Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
May 4, 2020
People who have recovered from Covid-19 are “very likely” to be immune to the virus, according to the CEO of Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche. CEO Severin Schwan told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Monday he believes those who had already had the coronavirus would now be immune to the illness — but he pointed out that more research was required.
“We know from other coronaviruses that it’s very likely as soon as you have gone through an infection you will also acquire immunity,” he said. “But this still, nevertheless, has to be proven over time. We need studies to really see whether those people who have been infected once are subject to reinfection. But there’s a high likelihood that this will be the case.”
Schwan’s take on immunity to Covid-19 came after South Korean scientists concluded it was impossible for the virus to reinfect humans.
There had been concern that people were appearing to fall ill with the coronavirus a second time in Japan, China and South Korea — but researchers from the South Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said last week that this phenomenon had resulted from testing failures.
snip
Roche CEO says it is 'very likely' people develop immunity after recovering from coronavirus
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/roche-ceo-very-likely-coronavirus-patients-develop-immunity.htmlPeople who have recovered from Covid-19 are “very likely” to be immune to the virus, according to the CEO of Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche. CEO Severin Schwan told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Monday he believes those who had already had the coronavirus would now be immune to the illness — but he pointed out that more research was required.
“We know from other coronaviruses that it’s very likely as soon as you have gone through an infection you will also acquire immunity,” he said. “But this still, nevertheless, has to be proven over time. We need studies to really see whether those people who have been infected once are subject to reinfection. But there’s a high likelihood that this will be the case.”
Schwan’s take on immunity to Covid-19 came after South Korean scientists concluded it was impossible for the virus to reinfect humans.
There had been concern that people were appearing to fall ill with the coronavirus a second time in Japan, China and South Korea — but researchers from the South Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said last week that this phenomenon had resulted from testing failures.
snip
May 4, 2020
https://qz.com/1850518/roches-new-coronavirus-antibody-test-is-much-more-accurate/
Several coronavirus antibody tests have been authorized for public use, but so far their accuracy has been iffy. A new test created by Roche and cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use today, May 3rd, significantly ups the standard.
Roche announced that its test is 100% accurate at detecting coronavirus antibodies and 99.8% accurate at ruling out the presence of those antibodies, meaning only one in 500 tests will get a false positive. Antibody tests use blood samples to assess whether a person had been previously infected, so they’re useful to determine the true spread of coronavirus.
In comparison, the first test the FDA approved for emergency use, created by Cellex, is 93.8% accurate at detecting coronavirus antibodies (this is known as sensitivity), and 95.6% accurate at ruling out the presence of antibodies (known as specificity.) Meanwhile, Premier Biotech’s test has sensitivity of 80.3% and specificity of 99.5%.
Though the differences in accuracy may seem small, a Quartz simulation shows they have huge implications when only a small proportion of people are infected, as the number of false positives can easily equal the number of true positives. For example, if 5% of 1,000 people have had coronavirus then, using the Cellex test, a positive result stands only 49.5% chance of being correct. Using the Roche test on that same population means that a positive result is 96% likely to be correct.
snip
Roche’s COVID-19 antibody test receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization and is available in markets accepting the CE mark
https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm
The serology test has a specificity greater than 99.8% and sensitivity of 100% (14 Days post-PCR confirmation)
The high specificity of the test is crucial to determine reliably if a person has been exposed to the virus and if the patient has developed antibodies
Roche will provide high double-digit millions of tests already in May for countries accepting the CE mark and in the U.S. under Emergency Use Authorization, further ramping up capacities thereafter
The test is available on Roche’s cobas e analysers which are widely available around the world
snip
Roche CEO says it is ‘very likely’ people develop immunity after recovering from coronavirus
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/roche-ceo-very-likely-coronavirus-patients-develop-immunity.html
Coronavirus patients can’t relapse, South Korean scientists believe
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-patients-cant-relapse-south-korean-scientists-believe-rkm8zm7d9
Thursday April 30 2020, 12.00pm BST, The Times
My wife and I both tested antibody positive Friday (we got the news this morning) with this blood serological test (we already had tested positive with a less accurate test but our doctor asked us if we wanted to be in a study with the Roche test) and we are both breaking quarantine here in Sweden and going back to work next Monday. Close to 3 months is enough, especially as there have been almost zero people under 40 die here of COVID-19 (revised figures fro our national heath service now are 10 deaths in the 30-39 age cohort, and zero deaths under 30 years of age,per our doctor at Karolinska universitetssjukhuset in Solna, and that is with most all of the schools under high school level open the whole time) and no one we know is still self-isolating, most never did. It obviously did not stop us from being infected anyway.
We do not at all regret erring on the side of caution, but the time has come to end this (for us, but each person needs to weigh their own risk/reward options.)
The latest coronavirus antibody test is a lot more accurate (100% accurate at detecting antibodies)
99.8% accurate at ruling out the presence of those antibodieshttps://qz.com/1850518/roches-new-coronavirus-antibody-test-is-much-more-accurate/
Several coronavirus antibody tests have been authorized for public use, but so far their accuracy has been iffy. A new test created by Roche and cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use today, May 3rd, significantly ups the standard.
