Im-Politic: Why It Sure Looks Like Fauci Lied

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, Biden administration, CCP Virus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Congress, coronavirus, COVID 19, EcoHealth Alliance, gain-of-function research, Im-Politic, Medium.com, MERS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Nature, NIAID, Nicholas Wade, NIH, perjury, Rand Paul, SARS, Shi Zheng-li, Washington Post, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Wuhan virus

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul wants the Justice Department to investigate whether President Biden’s top medical adviser, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, committed the crime of lying to Congress when he claimed that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in which he’s a senior official “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)” in China.

And if I was Fauci, who is also the long-time director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, I would be lawyering up. For if the Biden Justice Department is a truly non-political law enforcement agency, Fauci is going to have a heck of a time proving both that his statement (which he’s made in testimony at least twice) wasn’t a deliberately told falsehood. (See here and here for these instances.)  

Before I explain why, it’s important to specify what Paul’s charge is not about. It’s not about whether the grants given by Fauci’s agency to the WIV funded any research that went into actually creating the CCP Virus specifically. Therefore, contrary to Fauci’s statement (found in the Washington Post report linked above), it’s not about whether he bears any responsibility for causing this pandemic.

Nor is Paul’s charge about whether these U.S. government agencies financed such research in defiance of a three-year pause on such activity mandated by the Obama administration in October, 2014.

Nor – and this is crucial – does Paul’s charge have anything to do with the controversy among virologists about defining gain-of-function research.

As I explained in this post, these kinds of questions are all important, and should be looked into.

But what Paul is claiming is that Fauci lied in contending that NIAD and NIH never funded activity that is defined explicitly by the U.S. government. That matters because as a federal official, Fauci presumably is required to use this definition as his definition. And whereas in the above-linked May 30 post, I wasn’t convinced of Fauci’s guilt, the evidence demonstrating that NIAD and NIH funded work that matches now looks pretty cut and dry to me – especially since Paul last week gave Fauci a chance to climb down from his claim, and since new evidence has emerged.

Let’s start with that definition of gain-of-function: According to the announcement of the gain-of-function pause, new funding would be suspended

“for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.”

Now for the two pieces of evidence that should have Fauci awfully worried.

The first consists of an article published in 2015 in the journal Nature by a team of U.S., Swiss, and Chinese scientists (the latter from the WIV), which examined the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.”

The authors went on to explain that, using reverse genetics, they “generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.” A chimeric virus, according to this definition, is one “made by inserting the genetic material of one virus into the genome of another, safe surrogate, and these introduced sequences are passed on when the virus replicates.”

The article is important because it lists among funders for this project the two NIH branches – one of which is Fauci’s NIAID. Moreover, it specifies that

“Experiments with the full-length and chimeric SHC014 recombinant viruses were initiated and performed before the GOF research funding pause and have since been reviewed and approved for continued study by the NIH.”

Talk about a smoking gun! The authors obviously made this statement to preempt charges that either they or the NIH violated the pause. But just as obviously, they were concerned about it to begin with because they themselves considered the work to be “GOF” (gain-of-function).

And why wouldn’t they? The purpose of using reverse genetics to create a virus that doesn’t exist in nature was to examine “the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations” because such naturally occuring pathogens had demonstrated the ability of “cross-species transmission” that could affect humans.

They created the new virus precisely in order to mimick the kind of natural mutation that could theoretically take place in the original virus to find out whether such a mutated pathogen could infect human respiratory systems. And they discovered that some of them could.

Even more important: so evidently did Fauci. On Saturday, February 1, 2020 – during the very earliest stages of the virus’ spread in the United States, Fauci sent the following email message to aide Hugh Auchincloss:

“It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with [Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex] Azar. It will likely be over at 8:45 AM. Read this paper as well as the email that I will forward to you know. You will have tasks today that must be done.”

The paper was the 2015 Nature article. Auchincloss’ response began:

“The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH.”

He continued, “Not sure what means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework.” And then somewhat oddly, he concluded, “She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.”

Emily is Emily Erbelding, who heads much of NIAID’s international research program. The P3 framework is a system created by the Health and Human Services Department to guide “funding decisions on individual proposed research that is reasonably anticipated to create, transfer, or use enhanced PPPs [potential pandemic pathogens].

That last sentence is odd because the Nature article clearly credited NIAID as a funder.

In any event, though, what’s most important is that Auchincloss’ main concern seemed to have been whether any NIAID gain-of-function funding was approved during the pause (which he notes the authors denied). He doesn’t seem to dispute that the experiments qualified as GOF.

Fauci’s main concerns are less clear. Did he understand the broader possibility that NIAD may have helped create the virus? Not strictly according to his phrasing. But his words plainly connote major concern about something. Moreover, there’s no public record shere or anywhere else of him denying that the grant financed GOF work until Paul raised it in May.

Yet this Nature article-related evidence doesn’t exhaust the list of concerns Fauci should have. In his excellent May examination on Medium.com of the debate over the virus’ origins, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade describes in detail NIAID grants in 2018 and 2019 that he contends clearly funded research that falls under the official definition of GOF.

In his words, the grants were intended to enable WIV virologist Shi Zheng-li

“create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes …creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures…and humanized mice….And this information would help predict the likelihood of ‘spillover,’ the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people.”

These grants appear to have been compliant with U.S. government policy when they were approved, since the funding pause was lifted at the end of 2017. But again, that isn’t what Paul believes may be a crime on Fauci’s part. The alleged crime has to do with Fauci’s claim that neither NIH nor NIAID ever funded GOF experiments in Wuhan at any time.

