Aspects of the Coronavirus outbreak I am thankful for.

An image of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus. CDC image via Wikipedia.

The Coronavirus outbreak is obviously terrible. Almost a million people are infected and thousands of people are dead. So it seems strange to be thankful about much of anything. But I do think that the world lucked out about a lot of aspects of this virus. Here's a list. 

1. The mortality rate is relatively low. Though a high mortality rate ironically would be better as viruses that kill quickly generally have trouble spreading, it's not as high as it could be. Most estimates are that the Coronavirus kills between 2-4%, with some estimates being much lower. We could easily have a virus that kills 5 to 10%. 

2. The virus mostly targets the elderly. Though this is still obviously a tragedy but thankfully it mostly kills the old and the already sick. Children are, for whatever reason, mostly immune to the worst effects of this virus. And people in the prime of their life, the 20's, 30's and 40's are a lot more resistant to it than the old. 

This is a bigger deal than people realize. If the virus was killing everyone equally we might have seen a collapse of services, which would quickly spiral out of control. If a younger person is sick they usually pull through and then can return to work in a week or two if they are in a critical industry. If that wasn't the case we would have a lot more people dying, and not only from the virus. Food, medicine and basically logistics in general would be a nightmare. We might even see widespread civil disorder. 

3. The virus hit the developed world first. So far the virus has mostly hit East Asia, Europe and the United States. These are the regions of the world most able to deal with the virus. Hitting these regions first spurred the development of treatments and production of supplies that will help the world when the virus inevitably hit the rest of the world. 

If the virus had hit Africa or India first, we'd be looking at millions of dead and the virus probably would have spread a lot faster than it did. China has a lot of problems and they did not handle the first months of the outbreak well, but they were able to buy us some time with the Wuhan lockdown that I can't see a third world country doing. 

4. Treatments seem to be available. I don't want to overstate the effectiveness of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine but these drugs do seem to help quite a bit and will probably save a lot of lives. They aren't a cure but they are helping. Furthermore, Remdesivir, a failed Ebola drug seems to be working as well. It was very possible that we wouldn't even have these drugs that are still unproven. 

5. Our medical technology is fairly advanced. For all the hand wringing about ventilators, imagine how bad this would be if we didn't even have them. Though most people who are ventilators do not pull through, we are saving lives with this technology. And that's just one example, medicine has advanced quite a bit and if we hadn't we would have had a lot more deaths than we are going to get.

6. Our leadership is mostly taking this seriously. Though all the world leaders deserve some criticism for their response, the vast majority are trying to save as many people as they can. A couple are not,  but if they were the majority instead of the minority this virus would have been a lot more widespread than it already is. 

7. We didn't have anything major going on in the world during the outbreak. Had this virus happened a few years back when ISIS was running rampant, Ukraine was blowing up and Ebola was raging in West Africa, we would have been a lot more trouble. And the economic damage was reduced by the fact that the global economy was in the middle of a boom. 

As far as I am concerned we dodged a bullet here. This outbreak could have been much worse and we could have had millions of dead already. Our governments will survive this and so will the vast majority of people. For that I am thankful. 

Russia is sending medical aid to the United States.

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russian government photo. 

Russia's President Vladimir Putin is sending medical aid to the United State. Reuters. Putin offered the aid to President Trump during a phone call where they were discussed the Coronavirus outbreak and the oil war between Russia and Saudi Arabia. A plane load of supplies will be sent to the United States. President Trump agreed that as American production increases the US Government will help Russia if their outbreak gets worse. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post on this one. I think it's great that America and Russia are helping each other out here. Though our two countries relationship is on the rocks at the moment I am glad that we are cooperating with each other to fight the virus. 

This isn't just a one way street though, Russia expects our help. Right now Russia is in a lot better shape than America but that may change in the future. As of this writing Russia has just over 2000 cases while America has almost 200,000, they are several weeks behind us in their outbreak. If the schedule of the Coronavirus holds we should be beginning our recovery right when Russia is reaching their peak, so they can help us with the worst part of our outbreak and we can then do the same for them.

Russia has been fairly lucky that they were able to slow the virus down in their country so far. It's clear that it's starting to pick up now but they did buy themselves a lot more time than other countries, mostly by shutting down borders a lot sooner than everyone else. That puts them in a good position to wait out the virus until better treatments are found. 