Roche announced that its test is 100% accurate at detecting coronavirus antibodies and 99.8% accurate at ruling out the presence of those antibodies, meaning only one in 500 tests will get a false positive. Antibody tests use blood samples to assess whether a person had been previously infected, so they’re useful to determine the true spread of coronavirus.
In comparison, the first test the FDA approved for emergency use, created by Cellex, is 93.8% accurate at detecting coronavirus antibodies (this is known as sensitivity), and 95.6% accurate at ruling out the presence of antibodies (known as specificity.) Meanwhile, Premier Biotech’s test has sensitivity of 80.3% and specificity of 99.5%.
Though the differences in accuracy may seem small, a Quartz simulation shows they have huge implications when only a small proportion of people are infected, as the number of false positives can easily equal the number of true positives. For example, if 5% of 1,000 people have had coronavirus then, using the Cellex test, a positive result stands only 49.5% chance of being correct. Using the Roche test on that same population means that a positive result is 96% likely to be correct.
snip
Roche’s COVID-19 antibody test receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization and is available in markets accepting the CE mark
https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm
The serology test has a specificity greater than 99.8% and sensitivity of 100% (14 Days post-PCR confirmation)
The high specificity of the test is crucial to determine reliably if a person has been exposed to the virus and if the patient has developed antibodies
Roche will provide high double-digit millions of tests already in May for countries accepting the CE mark and in the U.S. under Emergency Use Authorization, further ramping up capacities thereafter
The test is available on Roche’s cobas e analysers which are widely available around the world
snip
Roche CEO says it is ‘very likely’ people develop immunity after recovering from coronavirus
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/roche-ceo-very-likely-coronavirus-patients-develop-immunity.html
Coronavirus patients can’t relapse, South Korean scientists believe
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-patients-cant-relapse-south-korean-scientists-believe-rkm8zm7d9
Thursday April 30 2020, 12.00pm BST, The Times
My wife and I both tested antibody positive Friday (we got the news this morning) with this blood serological test (we already had tested positive with a less accurate test but our doctor asked us if we wanted to be in a study with the Roche test) and we are both breaking quarantine here in Sweden and going back to work next Monday. Close to 3 months is enough, especially as there have been almost zero people under 40 die here of COVID-19 (revised figures fro our national heath service now are 10 deaths in the 30-39 age cohort, and zero deaths under 30 years of age,per our doctor at Karolinska universitetssjukhuset in Solna, and that is with most all of the schools under high school level open the whole time) and no one we know is still self-isolating, most never did. It obviously did not stop us from being infected anyway.
We do not at all regret erring on the side of caution, but the time has come to end this (for us, but each person needs to weigh their own risk/reward options.)
May 4, 2020
related
Democratic challenge materializes to Rep. Ilhan Omar
Antone Melton-Meaux has money and support in DFL Party bid to unseat representative, but the headwinds remain strong.
https://www.startribune.com/democratic-challenge-materializes-to-rep-ilhan-omar/570146871/
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar launched her political career with an underdog win over a well-known fellow Democrat. Now she’s facing a challenger trying to pull off the same kind of upset. After a turbulent first term in Congress, Omar faces an unexpectedly strong primary challenge from political newcomer Antone Melton-Meaux, an attorney and professional mediator who has promised a more collaborative style for a Minneapolis-based congressional seat that has been in DFL hands since 1963.
Political handicappers expect Omar, 37, to retain the endorsement of DFL Party delegates later this month. But Melton-Meaux, 47, who has raised more than $400,000 for his fledgling campaign, intends to take the race to Minnesota’s Aug. 11 primary and a broader set of voters. The showdown is highlighting Omar’s stormy first 16 months in Congress, where she established herself as a nationally prominent voice on her party’s left, a foil for President Donald Trump, and a lightning rod for controversy, spanning from her attacks on Israel’s influence in U.S. politics to her well-publicized divorce and remarriage to her political consultant.
Primary challenges against members of Congress are rare in Minnesota, and even more rarely successful. In Omar, Melton-Meaux faces one of the most recognizable new faces of the Democratic Party, a member of the “Squad” of freshman women of color in the House — which has helped her amass more than $3.4 million in campaign cash. But at home, Omar has suffered a few defections in the state’s DFL hierarchy. Most have gravitated to Melton-Meaux. Although he is not Omar’s only DFL challenger, he is by far the best funded.