The most detailed defense of Fauci has come from the NIH sub-contracter through which its funds were funneled to the WIV – a non-profit called the EcoHealth Alliance. But they don’t even come close to letting Fauci off the hook.

For example, Alliance spokesman Robert Kessler told the Washington Post that

”the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples. The NIH grant includes language that some say suggests gain-of-function research; NIH says that is a misinterpretation.”

But of course, collecting the samples was integral to the project. And since NIH is in the dock here, its claim of misinterpretation proves nothing.

Moreover, even Kessler didn’t seem satisfied with this argument, as he went on to contend that “As described in the paper, all but two of the viruses cultured in the lab failed to even replicate.” Not only does this mean that two of them did. His claim recalls notoriously spurious claims on the order of “Sure, I stole the money. But I didn’t steal very much.”

As for Kessler’s insistence that “GoF was never the goal here,” the authors’ own reference to abiding by U.S. government GOF guidelines shows that this was exactly the goal.

Finally, as indicated by my reference to the (legitimate) scientific debate over defining GOF, Kessler may have been right when he told the Post that “gain of function research is the specific process of altering human viruses in order to increase their ability (the titular gain of function) either to spread amongst populations, to infect people, or to cause more severe illness.”

But this position has nothing to do with the charge against Fauci, since the U.S. government definition that should have been controlling his decisions never limited its scope to “altering human viruses.” And in fact, how could it? The origins of the MERS and SARS viruses it mentions still haven’t been pinned down. But according to the NIH itself, research suggests they both “originated in bats.” And of course, the authors of the 2017 Nature paper agree, since they described called their work investigating whether viruses found in non-human mammals could mutate to infect humans.

In the U.S. criminal justice system, you’re innocent until proven guilty.  So legally speaking, Fauci deserves the benefit of the doubt.  Also, evidence might be uncovered absolving him of Paul’s charge.  But the existing evidence looks so compelling, a perjury charge is so serious, and Fauci’s role in CCP Virus-fighting policy remains so important, that Paul’s planned investigation request looks entirely reasonable. 

Moreover, Fauci himself should welcome the probe, for if conducted properly, it could lift this cloud over his head once and for all.  Opposing an investigation, by the same token, can only fuel suspicions that he has something to hide.       

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Big Missing Reason for the Big Jobs Miss

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, automation, Biden, Build Back Better, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, child care, children, coronavirus, COVID 19, FDR, Franklin D. Roosevelt, immunity, Jobs, jobs report, lockdowns, New Deal, parents, productivity, reopening, school closings, skills, skills gap, teachers, unemployment, unemployment benefits, vaccinations, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As reported widely, the big miss marking last Friday’s official monthly U.S. jobs report (for April) ignited a heated debate among politicians, economists, and many others over why the U.S. economy created so much less new employment that month (266,000 net new positions overall) than generally estimated (in the million neighborhood). At the heart of this debate: Do the many positions employers consistently say they’re struggling to fill amid a continuingly high jobless rate mean that the enhanced unemployment benefits offered throughout the pandemic are discouraging Americans from returning to the workplace?

What I’m not seeing, however, is anyone asking whether this is the right debate. It’s increasingly obvious to me that it’s not.

It’s easy to see why those who answer yes are viewing the issue far too narrowly. Surely some unemployed workers are content to stay at home because they’re currently making more from jobless payments than they were making from their previous employer. That should be clear from the number of businesses raising wages to fill the shortages they’re experiencing. (I’m not saying that these raises are or aren’t long overdue or otherwise deserved; simply that the higher pay and other incentives employers are offering can only be interpreted as companies recognizing that the enhanced benefits have, to a degree, increased the relative attraction of remaining on the employment sidelines versus reentering the job market.)

At the same time, is it reasonable to ignore all the other major reasons for this big labor market anomaly? Like ongoing fears of catching the CCP Virus at the workplace, or the need to stay home with school-age children forced to learn remotely? And don’t forget all the uncertainties created by the sudden stop-start nature of the virus-era lockdowns on the economy.

Yes, a rapid U.S. reopening is taking place now. But all over the world, infection surges are producing new economic curbs. Can you blame workers for wondering whether shortly after they leave the unemployment and benefits rolls, their new workplace will need to close, or cut back on its operations, leaving them in the lurch while they either seek other jobs or file for new benefits?

It’s easy to see that all of these developments and circumstances and uncertainties and outright fears are keeping U.S. labor seemingly scarce. You can also add to the list the likelihood of growing skills mismatches in the American economy – that is, the numbers of jobs requiring more or different skills outgrowing the number of workers possessing these skills, and the numbers of companies replacing low-skill jobs with automation of some kind. Not that the resulting mismatches inevitably will be with the nation forever, or even long term. But they’re unmistakably present now.

So maybe the problem is simply too complicated for government to address? Or we’ll simply need to wait until a stable post-CCP Virus normality returns and labor markets start clearing as usual? It seems reasonable that the purely skills-based mismatches will defy ready solutions – unless America’s education system suddenly gets a lot better at preparing students for the economy they’ll be facing, and businesses get more serious about training and retraining workers, and turn  away from needlessly insisting on lofty credentials for jobs that don’t require anything close.

It’s also possible – though that’s the most I’m willing to say – that spreading automation will eventually help businesses become so much more productive that they’ll be able to turn out more products and services, and that this very success will generate all sorts of new jobs whose appearance can’t be predicted with any precision now. (My reservations stem from concerns that the newest forms of automation, especially artificial intelligence and super-sophisticated robotics, are qualitatively more capable of displacing many more kinds of labor than previous technological breakthroughs.)

