in his aphorism that ‘the secret of safety lies in danger.’

But overestimating risk can lead to costly responses. In one famous example the 1976 Swine Flu epidemic in the US resulted in the rushed development of a vaccine that was far worse than the disease, causing many cases of Gullain-Barré Syndrome, a rather nasty immune system disorder. This was described in detail by Robert Formaini in his excellent book The Myth of Scientific Public Policy. Unfortunately, all too often, governments do not understand that public policy cannot be decided solely by scientific experts, because human conduct frequently undermines the intentions of policy-makers by exhibiting behaviour scientists did not anticipate.

The appropriate medical field for responding to pandemics is epidemiology, not immunology. As Nobel Prize winning immunologist Peter Doherty put it in an interview on Sky News on March 26, he’s a ‘lab guy’, not an epidemiologist. Good epidemiology should, of course, include a good measure of social science to cover this eventuality, but I once attended a conference on climate change where a prominent epidemiologist disavowed any knowledge of human behaviour, stating ‘I am not a social scientist.’ He went on to argue that the health of future Aboriginal Australians would be seriously harmed by climate change — ignoring the rather obvious point that the impacts of future climates projected by models rested on emissions scenarios that assumed massive increases in wealth; apparently none of this would find its way to Aboriginal communities, which would continue to wallow in squalor.

Which brings us to the current pandemic with the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. The government policy response has seen some sensible measures adopted, especially in shutting down borders and requiring a degree of ‘social distancing’ in an effort to flatten the curve of infections sufficiently to allow the health system to cope. But has the National Cabinet gone too far?