“He’s got some significant names and resources behind him,” said Mike Erlandson, a former DFL chairman. But Erlandson, a one-time chief of staff to former Fifth District congressman Martin Sabo, said Omar would be hard to unseat. “Few have the fundraising prowess she has behind her. Incumbents are powerful, she has very high name ID, and she’s been relatively quiet this year compared to last,” he said.
snip
New Rump Tweet, having a go at Ilhan Omar and endorsing her opponent
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257286796523814914related
Democratic challenge materializes to Rep. Ilhan Omar
Antone Melton-Meaux has money and support in DFL Party bid to unseat representative, but the headwinds remain strong.
https://www.startribune.com/democratic-challenge-materializes-to-rep-ilhan-omar/570146871/
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar launched her political career with an underdog win over a well-known fellow Democrat. Now she’s facing a challenger trying to pull off the same kind of upset. After a turbulent first term in Congress, Omar faces an unexpectedly strong primary challenge from political newcomer Antone Melton-Meaux, an attorney and professional mediator who has promised a more collaborative style for a Minneapolis-based congressional seat that has been in DFL hands since 1963.
Political handicappers expect Omar, 37, to retain the endorsement of DFL Party delegates later this month. But Melton-Meaux, 47, who has raised more than $400,000 for his fledgling campaign, intends to take the race to Minnesota’s Aug. 11 primary and a broader set of voters. The showdown is highlighting Omar’s stormy first 16 months in Congress, where she established herself as a nationally prominent voice on her party’s left, a foil for President Donald Trump, and a lightning rod for controversy, spanning from her attacks on Israel’s influence in U.S. politics to her well-publicized divorce and remarriage to her political consultant.
Primary challenges against members of Congress are rare in Minnesota, and even more rarely successful. In Omar, Melton-Meaux faces one of the most recognizable new faces of the Democratic Party, a member of the “Squad” of freshman women of color in the House — which has helped her amass more than $3.4 million in campaign cash. But at home, Omar has suffered a few defections in the state’s DFL hierarchy. Most have gravitated to Melton-Meaux. Although he is not Omar’s only DFL challenger, he is by far the best funded.
“He’s got some significant names and resources behind him,” said Mike Erlandson, a former DFL chairman. But Erlandson, a one-time chief of staff to former Fifth District congressman Martin Sabo, said Omar would be hard to unseat. “Few have the fundraising prowess she has behind her. Incumbents are powerful, she has very high name ID, and she’s been relatively quiet this year compared to last,” he said.
snip
May 3, 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/coronavirus-extremists.html
America’s extremists are attempting to turn the coronavirus pandemic into a potent recruiting tool both in the deep corners of the internet and on the streets of state capitals by twisting the public health crisis to bolster their white supremacist, anti-government agenda. Although the protests that have broken out across the country have drawn out a wide variety of people pressing to lift stay-at-home orders, the presence of extremists cannot be missed, with their anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic signs and coded messages aimed at inspiring the faithful, say those who track such movements.
April is typically a busy month for white supremacists. There is Hitler’s birthday, which they contort into a celebration. There is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the domestic attack 25 years ago that killed 168 people and still serves as a rallying call for new extremist recruits. But this April, something else overshadowed those chilling milestones. It was the coronavirus, and the disruption it wreaked on society, that became the extremists’ battle cry.
Embellishing Covid-19 developments to fit their usual agenda, extremists spread disinformation on the transmission of the virus and disparage stay-at-home orders as “medical martial law” — the long-anticipated advent of a totalitarian state. “They are being very effective in capitalizing on the pandemic,” said Devin Burghart, a veteran researcher of white nationalists who runs the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, a Seattle-based research center on far right movements.
What success the groups have had in finding fresh recruits is not yet clear, but new research indicates a significant jump in people consuming extremist material while under lockdown. Various violent incidents have been linked to white supremacist or anti-government perpetrators enraged over aspects of the pandemic. The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness said in March that white supremacists have encouraged followers to conduct attacks during the crisis to incite fear and target ethnic minorities and immigrants. “We have noticed domestic extremist groups taking advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic by spreading disinformation,” Jared M. Maples, its director, said in a statement. The coronavirus has been dismissed as a hoax, painted as a Jewish-run conspiracy and, alternatively, described as a disease spread by nonwhite immigrants, he said.
snip
NYT : The Coronavirus Becomes a Battle Cry for U.S. Extremists
White supremacists seek to stoke the fear and disruption caused by the pandemic to push their agenda and to recruit.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/coronavirus-extremists.html
America’s extremists are attempting to turn the coronavirus pandemic into a potent recruiting tool both in the deep corners of the internet and on the streets of state capitals by twisting the public health crisis to bolster their white supremacist, anti-government agenda. Although the protests that have broken out across the country have drawn out a wide variety of people pressing to lift stay-at-home orders, the presence of extremists cannot be missed, with their anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic signs and coded messages aimed at inspiring the faithful, say those who track such movements.
April is typically a busy month for white supremacists. There is Hitler’s birthday, which they contort into a celebration. There is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the domestic attack 25 years ago that killed 168 people and still serves as a rallying call for new extremist recruits. But this April, something else overshadowed those chilling milestones. It was the coronavirus, and the disruption it wreaked on society, that became the extremists’ battle cry.
Embellishing Covid-19 developments to fit their usual agenda, extremists spread disinformation on the transmission of the virus and disparage stay-at-home orders as “medical martial law” — the long-anticipated advent of a totalitarian state. “They are being very effective in capitalizing on the pandemic,” said Devin Burghart, a veteran researcher of white nationalists who runs the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, a Seattle-based research center on far right movements.