As long as the federal government and the states remain willing to provide generous unemployment benefits (and other supports), the resulting situation would at least keep most of the jobless adequately fed, clothed, and housed. That’s a big “if,” though, for reasons economic (e.g., maybe Washington can’t keep borrowing and spending massively much longer?) and social and cultural (e.g., maybe ever longer term unemployment will start to produce more in the way of pathological behavior like drug abuse, violent crime, and worse classroom performance from students from families on the dole?).

Consequently, the more progress can be made returning the unemployed to work, the better, and however difficult the challenge of eliminating the purely or largely skills-based mismatches, Americans and their leaders shouldn’t overlook where policy can make a big difference. And the above analysis indicates that one big difference can be made by the U.S. government, and especially its public health authorities.

Specifically, they need finally to stop their CCP Virus alarmism and energetically spread the word that due to a combination of high and mounting degrees of various kinds of immunity, mass vaccinations, and the highly varying nature of the virus’ infectiousness and lethality, normality is unquestionably returning. Further, and crucially, although certain groups of Americans – like the elderly, and those with certain underlying medical conditions – are still too vulnerable and must be protected with special measures, the Biden administration and its health experts should acknowledge that nearly all others can safely return to normal activities because the already low odds of even getting the disease, much less suffering significantly from it, have now plunged to rock bottom.

In other words, Washington should announce that work places are safe to return to, bricks and mortars businesses are now safe to patronize, in-person schooling is just fine for both students and teachers and administrative staff alike, (thus solving the childcare dilemma), and that lockdowns have become a thing of the past.

Instead, of course, you’ve got a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that seems stuck in hyper- (and increasingly unscientific) caution territory, not to mention decimating its own message about vaccines’ effectivness by admitting almost no behavior payoff whatever; and a President and leading figures of his own party continuing to wear facemasks even in settings that “the science” had made crystal clear are as safe as they can be for the fully vaccinated.

To top if off, the President’s chief medical adviser, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, has just taken pains to speculate that Americans may start wearing facemasks to guard against all sorts of respiratory diseases on a seasonal basis. Given this administration’s record so far, it doesn’t seem all that far-fetched to worry that new CDC guidelines along these lines, plus recommendations to resume some forms of social distancing, and even new business curbs, could quickly follow if this kind of Chicken Little-ism isn’t stopped. For now, though, no wonder so many Americans are still scared stiff of the virus.

It’s becoming more and more common to compare President Biden and his ambitious plans for “Building the U.S. Economy Back Better” with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal programs.  (See, e.g., here and here.) But it’s hard to imagine Mr. Biden succeeding to any lasting degree if his CCP Virus policy doesn’t start reflecting one of FDR’s most and most deservedly famous insights: “[T]he only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Glad I Didn’t Say That! Another CCP Virus Chicken Little

Tags

CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, Glad I Didn't Say That!, Rochelle Walensky, Wuhan virus

“I’m going to lose the script and I’m going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom” about trends in CCP Virus cases, deaths, and hospitalizations.

–Rochelle Walensky, Director, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 29, 2021

 

Change in U.S. CCP Virus cases, March 29-April 28, 2021: -16.01 percent*

Change in U.S. CCP Virus deaths, March 29-April 28, 2021:-25.86 percent

Change in U.S. CCP Virus hospitalizations, March 29-April 27, 2021: +2.08 percent

*All figures are seven-day moving averages

 

(Sources: “Walensky Fears ‘Impending Doom’ as COVID Cases, Deaths Tick Up Again,” by Shannon Firth, MedPageToday.com, March 29, 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91853 and “COVID Data Tracker,” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home)

Im-Politic: Why Herd Immunity Could be Really Close

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, Biden, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, herd immunity, Im-Politic, reopening, Wuhan virus

How great to report potentially great news about the CCP Virus pandemic! According to numbers recently put out by seemingly serious people who study diseases and their spread, herd immunity – AKA, The Promised Land or The Other Side – may be tantalizingly close. Like five weeks away close.

Just to remind, here’s how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define herd immunity:

“A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity.”

And herd immunity is important for more than pure public health reasons. Although the professionals still disagree on many of the specifics (including on exact herd immunity threshholds for a novel virus), they do agree that the greater to percentage of those immune, the closer society and the economy can move to their pre-virus normals.

Even so, the recent data support considerable optimism. For example, let’s say that if 70 percent of Americans become immune, the normality return can greatly accelerate. That 70 percent figure matters because it’s been used by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and President Biden’s chief medical adviser. And let’s bear in mind that the total U.S. population now is estimated by the Census Bureau at 330.23 million.

We start with a solid figure – the number of Americans who have been fully vaccinated. As of today, the CDC says it was 94.77 million as of yesterday. (Here’s the home page for the agency’s “Data Tracker.”)  As for reported virus cases, the same agency says they total 31.85 million as of yesterday. Take away the nearly 569,000 fatalities (a slightly less solid number because of differences across the nation in defining virus-caused deaths, among other problems), that makes 31.08 million Americans who have been reported infected and have survived. 

Now we get more speculative. Because so many of those infected have displayed no symptoms, it’s clear that the number of Americans who have actually been infected and survived is much higher. How much higher? One recent study pegged the figure at 71 million – but that was in February, when reported infections stood at 26.7 million. Let’s assume that the 71 million figure is reasonable, and also that the number of total infections as of yesterday remains 2.66 times higher than the number of reported infections – just as in February. If true, 82.67 million Americans have caught the virus and survived.