Complicating things is Russia's oil war with Saudi Arabia. Both countries are driving down oil prices in an effort to damage the other countries economy and corner the oil market. This is a pretty good thing for those of us still driving around (I filled my tank with 15 gallons of gas the other day and paid less than $18), it's really bad for basically every other country that is selling oil, including the United States. Hopefully this phone call between Trump and Putin will help solve that issue. 

Joe Biden's campaign denies sexual assault claims.

Joe Biden. Washington Times/AP.

Joe Biden's campaign is denying sexual assault claims made by former staffer Tara Reade. Washington Times. Reade was a staffer for Biden during his Senate days in the 1990's and she has already accused Biden of inappropriate touching. However, she now claims that Biden grabbed her and forced his fingers inside of her. This is not the first time Joe Biden has been accused of harassing or assaulting women but this is the most serious case he has been accused of. 

My Comment:

I'm of two minds on this case. On the one hand I have always thought Joe Biden was a creep at best. There are so many videos of him making women and girls very uncomfortable with how touchy he is. He sniffs people's hair and grabs their shoulders and is generally gross. At the very least Biden is a person who doesn't understand the concept of personal space and I could certainly see him assaulting a woman. With all the videos out there of Biden doing this in public it's not much of a stretch that he would go even further in private.

On the other hand, these accusations are suspiciously timed. Though Reade initially made her claims awhile ago she didn't feel necessary to mention that Biden raped her, but instead claimed that she was just harassed. This of course begs the question of why she didn't mention that when the issue first came up? 

It also comes as Biden is the presumptive candidate and has largely defeated Bernie Sanders. The timing isn't great as at this point the only realistic person to replace Biden via an election is Sanders. It also doesn't help that Reade is not a supporter of Biden and could have a personal grudge against him. Sanders supporters certainly hope this is the thing that takes Biden down.

So do I believe Reade? I am not sure. Supposedly she told people back in the 90's that Biden did this to her which makes it more believable than a lot of similar accusations against politicians. However, it's still just a he said she said thing with no arrests or investigations happening. Without further evidence I don't think this enough to derail his campaign. 

That being said, I don't think the attacks on Reade are fair either. She's being attacked as a "Russian agent" as that seems to be the establishment Democrats only answer to any scandal. She did write a now-deleted post praising Vladimir Putin but that shouldn't count for anything. Having political beliefs that don't align with the Democratic establishment should be a point in her favor if anything. 

 Will this hurt Joe Biden? I doubt it. After President Trump and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who were both attacked in the same way and survived, I think the effectiveness of he said she said attacks are wearing out. #MeToo is a spent political force and Democrats dislike both Bernie Sanders and President Trump enough to overlook this. 

I've already seen some Democrats say that even if the accusations are true they will still vote for Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders and/or Donald Trump. I can't complain about that too much as I said I would still vote for Donald Trump if the accusations against him were true. I've always said people should vote on policy and nothing else. But I do think it's pretty hypocritical of a party that's supposed to be about woman's rights. 

Still, I don't know if Joe Biden's career is as safe as it seems. This issue may not be what sinks his campaign, but still wouldn't be surprised if Biden is replaced. Biden has shown a shocking decline in his mental faculties and he has been making some pretty insane gaffes lately. I personally think he has Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia. Sorry to the Bernie Bros, but it's not going to be Sanders. The odds on favorite is Andrew Cuomo, who has a high profile from the Coronavirus outbreak, and has the major advantage of being politically popular. 

President Trump extends social distancing until the end of April.

President Trump at today's news conference. Yahoo News/Reuters.

President Trump has extended social distancing until the end of April. Yahoo News. President Trump had hoped that the country would be allowed to reopen in time for Easter, but the newest models said that the disease may be peaking at that point. President Trump and his advisers have expressed concern about the damage the measures are doing to the economy. However, President Trump has now said that the measures may have to continue in May. 

My Comment:

This wasn't too unexpected. Opening up the country by Easter was always the best case scenario and it doesn't seem like it's going to happen now. It's clear that the virus is still spreading and that our various social distancing and quarantines haven't slowed the virus down enough to consider opening the country back up. 

But is the end of April too optimistic too? I guess we don't know yet. A lot can happen in 30 days and it's possible that the virus won't have slowed down enough for President Trump to roll out his gradual opening of America. It took quite some time for China to open up Wuhan after months of quarantine and we might see the same thing happen here. 