What success the groups have had in finding fresh recruits is not yet clear, but new research indicates a significant jump in people consuming extremist material while under lockdown. Various violent incidents have been linked to white supremacist or anti-government perpetrators enraged over aspects of the pandemic. The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness said in March that white supremacists have encouraged followers to conduct attacks during the crisis to incite fear and target ethnic minorities and immigrants. “We have noticed domestic extremist groups taking advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic by spreading disinformation,” Jared M. Maples, its director, said in a statement. The coronavirus has been dismissed as a hoax, painted as a Jewish-run conspiracy and, alternatively, described as a disease spread by nonwhite immigrants, he said.
snip
May 3, 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Iraqi border agents at the Zurbatiya border crossing with Iran. On the other side lies the largest epicenter of the virus in the Middle East. On the Iraqi side, there are relatively few cases. Credit...Ivor Prickett for The New York Times
The coronavirus has killed so many people in Iran that the country has resorted to mass burials, but in neighboring Iraq, the body count is fewer than 100. The Dominican Republic has reported nearly 7,600 cases of the virus. Just across the border, Haiti has recorded about 85. In Indonesia, thousands are believed to have died of the coronavirus. In nearby Malaysia, a strict lockdown has kept fatalities to about 100.
The coronavirus has touched almost every country on earth, but its impact has seemed capricious. Global metropolises like New York, Paris and London have been devastated, while teeming cities like Bangkok, Baghdad, New Delhi and Lagos have, so far, largely been spared. The question of why the virus has overwhelmed some places and left others relatively untouched is a puzzle that has spawned numerous theories and speculations but no definitive answers. That knowledge could have profound implications for how countries respond to the virus, for determining who is at risk and for knowing when it’s safe to go out again.
There are already hundreds of studies underway around the world looking into how demographics, pre-existing conditions and genetics might affect the wide variation in impact. Doctors in Saudi Arabia are studying whether genetic differences may help explain varying levels of severity in Covid-19 cases among Saudi Arabs, while scientists in Brazil are looking into the relationship between genetics and Covid-19 complications. Teams in multiple countries are studying if common hypertension medications might worsen the disease’s severity and whether a particular tuberculosis vaccine might do the opposite.
Many developing nations with hot climates and young populations have escaped the worst, suggesting that temperature and demographics could be factors. But countries like Peru, Indonesia and Brazil, tropical countries in the throes of growing epidemics, throw cold water on that idea. Draconian social-distancing and early lockdown measures have clearly been effective, but Myanmar and Cambodia did neither and have reported few cases. One theory that is unproven but impossible to refute: maybe the virus just hasn’t gotten to those countries yet. Russia and Turkey appeared to be fine until, suddenly, they were not.
Disinfecting streets in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in mid-March.Credit...Ulet Ifansasti for The New York Times
snip
The Covid-19 Riddle: Why Does the Virus Wallop Some Places and Spare Others?
Experts are trying to figure out why the coronavirus is so capricious. The answers could determine how to best protect ourselves and how long we have to.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Iraqi border agents at the Zurbatiya border crossing with Iran. On the other side lies the largest epicenter of the virus in the Middle East. On the Iraqi side, there are relatively few cases. Credit...Ivor Prickett for The New York Times
The coronavirus has killed so many people in Iran that the country has resorted to mass burials, but in neighboring Iraq, the body count is fewer than 100. The Dominican Republic has reported nearly 7,600 cases of the virus. Just across the border, Haiti has recorded about 85. In Indonesia, thousands are believed to have died of the coronavirus. In nearby Malaysia, a strict lockdown has kept fatalities to about 100.
The coronavirus has touched almost every country on earth, but its impact has seemed capricious. Global metropolises like New York, Paris and London have been devastated, while teeming cities like Bangkok, Baghdad, New Delhi and Lagos have, so far, largely been spared. The question of why the virus has overwhelmed some places and left others relatively untouched is a puzzle that has spawned numerous theories and speculations but no definitive answers. That knowledge could have profound implications for how countries respond to the virus, for determining who is at risk and for knowing when it’s safe to go out again.
There are already hundreds of studies underway around the world looking into how demographics, pre-existing conditions and genetics might affect the wide variation in impact. Doctors in Saudi Arabia are studying whether genetic differences may help explain varying levels of severity in Covid-19 cases among Saudi Arabs, while scientists in Brazil are looking into the relationship between genetics and Covid-19 complications. Teams in multiple countries are studying if common hypertension medications might worsen the disease’s severity and whether a particular tuberculosis vaccine might do the opposite.
Many developing nations with hot climates and young populations have escaped the worst, suggesting that temperature and demographics could be factors. But countries like Peru, Indonesia and Brazil, tropical countries in the throes of growing epidemics, throw cold water on that idea. Draconian social-distancing and early lockdown measures have clearly been effective, but Myanmar and Cambodia did neither and have reported few cases. One theory that is unproven but impossible to refute: maybe the virus just hasn’t gotten to those countries yet. Russia and Turkey appeared to be fine until, suddenly, they were not.