Add this number to the total of fully vaccinated Americans, and you get 177.44 million who are genuinely immune. That number in turn represents 53.73 percent of the country’s population. And it’s not all that far from the 70 percent herd immunity figure.

How soon can it be expected? According to the CDC, the number of fully vaccinated Americans is increasing daily by a seven-day average of 1.38 million as of April 20 (the latest figured). So if that rate holds, even if 82.67 million figure for Americans who have become naturally immune stays exactly the same, getting from the 177.44 million total number of immune Americans to the roughly 231 million needed to reach the 70 percent herd immunity figure would take just under 39 days. That is, herd immunity would arrive in very early June.

But because the number of naturally immune Americans will surely increase, rather than staying the same, herd immunity would surely come even sooner.

The 70 percent herd immunity figure, however, isn’t the only one suggested by Fauci and other specialists. As per the above linked CNN post, he’s also used 85 percent. That target would require a total immune population of 280.70 million, meaning that the United States currently has 103.26 million to go. If the numbers of those fully vaccinated keep growing at 1.38 million per day, and the number of those naturally immune or recovered stays at 82.67 million (which, again, it won’t), then 85 percent herd immunity is about 75 days away – meaning that it would arrive around mid-July.

It’s entirely possible that vaccine resistance could slow the above rate of vaccinations (it’s been falling since early April, the CDC data show), and therefore herd immunity’s attainment. But ironically, one of the biggest wild cards may be Fauci himself. As reported here, he admits that since the pandemic’s early days, he “had slowly but deliberately been moving the [herd immunity] goal posts [higher]. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.”

Indeed, during that interview, which took place in late December, Fauci said that the real herd immunity goal may be close to 90 percent. That would mean that just under 120 million more Americans would need to become immune somehow. Using the above (again, very conservative) methodology would push back herd immunity arrival to just under three months from now, or late July.

Of course, the bad news is that Fauci could persuade President Biden and the rest of America’s political leaders that the herd immunity number should be raised still higher. The good news is that even he can’t move it past 100 percent – can he?

Im-Politic: The CCP Virus Holiday Travel Surge That Wasn’t

Tags

Anthony Fauci, CCP Virus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, Im-Politic, Wuhan virus

One of the most valuable life lessons I’ve learned is that “Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean that it’s true.” And so it seems with widespread predictions, including by Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that the beginning of this past holiday travel season was bound to cause a spike in American CCP Virus cases. (See e.g., here and here.)

Such forecasts made sense because nothing seemed more certain to be a super-spreader event than the prospect of millions, and even tens of millions, of Americans on the move, and therefore crowding airports and train stations and plane and trains themselves, as well as congregating indoors with relatives and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the New Year.

Just one problem with these warnings: Although the holiday travel season has now come and gone, there’s no evidence that a holiday-related virus infections spike ever occurred.

Did the infection numbers go up? Of course they did. But that’s not the relevant question. Instead, it’s “Did the infection numbers go up faster once the holiday travel season began than before?” And here’s the evidence.

Thanksgiving last year came on November 26, so let’s assume that major travel began two days before. And let’s use the assessment from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that “Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus.” This means that any surge related to travel for that holiday should have been apparent by December 8.

According to the Washington Post‘s CCP virus tracker feature, the national seven-day average (7DA) for reported daily infections on November 24 was 173,852. On December 8, it was 207,713, an increase of 19.48 percent. That’s big and dreadful news by any measure.

But here’s what really counts. During the (comparable) 14-day period preceding November 24, reported 7DA daily infections rose by 40.81 percent – more than twice as fast. That’s a Thanksgiving travel surge?

And the Christmas travel season wasn’t any different. Let’s say that it, too, began two days before the actual holiday – on December 23. So 14 days later was January 6. Between those two dates, reported 7DA daily CCP Virus cases increased by 3.93 percent – a much slower rate than the over the two weeks following Thanksgiving. And the 14 days before? Reported infections 7DA infections were up 2.34 percent. So even less of a surge then.

Not that there’s been no national surge lately at all. Those pre-Thanksgiving results certainly qualify. Even more revealing – it’s clear from the Post chart (which I can’t reproduce here) that the biggest virus wave broke on the nation starting around October 18 and spread through about November 20. During that period, the 7DA for reported daily cases nearly doubled – from 56,781 to 168,316. That’s a surge.

Further, given what does truly seem to be known about the CCP Virus, the explanation seems to have little to do with holiday travel surges, or possibly any type of behavior change, and much to do with the onset of colder weather nation-wide. Last I checked, there wasn’t much government could do about that during these kinds of time periods.

At the same time, the prospect of mass vaccination over the next few months creates a reasonable hope that the keepers of the public health orthodoxy won’t have the chance to issue travel warnings next holiday season. But if the nation is unlucky enough to face another virus challenge then, let’s hope that the medical experts think twice before urging the kind of social isolation that can be at least as damaging to Americans’ well-being as any micro-organism.

Following Up: Nursing Home Deaths Still Dominating U.S. CCP Virus Fatalities

Tags

assisted living facilities, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, Following Up, Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, Kaiser Family Foundation, lockdowns, nursing homes, shutdowns, The New York Times, Worldometer.com, Wuhan virus

Given the recent U.S. surge in reported CCP Virus infections (but not yet U.S. deaths, according to sources such as the Worldometers.com website), I thought it was time to take another look at the nursing homes dimension of the pandemic. Depressingly, most of the evidence signals that it’s still at least as central to America’s virus fatality story.