I do think that the weather will have an effect that might slow the virus. Though there are major outbreaks in the Southern Hemisphere and places like India, they seem to be spreading slower than they have in the Northern Hemisphere and cooler climates. I don't think there is evidence that the virus can't spread in warmer climates but it does seem like it does slow it down, which would be a good thing for the United States. 

This decision is going to harm the economy, no doubt about it. There are a lot of businesses that might have pulled through if they could open by Easter but won't survive to the end of the month. And I shudder to think about all the people out of work right now. Unemployment and Trump's $1200 will help a little but these people are going to start wondering how they are going to pay their bills, if they aren't behind already. 

That being said, I think this probably is the right decision. If the models are right and the virus is going to peak around Easter than it would be stupid to open things then. Once we get things under control then we can use President Trump's three tiered system to open things up county by county. The rural areas can open first and then the suburbs and finally the big cities.

I also think there is room for optimism. I still think that there are effective treatments out there and by the end of this shutdown they should be well distributed and widely available. And China, South Korea and Japan show that the virus can be slowed considerably and even stopped in the case of China (if you believe their numbers). This virus will eventually go away and I don't think the worst case scenario will come to pass. Indeed, we are already handling this better than I had feared during the early days of the crisis. 

Should people be wearing masks to help fight the Coronavirus?

Two people in Central Park with n95 masks. Slate/Getty.

New questions are being raised about the advice that says masks aren't effective in stopping the Coronavirus. Slate. Many western health authorities have said that masks are not effective in preventing the virus while many Asian countries have recommended or even demanded that people wear them. Some studies have shown that masks not only help healthy people avoid catching the virus but allow the sick to stop spreading the virus. It is less clear if it helps people not touch their face as much as some may do so because the masks are uncomfortable. However, regardless of the effectiveness, n95 masks as well as the less effective cloth masks are largely unavailable to the general public due to high demand. 

My Comment:

I always thought that the advice against masks was largely a white lie. The governments of the world knew that masks weren't going to be available even for medical workers, let alone the general public. So they said the masks didn't work so that what few masks we had could be preserved for medical workers.

Was this the right thing to do? I think so. Medical workers are at a much higher risk of catching the disease and, due to viral load, catch a more severe sickness. Without medical masks doctors and nurses are at a much higher risk to the point where they might not even be able to do their jobs. A run on medical masks would have made this situation even worst than it already is. 

But are they effective? I think it's better than nothing but I do agree that it has some downsides as well. For one thing people wearing masks might feel they are invincible now and stop doing things like washing their hands or avoiding heading outside. They also might touch their faces more often, which is a major way that Coronavirus spread. 

On the other hand, I think it's pretty obvious that any thing that prevents you from breathing in viral particles is a good thing. These masks are obviously not 100% effective but they would help stop some percentage of the virus from spreading, both from healthy people not coming into contact with the virus and sick people not spreading it. 

I think context is important as well. A mask would be a lot more helpful in some circumstances compared to others. If you are walking down the street you almost certainly don't need one but if you are taking public transportation or flying having a mask is a much better idea. They would also better be saved if you had to treat a sick relative, rather than for daily use. 

Of course the whole discussion is largely moot as there haven't been masks in the stores since January. Chinese people bought up most of them and sent them overseas and the few that survived that went into the homes of preppers. The only way to get masks right now is on the black market for vastly inflated prices or to make your own, neither of which are probably worth it for the average person. Production has obviously skyrocketed but those masks that are being made aren't making it to stores as hospitals are taking the first priority. 

Which makes me wonder if people shouldn't just be using things like scarfs or winter clothing to cover their faces instead? In theory these would probably be as good as a cloth surgical mask, though obviously not as good as a n95 mask. But I haven't heard anything either way, so I guess I just don't know.    

The United States now leads the world in Coronavirus infections.

A microscopy picture of the Coronavirus. NIAID.

The United States has passed China and Italy and now has the most recorded number of Coronavirus cases. The Hill. As of this writing the United States has recorded 82,404 cases. The massive increase is largely due to better testing which is now finding cases that had been missed previously. However, it is unclear if America is really the number one country, with President Trump questioning the numbers coming out of China. However, it is important to note that America's deaths, at 1,290, are behind Italy, Spain, China, Iran and France. 