Disinfecting streets in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in mid-March.Credit...Ulet Ifansasti for The New York Times
snip
May 3, 2020
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-leadership-coronavirus/610237/
The coronavirus pandemic may be the largest test of political leadership the world has ever witnessed. Every leader on the planet is facing the same potential threat. Every leader is reacting differently, in his or her own style. And every leader will be judged by the results. German Chancellor Angela Merkel embraces science. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro rejects it. U.S. President Donald Trump’s daily briefings are a circuslike spectacle, while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi holds no regular briefings at all, even as he locks down 1.3 billion people.
Jacinda Ardern, the 39-year-old prime minister of New Zealand, is forging a path of her own. Her leadership style is one of empathy in a crisis that tempts people to fend for themselves. Her messages are clear, consistent, and somehow simultaneously sobering and soothing. And her approach isn’t just resonating with her people on an emotional level. It is also working remarkably well. People feel that Ardern “doesn’t preach at them; she’s standing with them,” Helen Clark, New Zealand’s prime minister from 1999 to 2008, told me. (Ardern, a fellow member of the Labour Party, got her start in politics working for Clark during her premiership.) “They may even think, Well, I don’t quite understand why [the government] did that, but I know she’s got our back. There’s a high level of trust and confidence in her because of that empathy.”
She is “a communicator,” Clark added, noting that Ardern earned a degree in communications. “This is the kind of crisis which will make or break leaders. And this will make Jacinda.” One of Ardern’s innovations has been frequent Facebook Live chats that manage to be both informal and informative. During a session conducted in late March, just as New Zealand prepared to go on lockdown, she appeared in a well-worn sweatshirt at her home (she had just put her toddler daughter to bed, she explained) to offer guidance “as we all prepare to hunker down.”
She sympathized with how alarming it must have been to hear the “loud honk” that had preceded the emergency alert message all New Zealanders had just received essentially informing them that life as they knew it was temporarily over. She introduced helpful concepts, such as thinking of “the people [who] will be in your life consistently over this period of time” as your “bubble” and “acting as though you already have COVID-19” toward those outside of your bubble. She justified severe policies with practical examples: People needed to stay local, because what if they drove off to some remote destination and their car broke down? She said she knows as a parent that it’s really hard to avoid playgrounds, but the virus can live on surfaces for 72 hours. She expected the lockdown to last for several weeks, Ardern said, and for cases to rise steeply even as New Zealanders began holing up in their homes. Because of how the coronavirus behaves, “we won’t see the positive benefits of all of the effort you are about to put in for self-isolation … for at least 10 days. So don’t be disheartened,” she said.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=147109069954329
snip
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
New Zealand has around 5 million people, a little less than half what Sweden does
If NZ was the size of the US, it would have around 1,340 deaths, versus almost 70,000 for the US at its current rate. The US death is over 50 times greater than NZ's.
If Sweden was the size of the US, it would have almost 90,000 (88,400) deaths at its current rate. Our death rate is 66 times greater than NZ's.
New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern May Be the Most Effective Leader on the Planet
Ardern’s leadership style, focused on empathy, isn’t just resonating with her people; it’s putting the country on track for success against the coronavirus.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-leadership-coronavirus/610237/
The coronavirus pandemic may be the largest test of political leadership the world has ever witnessed. Every leader on the planet is facing the same potential threat. Every leader is reacting differently, in his or her own style. And every leader will be judged by the results. German Chancellor Angela Merkel embraces science. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro rejects it. U.S. President Donald Trump’s daily briefings are a circuslike spectacle, while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi holds no regular briefings at all, even as he locks down 1.3 billion people.
Jacinda Ardern, the 39-year-old prime minister of New Zealand, is forging a path of her own. Her leadership style is one of empathy in a crisis that tempts people to fend for themselves. Her messages are clear, consistent, and somehow simultaneously sobering and soothing. And her approach isn’t just resonating with her people on an emotional level. It is also working remarkably well. People feel that Ardern “doesn’t preach at them; she’s standing with them,” Helen Clark, New Zealand’s prime minister from 1999 to 2008, told me. (Ardern, a fellow member of the Labour Party, got her start in politics working for Clark during her premiership.) “They may even think, Well, I don’t quite understand why [the government] did that, but I know she’s got our back. There’s a high level of trust and confidence in her because of that empathy.”
She is “a communicator,” Clark added, noting that Ardern earned a degree in communications. “This is the kind of crisis which will make or break leaders. And this will make Jacinda.” One of Ardern’s innovations has been frequent Facebook Live chats that manage to be both informal and informative. During a session conducted in late March, just as New Zealand prepared to go on lockdown, she appeared in a well-worn sweatshirt at her home (she had just put her toddler daughter to bed, she explained) to offer guidance “as we all prepare to hunker down.”