RealityChek‘s last update, from mid-August, found that, since the pandemic’s early stages, the share of CCP Virus deaths linked with these facilities had more than doubled – to at least 41 percent. The phrase “at least” matters a lot because U.S. states’ reporting of these losses is far from uniform.

The New York Times, which had been doing an admirable job of tracking the scattered statistics that are available, hasn’t focused on the issue since then, but several others have stepped into the breach and some suggest that the problem has worsened.

In early September, the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation reported that “People in long-term care facilities make up 8 percent of coronavirus cases, but 45 percent of all COVID-19 deaths.” And worrisomely, Kaiser found signs, as of August, of an uptick.

Moreover, in a second September report, Kaiser examined another set of institutions in which senior citizens are heavily concentrated – assisted living facilities. It concluded that, despite data even less complete than for nursing homes, CCP Virus deaths were strongly increasing among residents and staff alike between June and August.

Similar figures were published in late August by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a think tank that bills itself as non-partisan but that looks like of right-of-center-ish to me. (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”). Actually, the organization published three sets of figures, each using a different methodology and each covering both nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The low end number pegged virus deaths associated with both at 42.1 percent, the middle at 42.7 percent, and the high end estimate was 46.9 percent.

What says the U.S. government, you might ask? Nothing terribly helpful. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does try to monitor the situation, and its data are more recent than those of the other two outfits – bringing the story up to October 18. But it only includes information from the relatively small number of states that voluntarily send in their numbers. That is, there’s no reporting requirement. The two private sector organizations discussed above use other sources, like press accounts – which are admittedly not definitive.

If you do look up these numbers, however, you’ll find that the agency pegs the nursing home death toll at 61,765 as of October 18. But you’ll also find that no overall U.S. death total is provided for that date.

The Worldometers site’s number for the day is 224,792. Do the math, and nursing home deaths as a share of total deaths comes to 27.47 percent. Yet not only is the result missing many states’ fatalities. It doesn’t include assisted living facilities, either.

I’ve argued in my previous posts that the high share of total U.S. virus-connected deaths is argues strongly for concentrating prevention and mitigation efforts on such unusually vulnerable populations, rather than the economy or the society as a whole. As new infections climb once more, and talk of major lockdown increase just as quickly, this still sounds like the strategy to choose.

Im-Politic: Biden’s Massive China Fakery

Tags

2020 election, Biden, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China, China trade deal, coronavirus, COVID 19, currency, currency manipulation, Hunter Biden, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, Obama, Trade, travel ban, WHO, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, WTO, Wuhan virus, xenophobia

Imagine the gall that would’ve been required had Republican nominee Mitt Romney campaigned for President in 2012 by blaming incumbent Barack Obama for the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2007-09. Not only did these economic disasters erupt well before Obama took office, but the White House at that time had been held for eight years by the GOP. (The Democrats did win control of the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections, but still….) 

Multiply that gall many times over and you get this year’s presumptive Democratic candidate for President, Joe Biden, charging that Donald Trump is largely responsible for the devastating hit the nation is taking from the CCP Virus because Mr. Trump has been too soft on China. The Biden claims are much more contemptible because whereas Romney played no role in bringing on the Wall Street meltdown and subsequent near-depression, Biden has long supported many of the China policies that have both greatly enriched and militarily strengthened the People’s Republic, and sent key links in America’s supply chains for producing vital healthcare-related goods offshore – including to a China that has threatened the United States with healthcare supplies blackmail.

The Biden campaign’s most comprehensive indictment of President Trump’s China and CCP Virus policies was made in this release, titled “Trump Rolled Over for China.” Its core claim:

“We’d say Trump is weak on China, but that’s an understatement. Trump rolled over in a way that has been catastrophic for our country. He did nothing for months because he put himself and his political fortunes first. He refused to push China on its coronavirus response and delayed taking action to mitigate the crisis in an effort not to upset Beijing and secure a limited trade deal that has largely gone unfulfilled.”

More specifically, the Biden organization claims that even long before the pandemic broke out, Mr. Trump has “never followed through” on his 2016 campaign’s “big promises about being tough on China” and simply conducted “reckless trade policies that pushed farmers and manufacturers to the brink” before he was “forced to make concessions to China without making any progress toward a level playing field for American industry.”

I’d say “the mind reels” but that phrase doesn’t begin to capture the mendacity at work here. Not to mention the sheer incompetence. After all, the trade deal was signed on January 15. It was only two weeks before that China told the World Health Organization (WHO) that an unknown illness had appeared in Wuhan. On January 3, China officially notified the U.S. government. It was only the day before the trade deal signing that WHO broadcast to the world China’s claim (later exposed as disastrously erroneous – at best) that no evidence of person-to-person transmission had been found. It wasn’t until the very day of the deal signing that the individual who became the first known American virus case left Wuhan and arrived in the United States. It wasn’t until January 21 that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed him as the first American victim.  (See this timeline for specifics.)

So evidently the Biden folks don’t know how to read a calendar.

Meanwhile, in early January, The New York Times has reported, CDC offered to send a team of its specialists to China to observe conditions and offer assistance. China never replied. On January 7, four days after Washington received its first CCP Virus notification, but two weeks before it identified the first U.S. virus case, the CDC began planning for tests. We now know that it bungled this challenge badly.