My Comment:

This is fairly grim news but it's important to note that our death rate is doing better than many other countries. Italy doesn't have as many cases but it has many more deaths, even though their outbreak has lasted about as long as our outbreak. However, we aren't doing as well as South Korea and Germany, who have had very few deaths.

Why are the death rates different? That's the million dollar question isn't it? I don't think it's due to difference in response, as Italy and Spain haven't been that incompetent with it. I have heard other explanations such as the fact that Northern Italy is pretty polluted and their population is older. 

However, I think the main problem for Italy is how concentrated the cases were. Unlike the United States where cases are popping up everywhere, cases in Italy were concentrated in Northern Italy. This caused Italy's health care system to be overwhelmed while in the United States only New York is having trouble keeping up with cases so far. This resulted in Italy having to triage patients, which obviously increased the death rate. 

I also think that America has been helped by the fact that we have had access to treatments that weren't available in the first months of the outbreak. We have evidence now that Chloroquinine, Hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir are at least somewhat effective against the virus and we are distributing it widely on humanitarian grounds despite them not being officially approved yet. This may also help keep the death rate down. Supply and logistics is a serious issue but one that will improve with time. 

I don't think there was a whole lot that could have been done to prevent this. Banning travel from China and Europe saved us some time but there is evidence that the disease was here and spreading before either was even an option. Testing was a problem but given how open our borders were and how huge our country is I don't think the South Korea outcome, where they largely limited cases to one city, was ever realistic here. 

I also think that things aren't quite as bad as the media is making it out to be. As I said before, I think that the death rate will be better here in the United States than elsewhere. And I also think it's important to note that our shutdown just begun and that cases are catching up with testing. Many of these case are not new infections, just ones that have been discovered. As more states go into lockdown, new infections will decrease. 

Will we make the Easter deadline that President Trump wants for a lift on social distancing? I am not sure. It seems pretty obvious that some of our larger cities, like New York, Los Angeles and New Orleans will not make that deadline. However, much of America may be able to do so as many states have nowhere near the number of active cases as these big cities. In my state, Wisconsin, it may be possible to open up much of the state in a couple weeks due to the fact many of our counties have single digit number cases or no detected cases at all. Time will tell if it works out, which even President Trump has acknowledged. 

I do think that the worst case scenarios described in the media won't happen either. These tend to expect that no treatments will be found and that social distancing won't work. It seems that both of those things are not true as countries have been able to slow or even stop the virus. Both South Korea and China have stopped the virus in their tracks and I think that we may be able to do the same thing. 

Finally, I think it's very possible that the Oxford model is correct. Researchers in the UK have proposed that the Coronavirus is actually more widespread than previously thought and that as much as half of the UK has already been infected. Most of those people either had no symptoms at all or only had very minor ones. If true that means that the virus won't be anywhere near as terrible as people are saying, though since the virus spreads so fast it could overwhelm health care systems. 

What we need right now is more information. Antibody tests will be able to detect people who have had the virus and didn't display symptoms. We know these people exist but we have no idea how many of them there are. Once an antibody test is widely deployed we can find out how bad this thing really is. And hopefully the Oxford model is correct and most of the country can go back to work. 

ISIS attack in Afghanistan kills 25 Sikhs.

Damage inside of the temple. Reuters.

An ISIS attack on a Sikh temple in Kabul has killed 25 people. Reuters. The attack was made up of gunmen and suicide bombers. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, blaming India's treatment of Muslims. There are only around 300 Sikh families in Afghanistan. Security forces killed the remaining ISIS fighters. 8 people were wounded in the attack and 80 more were rescued. ISIS has been defeated in most countries but are still active in Afghanistan, with this being the 2nd major attack there this month. 

My Comment:

Though I am happy to not be writing about the Coronavirus, I do have to mention it very briefly in this post. I find it very strange that Afghanistan hasn't banned gathering like this. Having more than 100 people all crowded together like this would have been a good way to spread the virus. And if they had adopted social distancing this attack would not have happened as there wouldn't have been enough people to attack. The country only has 84 cases so maybe they haven't decided to implement it yet. 

I was unaware that there were any Sikhs in Afghanistan. There cannot be that many as 300 families is basically nothing. These people were attacked because of their religion. There has been a long history of attacks between Muslims and Sikhs and the chaos in India right now with their laws may have provoked the attack. Of course, whatever happened in India obviously doesn't justify attacking a bunch of people that had nothing to do with it. 