She sympathized with how alarming it must have been to hear the “loud honk” that had preceded the emergency alert message all New Zealanders had just received essentially informing them that life as they knew it was temporarily over. She introduced helpful concepts, such as thinking of “the people [who] will be in your life consistently over this period of time” as your “bubble” and “acting as though you already have COVID-19” toward those outside of your bubble. She justified severe policies with practical examples: People needed to stay local, because what if they drove off to some remote destination and their car broke down? She said she knows as a parent that it’s really hard to avoid playgrounds, but the virus can live on surfaces for 72 hours. She expected the lockdown to last for several weeks, Ardern said, and for cases to rise steeply even as New Zealanders began holing up in their homes. Because of how the coronavirus behaves, “we won’t see the positive benefits of all of the effort you are about to put in for self-isolation … for at least 10 days. So don’t be disheartened,” she said.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=147109069954329
snip
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
New Zealand has around 5 million people, a little less than half what Sweden does
If NZ was the size of the US, it would have around 1,340 deaths, versus almost 70,000 for the US at its current rate. The US death is over 50 times greater than NZ's.
If Sweden was the size of the US, it would have almost 90,000 (88,400) deaths at its current rate. Our death rate is 66 times greater than NZ's.
May 2, 2020
On the evening of May 1st, Judge Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California released his partial summary judgment in the U.S. women’s national team’s lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation, which sought compensation equal to that of the men’s national team. In his decision, Klausner ruled almost entirely against the players and in favor of the U.S. Soccer Federation in both parts of the players’ suit.
The players’ argument under the Equal Pay Act was denied entirely, and their argument under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was denied almost entirely; all that remains in that part of the suit are the team’s claims of unequal treatment when it comes to travel conditions (specifically charter flights) and personnel and support services.
The ruling is a harsh reminder that public sentiment doesn’t always translate into legal results. In public, the team has enjoyed equal pay chants at matches, and received widespread support for their ‘four stars, no crest’ protest, turning their warm-up jerseys inside out at a March SheBelieves Cup game. U.S. Soccer, meanwhile, has been dealt damage to its brand along with accusatory statements from their own sponsors regarding their treatment of the women’s national team players. In court, however, the players’ momentum was swept out from under them with one 32-page document.
“We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up our hard work for equal pay,” Molly Levinson, spokesperson for the players, said via a statement on Friday. “We are confident in our case and steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that girls and women who play this sport will not be valued as lesser just because of their gender.” Levinson also promised that the players will appeal, via the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The players can still make gains in settlement talks with the federation, and based on the initial reaction to Friday night’s ruling, will still have a large advantage when it comes to public support.
https://twitter.com/ProfBank/status/1256376259765886978
snip
Judge rules against womens players in equal pay suit vs. U.S. Soccer Federation
https://theathletic.com/1789788/2020/05/01/judge-rules-against-womens-players-in-equal-pay-suit-vs-u-s-soccer-federation/On the evening of May 1st, Judge Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California released his partial summary judgment in the U.S. women’s national team’s lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation, which sought compensation equal to that of the men’s national team. In his decision, Klausner ruled almost entirely against the players and in favor of the U.S. Soccer Federation in both parts of the players’ suit.
The players’ argument under the Equal Pay Act was denied entirely, and their argument under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was denied almost entirely; all that remains in that part of the suit are the team’s claims of unequal treatment when it comes to travel conditions (specifically charter flights) and personnel and support services.
The ruling is a harsh reminder that public sentiment doesn’t always translate into legal results. In public, the team has enjoyed equal pay chants at matches, and received widespread support for their ‘four stars, no crest’ protest, turning their warm-up jerseys inside out at a March SheBelieves Cup game. U.S. Soccer, meanwhile, has been dealt damage to its brand along with accusatory statements from their own sponsors regarding their treatment of the women’s national team players. In court, however, the players’ momentum was swept out from under them with one 32-page document.
“We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up our hard work for equal pay,” Molly Levinson, spokesperson for the players, said via a statement on Friday. “We are confident in our case and steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that girls and women who play this sport will not be valued as lesser just because of their gender.” Levinson also promised that the players will appeal, via the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The players can still make gains in settlement talks with the federation, and based on the initial reaction to Friday night’s ruling, will still have a large advantage when it comes to public support.
https://twitter.com/ProfBank/status/1256376259765886978
snip
May 2, 2020
Republican congressional candidate Robert F. Hyde has dropped out of the race to represent Connecticut's 5th congressional district in the U.S. House. Hyde achieved national prominence during the January 2020 impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump for his texts claiming to have surveilled Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
"I'm withdrawing from the race," Hyde said on Friday of his primary campaign against Republican candidate David Sullivan. "Sullivan outraised me," Hyde continued, "and I want the nominee not to have to primary. Only chance to win."
Hyde had hoped to challenge Democratic incumbent Representative Jahana Hayes for her congressional seat. Hyde's campaign website said that he "is an ardent support [sic] of our duly elected president, President Trump, and his agenda of renewing American Greatness."