But did Trump coddle China in order to keep Beijing from terminating the agreement? Surely Biden’s team isn’t calling that failure an effort to appease China. It’s also true that on February 7, the Trump administration announced its readiness to provide Beijing with $100 million worth of anti-virus aid to China (and other countries), and had just sent nearly 18 tons of medical supplies (including protective gear) to help the People’s Republic combat the pandemic. But is the Biden campaign condemning these actions? From its indictment, it’s clear that its focus instead is on the numerous Trump statements praising China’s anti-virus performance and transparency, and reassuring the American public that the situation was under control.

Where, however, is the evidence that these remarks amounted to the President treating China with kid gloves, and stemmed from desperation to save the trade deal? Just as important, here we come to a fundamental incoherence in Biden’s treatment of the agreement – descriptions that are so flatly contradictory that they reek of flailing. After all, on the one hand, the Phase One agreement is dismissed as a fake that fails to safeguard American trade and broader economic interests adequately. On the other, it assumes that China has been eager from the start to call the whole thing off. Yet if Phase One had accomplished so little from the U.S. standpoint, wouldn’t Beijing actually have been focused on sustaining this charade?

But even if the Biden read on trade deal politics is correct, how to explain the January 31 Trump announcement of major restrictions on inbound travel from China that went into effect February 2? Clearly China didn’t like it. Or were these reactions part of a secret plot between the American and Chinese Presidents to snow their respective publics and indeed the entire world?

How, moreover, to explain such Trump administration policies as the continuing crackdown on Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, and its effort to kick out of the U.S. market  Chinese services provider China Telecom? Or the ongoing intensification of the Justice Department’s campaign against Chinese espionage efforts centered on U.S. college and university campuses? Or yesterday’s administration announcement that although some payments of U.S. tariffs on imports would be deferred in order to help hard-pressed American retailers survive the CCP Virus-induced national economic shutdown, the steep tariffs on literally hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of prospective imports from China would remain firmly in place?

In addition, all these measures of course put the lie to another central Biden claim – that Mr. Trump is not only soft on China today, but has been soft since his inauguration. A bigger goof – or whopper – can scarcely be imagined.

Unless it’s the companion Biden insistence that the Trump trade wars have devastated American agriculture and manufacturing? When, as documented painstakingly here, U.S. farm prices began diving into the dumps well before the Trump 2016 victory (when Biden himself was second-in-command in America)? When manufacturing, as documented equally painstakingly, went through the mildest recession conceivable, when its output was clearly hobbled by Boeing’s completely un-tradewar-related safety woes), and when every indication during the pre-virus weeks pointed to rebound? When the raging inflation widely predicted to stem from the tariffs has been absolutely nowhere in sight?

Which leaves the biggest lies of all: The claim that Biden is being tough on China now – the promise that he’ll “hold China accountable,” and the implication that he’s always been far-sighted and hard-headed in dealing with Beijing

According to the campaign’s Trump indictment, the former Vice President “publicly warned Trump in February not to take China’s word” on its anti-virus efforts. But this Biden warning didn’t come until February 26. As to making China pay, the campaign offers zero specifics – and given Biden’s staunch opposition to Mr. Trump’s tariffs (and silence on the other, major elements of the Trump approach to China) it’s legitimate to ask what on earth he’s talking about. In addition, Biden insinuated that the Trump curbs on travel from China were “xenophobia” the very day they were announced – before pushback prompted him to endorse them.

Finally, the Biden China record has been dreadful by any real-world standards. In the words of this analysis from the Cato Institute, “he voted consistently to maintain normal trade relations with China, including permanent NTR in 2000” – meaning that he favored the disastrous decision to admit China into the World Trade Organization (WTO), which gave Beijing invaluable protection against unilateral U.S. efforts to combat its pervasive trade predation. He did apparently vote once for sanctions to punish China for its currency manipulation (which has artificially under-priced goods made in China and thereby given them government-created advantages against any competition), but many such Senate trade votes were purely for show. (I apologize for not being able to find the specific reference, and will nail down the matter in an addendum and post as soon as possible.)  

Revealingly, once he was in the Obama administration, he failed to lift a finger to continue the battle against this Chinese exchange-rate protectionism, and served as the President’s “leading pitchman” for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whose provisions would have handed China many of the benefits of membership without imposing any of the obligations. More generally, there’s no evidence of any Biden words or actions opposing an Obama strategy that greatly enriched the People’s Republic, and therefore supercharged its military potential and actual power. 

For good measure, despite constant bragging that his personal contact with numerous foreign leaders during his Senate and Vice Presidential years, he completely misjudged Xi Jinping, writing in a 2011 article that the Chinese dictator (then heir apparent to the top job in Beijing) “agrees” that “we have a stake in each other’s success” and that “On issues from global security to global economic growth, we share common challenges and responsibilities — and we have incentives to work together.”

There clearly are many valid reasons to support Biden’s Presidential bid.  But if China’s rise and its implications worry you (as they should), then the former Vice President’s record of dealing with Beijing just as clearly shouldn’t be one of them. 

Following Up: Why the Economy Shutdown vs Restart Debate is Still Idiotic

Tags

CCP Virus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, drug abuse, Following Up, healthcare, Im-Politic, infant mortality, mortality, opioids, poverty, restart, suicide, Tim Mullaney, Trump, Wuhan virus

The heated debate over whether it’s more important to open the economy relatively quickly, or wait until the CCP Virus really is under control slogs on. And I mean slogs on, since once it became clear that the pandemic wasn’t going to be even close to a Black Death-like catastrophe, everyone with a working brain should have recognized that immense uncertainties are all around, and that both approaches therefore entail terrible risk.