His past text messages with Lev Parnas, a close associate of President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, insinuated that he was secretly surveilling Yovanovitch by tracking her movements and computer use.
snip
Robert Hyde Republican who claimed to be surveilling Ukrainian Ambassador, Withdraws From House Race
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-hyde-republican-who-claimed-surveilling-ukrainian-ambassador-withdraws-congressional-1501566Republican congressional candidate Robert F. Hyde has dropped out of the race to represent Connecticut's 5th congressional district in the U.S. House. Hyde achieved national prominence during the January 2020 impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump for his texts claiming to have surveilled Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
"I'm withdrawing from the race," Hyde said on Friday of his primary campaign against Republican candidate David Sullivan. "Sullivan outraised me," Hyde continued, "and I want the nominee not to have to primary. Only chance to win."
Hyde had hoped to challenge Democratic incumbent Representative Jahana Hayes for her congressional seat. Hyde's campaign website said that he "is an ardent support [sic] of our duly elected president, President Trump, and his agenda of renewing American Greatness."
His past text messages with Lev Parnas, a close associate of President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, insinuated that he was secretly surveilling Yovanovitch by tracking her movements and computer use.
snip
May 2, 2020
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/495695-trump-hits-49-percent-approval-rate-in-gallup-poll
The new approval number is tied for Trump’s personal best in Gallup’s polling data. A survey conducted by Gallup in mid-March similarly found his approval ticking up to 49 percent before it took a 6-point dive in the first half of April.
The poll released on Thursday marked a rare instance in Gallup’s polling history in which Trump’s overall approval is above water. Only 47 percent of respondents said they disapprove of the job he’s doing in the White House.
The rise in approval comes as Americans remain divided on the president’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Fifty percent said they approve of his handling of the crisis, while nearly as many — 48 percent — disapprove, according to Gallup.
The 6-point jump in Trump’s overall approval rating owes primarily to a bump in support among independents, according to Gallup. Forty-seven percent of independents said they approve of the president’s handling of his job compared to only 39 percent in the previous April survey.
snip
https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx
File under WTF's wrong with people: Trump hits 49 percent approval rating in Gallup poll (ties high)
President Trump’s job approval soared to 49 percent in a new Gallup poll released Thursday, making up a 6-point loss from a similar survey released just two weeks ago.https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/495695-trump-hits-49-percent-approval-rate-in-gallup-poll
The new approval number is tied for Trump’s personal best in Gallup’s polling data. A survey conducted by Gallup in mid-March similarly found his approval ticking up to 49 percent before it took a 6-point dive in the first half of April.
The poll released on Thursday marked a rare instance in Gallup’s polling history in which Trump’s overall approval is above water. Only 47 percent of respondents said they disapprove of the job he’s doing in the White House.
The rise in approval comes as Americans remain divided on the president’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Fifty percent said they approve of his handling of the crisis, while nearly as many — 48 percent — disapprove, according to Gallup.
The 6-point jump in Trump’s overall approval rating owes primarily to a bump in support among independents, according to Gallup. Forty-seven percent of independents said they approve of the president’s handling of his job compared to only 39 percent in the previous April survey.
snip
https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx
May 1, 2020
https://thebanter.substack.com/p/the-tara-reade-story-is-tricking
WASHINGTON, DC -- As many of you have noticed, I’ve been almost exclusively focused on doing whatever I can to verbally undermine Donald Trump and his entire criminal enterprise. It’s what I do now. While I don’t have the same online reach as various heavy-hitters, I’m doing what I can to expose Trump’s vast horrendousness, while forecasting the kind of damage he’s manifesting. And based on what I’ve been documenting for several years now, Trump and the idiocratic movement surrounding him is absolutely the most dangerous threat we’ve faced as a nation since World War II. Consequently, I’m intensely driven to use my platform to help make sure Trump loses his re-election campaign this year, and loses it humiliatingly. My hope is, at the very least, to provide rocket fuel for other like-minded Americans in our national effort to destroy this monster and to marginalize if not snuff out the twisted ideology of Trumpism once and for all.
Knowing the destructive potential of a second Trump term as president -- knowing how it would annihilate the last remaining institutional impediments blocking Trump’s ongoing power grab, we ought to be extremely suspicious if not downright hostile to anyone who’s helping the president or hurting his opponent, Joe Biden. This is a political war for our collective future. This election will determine whether we’re spraying the crops with Brawndo under a Trump dictatorship, or whether America will course correct and reacquaint itself with democratic values. Not to belabor the point, but defeating Trump at the ballot box has to be our highest national priority this year. Everything depends on it -- one of the myriad reasons why I’m so driven. It’s also one of the reasons why I’m deeply suspicious of the motives of activists who are exploiting the allegation of Tara Reade to damage the Biden campaign, effectively aiding in the re-election of Donald Trump.
Briefly, Reade was a Senate staffer working in Biden’s office in the early 1990s. Throughout the last 30 years, she’s remained silent about what she’s alleging -- that Biden accosted her in a hallway and sexually violated her. We also know that Russian trolls and bots are actively spreading the allegation around social media and beyond, lending a thick patina of dubiousness to Reade’s claims. It should be further noted that the Republican Party throughout its eight year jihad against Barack Obama’s administration never once unearthed the incident Reade described. Not even Trump’s team landed on this in 2016 when it was looking to distract from Trump’s 25 rape accusers.
In recent history alone, there have been two presidential elections with Biden second on the ticket, plus a third presidential election, 2016, in which Biden briefly explored jumping into the race, as well as the past two years of the 2020 primary process. Why is the Reade allegation coming out now during the exact same pocket of time in the 2020 cycle as the DNC emails were hacked by Russia in the 2016 cycle? Why is this only being circulated now that Bernie Sanders has withdrawn from the race after coming up short on delegates? Nevertheless, this presidential election, like most others, is a binary choice. There are two legitimate options for your presidential vote: Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Voters have the option to vote for Trump, or they have the option to vote for Biden. We therefore have to decide which man is better suited for the presidency. Again, this isn’t merely a “what about Trump?” argument, it’s the actual binary choice we have to make. It’s a mandatory either-or scenario between two contrasting candidates. We’re not just randomly picking on Trump in reaction to the Biden allegation. If Biden is morally eliminated, Trump is the singular alternative. A vote against Biden and what he represents is a vote for Trump and what he represents. That’s how this all works.
snip
The Tara Reade Story Is Tricking Progressives Into Voting For Trump Again
We are doing our best to cover the continually evolving Tara Reade story responsibly here at The Banter. It’s an incredibly delicate subject and we hope to provide our readers with thoughtful, carefully researched articles that do the story justice. You can read our original story here, with new updates added: Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden Is Falling Aparthttps://thebanter.substack.com/p/the-tara-reade-story-is-tricking
WASHINGTON, DC -- As many of you have noticed, I’ve been almost exclusively focused on doing whatever I can to verbally undermine Donald Trump and his entire criminal enterprise. It’s what I do now. While I don’t have the same online reach as various heavy-hitters, I’m doing what I can to expose Trump’s vast horrendousness, while forecasting the kind of damage he’s manifesting. And based on what I’ve been documenting for several years now, Trump and the idiocratic movement surrounding him is absolutely the most dangerous threat we’ve faced as a nation since World War II. Consequently, I’m intensely driven to use my platform to help make sure Trump loses his re-election campaign this year, and loses it humiliatingly. My hope is, at the very least, to provide rocket fuel for other like-minded Americans in our national effort to destroy this monster and to marginalize if not snuff out the twisted ideology of Trumpism once and for all.
Knowing the destructive potential of a second Trump term as president -- knowing how it would annihilate the last remaining institutional impediments blocking Trump’s ongoing power grab, we ought to be extremely suspicious if not downright hostile to anyone who’s helping the president or hurting his opponent, Joe Biden. This is a political war for our collective future. This election will determine whether we’re spraying the crops with Brawndo under a Trump dictatorship, or whether America will course correct and reacquaint itself with democratic values. Not to belabor the point, but defeating Trump at the ballot box has to be our highest national priority this year. Everything depends on it -- one of the myriad reasons why I’m so driven. It’s also one of the reasons why I’m deeply suspicious of the motives of activists who are exploiting the allegation of Tara Reade to damage the Biden campaign, effectively aiding in the re-election of Donald Trump.
Briefly, Reade was a Senate staffer working in Biden’s office in the early 1990s. Throughout the last 30 years, she’s remained silent about what she’s alleging -- that Biden accosted her in a hallway and sexually violated her. We also know that Russian trolls and bots are actively spreading the allegation around social media and beyond, lending a thick patina of dubiousness to Reade’s claims. It should be further noted that the Republican Party throughout its eight year jihad against Barack Obama’s administration never once unearthed the incident Reade described. Not even Trump’s team landed on this in 2016 when it was looking to distract from Trump’s 25 rape accusers.
In recent history alone, there have been two presidential elections with Biden second on the ticket, plus a third presidential election, 2016, in which Biden briefly explored jumping into the race, as well as the past two years of the 2020 primary process. Why is the Reade allegation coming out now during the exact same pocket of time in the 2020 cycle as the DNC emails were hacked by Russia in the 2016 cycle? Why is this only being circulated now that Bernie Sanders has withdrawn from the race after coming up short on delegates? Nevertheless, this presidential election, like most others, is a binary choice. There are two legitimate options for your presidential vote: Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Voters have the option to vote for Trump, or they have the option to vote for Biden. We therefore have to decide which man is better suited for the presidency. Again, this isn’t merely a “what about Trump?” argument, it’s the actual binary choice we have to make. It’s a mandatory either-or scenario between two contrasting candidates. We’re not just randomly picking on Trump in reaction to the Biden allegation. If Biden is morally eliminated, Trump is the singular alternative. A vote against Biden and what he represents is a vote for Trump and what he represents. That’s how this all works.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,299