One built-in complication, though, continues to muddy the waters. And even though decisive clarity can’t be gleaned from the available data, it’s worth pointing out: CCP Virus deaths are relatively easy to calculate – even if not perfectly identifiable, because single causes of death tend to be difficult and controversial to pinpoint for victims with important underlying health problems, and therefore different U.S. states have (not surprisingly) come up with different standards for counting them.

Deaths from a prolonged economic slump like the one into which America has been plunged are much harder to determine, and data are therefore more controversial. But no one should doubt that they’re noteworthy, and worth taking into account in any economy restart decisions.

As commonsensical as these observations sound, however, they continue being vigorously disputed, and one of the few such arguments I’ve seen that try to quantify relative rates of loss has come from economics journalist Tim Mullaney. Full disclosure: I’ve criticized Mullaney here before, finding him to be an extreme hater even by Never Trumper standards. But I hope you’ll trust me when I say I’m singling out his latest article simply because it makes the “restart later” argument in such data-dependent terms.

According to Mullaney, President Trump and other prominent conservatives are blowing the most deceitful smoke imaginable by insisting “You have to reopen the economy despite the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, quickly, lest a wave of suicides, domestic battery and the like overwhelm even the death toll from coronavirus.”

His evidence? The CCP Virus daily U.S. death toll when he wrote his article (2,763) dwarfs the numbers of lives lost each day in the United States to economic-related causes (like many suicides), as well as the numbers lost daily during the nation’s wars. (As of yesterday, daily national CCP Virus deaths hit a much higher 4,591.) * SEE CORRECTION BELOW

The war comparisons are sobering – no doubt about it. But if you look at them realistically, so is what we know of the death toll from various forms of economic privation. For example, it’s true that “only” 132 Americans took their lives each day in 2018 (the last year for which statistics are available, as is the case with all the following numbers). And there’s no way to know how many were due to the victims’ economic circumstances. But it’s also true that, as of 2017, 1.4 million Americans tried and failed to commit suicide. There’s no way to know the reason for each one, but the daily figure comes to 3,865. Surely economics had something to do with many of them.

The clear implication: If not for circumstances unrelated to the economy, the numbers of  suicides and of economy-related suicides would be much higher. Therefore, economic-induced extreme despair is undoubtedly much more widespread than the actual suicide rates indicate. And they signal the presence of huge economy-related mental health problems. Further, given the stigma society still attaches to suicide, it’s fair to assume that the attempt numbers in particular are undercounted.

That same year, 192 Americans each day died of drug overdoses. Of these, 130 came from opioids – the category most likely influenced by worsening economic circumstances and prospects. And just as with suicides and attempted suicides, the numbers of overdose deaths are dwarfed by the attempted overdose numbers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t provide absolute annual figures, but they do note that “For every drug overdose that results in death, there are many more nonfatal overdoses….” Chalk lots of them up to economic despair, too.

You can also learn a lot from estimates of annual lives lost to poverty as such. In 2011, a Columbia University study pegged them at 671 per day in 2000 – not a matter of thousands, but not bupkis, either. And here’s another poverty-related mortality statistic: In 2018, about 59 newborn American babies died each day. Were all due to poverty? Of course not. But they’re most heavily concentrated in racial and ethnic minority groups with the highest poverty rates, so that’s pretty revealing.

Infant mortality, moreover, points to another health and death rate reality that’s strongly affected by the state of a national economy: the state of its healthcare system.

Given America’s vast wealth and annual healthcare expenditures, and its continuing major healthcare problems, there’s no doubt that money is no panacea for better health and lower death rates. Structures of national healthcare systems matter critically. At the same time, does anyone seriously believe that the U.S. healthcare system is going to do a better job on mortality and other fronts the worse the economy fares and the longer the current downturn lasts?

Which brings up a related question: What’s likelier to happen first? Indeed, much likelier to happen first? The kinds of major economic and social policy reforms needed to alleviate American poverty significantly, or to cure what ails the healthcare system? Or finding anti-CCP Virus vaccine or cure? If you’re not sure, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Those wanting a substantial economy restart sooner rather than later can legitimately point out that the above economy-related mortality numbers overlap a great deal. And that’s true. Second and even third waves, as they warn, seem all too likely as well. But it’s also true that, when you add them all up, they’re significant, and at best can’t be too far away from the CCP Virus death figures in which much more confidence is justified.

How far away? Honestly, why should anyone care? They’re clearly close enough to warrant concern that, as Mullaney’s conservative targets contend, a prolonged mandated economic slump will exact terrible human health costs – and that the longer it lasts, the higher it will grow. It’s also crucial to remember that the CCPVirus death toll shows signs of trending down – however horrific it will ultimately be – and that absolutely no one who anyone’s listening to is urging a total national economy restart all at once. 

All of which reinforces conclusions I’ve been pushing since the CCP Virus became a genuine crisis: It confronts Americans will trade-offs as tragic as they are difficult to figure out, and that anyone arguing to the contrary is more interested in taking cheap, invariably partisan, shots than in finding solutions.

*CORRECTION.  The 4,591 U.S. deaths figure I reported here was not for April 17, but for April 16.  The April 17 figure was actually 3,856, and today’s figure is only 1,891.  Moreover, as explained here, “The spike in mid-April is due to New York City authorities adding probable cases to the city’s death tally.”  So this is the kind of correction that clearly works in favor of my argument, since these numbers indicate even more strongly that this still terrible daily figure is on the way down, and that any gap between it and comparable figures due to economically-induced mortality is even smaller than previously apparent.

Glad I Didn’t Say That: Chicken Little Warnings About Tariffs & Sanitizer Shortages

Tags

CCP Virus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, disinfectants, Glad I Didn't Say That!, hand sanitizers, Mainstream Media, MSM, soap, tariffs, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, Trump, water, Wuhan virus

“Widespread shortages of hand sanitizer, disinfectants and other products needed to combat the spread of the coronavirus are being exacerbated by the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, according to public filings by companies asking for exemptions from the levies.”

– The Wall Street Journal, April 10, 2020

“CDC recommends washing hands with soap and water whenever possible because handwashing reduces the amounts of all types of germs and chemicals on hands. But if soap and water are not available, using a hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol can help you avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others.”

– Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 3, 2020

(Sources: “U.S. Tariffs Hamper Imports of Sanitizer, Disinfectants,” by Katy Stech Ferek and Josh Zumbrun , The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tariffs-hamper-imports-of-sanitizer-disinfectants-11586683800?mod=hp_lead_pos5 and “Show Me the Science – When & How to Use Hand Sanitizer in Community Settings,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” as updated through March 3, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-sanitizer.html)

Following Up: The Mainstream Media’s One-Sided CCP Virus Blame Game Continues

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Following Up, Mainstream Media, MSM, Robert Redfield, testing, The Washington Post, Trump, Wuhan virus

I’m well on the way toward formulating a new Law of Life: “If you’re hoping for accurate information about anything, always read to the very end of a relevant news item.” And I got a lot closer to final endorsement upon opening my Washington Post today and seeing the banner headline topping the front page blaring “70 days of denial, delays and dysfunction.” The subhead helped, too: “From the White House to the CDC, political and institutional failures cascaded as the virus spread. Despite being better prepared than many countries, the U.S. saw opportunities to mitigate the crisis slip away.”

Honestly: Why didn’t the Post just lead off with “Why the Bozo in the Oval Office Needs to be Impeached Immediately or Defeated in November”? What else could the newspaper’s real intent have been?

At this point, let me just note that I don’t keep focusing (in part) on the Mainstream Media’s (MSM) performance during this CCP Virus crisis because I don’t like their journalists, or because I’m a supporter of many of the President’s policies and I think (correctly, in my opinion) that these news organizations have done an especially poor and biased job in covering the Russia collusion and related impeachment stories.

Instead, I keep focusing on the MSM because they’re the main way the nation receives not only news but much information of any kind, and this goes double for the current situation – even taking into account the daily presidential press briefings (which, not coincidentally, have been directed toward the…press).

In this vein, here’s some crucial information that you find out if you make it all the way to the end of this looooong story, which maintains in the fifth paragraph (which comes on the front page of that print edition lead story, “Warnings were sounded, including at the highest levels of government, but the president was deaf to them until the enemy had already struck.” For good measure, in the seventh paragraph, the Post reporting team emphasizes that

“it took 70 days from that initial notification [from China on January 3 – from a health official to the head of the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC – that something new and dangerous was spreading in Wuhan] for Trump to treat the coronavirus not as a distant threat or harmless flu strain well under control, but as a lethal force that had outflanked America’s defenses and was poised to kill tens of thousands of citizens. That more-than-two-month stretch now stands as critical time that was squandered.”

And let’s not forget the charge that “Trump’s baseless assertions in those weeks, including his claim that it would all just ‘miraculously’ go away, sowed significant public confusion and contradicted the urgent messages of public health experts.”

Again, what could be more awful?

Elsewhere in the article, however, we learn that

>”On Jan. 6, [CDC chief, Robert Redfield] sent a letter to the Chinese offering to send help, including a team of CDC scientists. China rebuffed the offer for weeks, turning away assistance and depriving U.S. authorities of an early chance to get a sample of the virus, critical for developing diagnostic tests and any potential vaccine. China impeded the U.S. response in other ways, including by withholding accurate information about the outbreak.”

>Nor did China’s obstructionism end there: it reported on January 14 that it had seen “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

>As of late January, “The Chinese were still refusing to share the viral samples they had collected and were using to develop their own tests. In frustration, U.S. officials looked for other possible routes.

“A biocontainment lab at the University of Texas medical branch in Galveston had a research partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) head of preparedness and response hoped that scientists at the two labs “could arrange a transaction on their own without government interference. At first, the lab in Wuhan agreed, but officials in Beijing intervened Jan. 24 and blocked any lab-to-lab transfer.

“There is no indication that officials sought to escalate the matter or enlist Trump to intervene.”

And in a major omission, this lengthy Post account ignored compelling evidence that the first CCP Virus case in China dates from November 17.

>On the purely American side, regarding testing, the CDC had developed “an institutional arrogance, a sense that even in the face of a potential crisis there was no pressing need to involve private labs, academic institutions, hospitals and global health organizations also capable of developing tests.”

In other words, these CDC failings long pre-dated the Trump presidency.

>In a meeting in the Situation Room in mid-February, [head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony S.] “Fauci and Redfield told White House officials that there was no evidence yet of worrisome person-to-person transmission in the United States. In hindsight, it appears almost certain that the virus was taking hold in communities at that point.”

The point of this post isn’t to add to the blame game, but rather to underscore how one-sided the MSM’s participation has been. And even though the proverbial buck in the United States rightly stops with the President, and consequently it doesn’t sound terribly convincing to claim that many long-serving experts in the U.S. bureaucracy have let him down, in this case, here’s an episode where it has the added virtue of lots of truth.