ISIS has fallen into the background, mostly because they have been completely routed in the rest of the world. Afghanistan is one of the last places where the terror group still exists. And the only reason they are still there is because both the Taliban and the Afghan government are too busy fighting each other to fight ISIS effectively. 

Terrorism too has taken a backseat lately as well. There seems to be fewer attacks and I can't remember a major one since the Sri Lanka Easter attacks last year. Part of that is due to the Coronavirus outbreak but even before that happened terror attacks, at least in the western world. Muslim terror attacks in general have faded quite a bit.

This is obviously due to the fact that ISIS has been largely destroyed. Their bases in Libya, Iraq and Syria have been destroyed and even holdout groups in Nigeria, Yemen and Egypt have been reduced. Only Afghanistan remains a problem and even that will probably change as a peace deal seems more likely. 

But I do think that Coronavirus might change everything. Like I said, attacks won't be possible if everyone is in lockdown. And ISIS fighters too will get sick and possibly even die. It's not like they have access to the best medial care or anything, and it's not like they are going to get any help from anyone with treatments or masks. Indeed, it's possible that the thing that wipes out ISIS in Afghanistan is the Coronavirus... 

President Trump's approval rating rises during the Coronavirus crisis.

President Donald Trump. White House photo. 

President Trump approval rating has risen during the Coronavirus crisis. The Hill. Gallup found a five point rise in approval since this time last month. He's at 49%, which is the highest he has gotten in Gallup's polling. The support remains steady among Republicans but he's gained 8 points from Independents (43%) and 6 points among Democrats (13%). The approval spike is probably related to his handling of the Coronavirus crisis as he has 60% approval for it. 94% of Republicans, 60% of independents and even 27% of Democrats approve of his handling of the crisis. Democratic leadership and the media have been very critical of Trump's handling of the crisis but Trump's daily briefing seems to be helping him make his case. 

My Comment:

This isn't surprising at all. During a crisis it's only natural to unite around leadership. For example, President Bush's approval rating spiked massively after 9/11. Of course the opposite case is possible as well, such as President Bush during Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. 

But the Coronavirus news is pretty grim right? Why isn't his approval falling? I think there are a few reasons for it. For one thing, I don't think most people blame President Trump for the virus. If they blame anyone at all, they blame China, but I think people realize that you can't blame a President just because a natural disaster happened. 

And I think President Trump gets a lot of credit for his actions. He may not have stopped the Coronavirus from infecting America but his actions in banning travel from China and then Europe did slow it down. He has also been proven right that having our manufacturing centered in China is a mistake and was proven right that China isn't our friend. Our response has been far from perfect but it could have been much worse. 

I also think that more people are tuning in to watch his briefings. People have little else to do other than follow Coronavirus news and I think that this is the first time many people are actually listening to him talk. Far from the demon the media has portrayed him for years, it's very clear that he's a funny and charismatic guy. 

But more than anything else I think this is due to President Trump's attitude. He is about the only person right now that is putting out anything positive. Compare his message to the media. They say that everyone is going to die, the potential cure will kill you and there is no hope at all. President Trump says most people will live, there might be a treatment and that we will weather the storm. Is it any wonder that people like what he is saying as opposed to what the media is saying? 

Will the approval spike last? I think it depends on what happens. If President Trump is right and the country will be able to reopen by Easter, I think it will. If that happens we will have survived the worst of it and people will give President Trump credit for his victory. However, if the virus spirals out of control I think it probably could hurt him in the end. But I do think that the 1st option is a lot more likely than the 2nd. 

President Trump signals that the Coronavirus lockdown/social distancing might be lifted earlier than thought.

President Trump at a Coronavirus briefing. CBS News/Reuters.

President Trump is signalling that the Coronavirus lockdown might be lifted earlier than previously thought. CBS News. Trump said the 15 day guideline would be reevaluated after it expires. President Trump said that he did not want the cure to be worse than the disease, referring to the damage the virus is causing to the country's economy. The Coronavirus is spreading quickly, but is more prominent in New York, Washington state and California. 

My Comment:

I think this, along with the failure of congress to pass a third economic package, is pretty good evidence that we are going to have a treatment for Coronavirus soon. It seems pretty clear that the various quinine based drugs are working and that once we ramp up production we will be able to loosen restrictions, at least for younger and healthier people. 

My guess is that we will need some more time to ramp up production of these drugs and make sure that we have enough ventilators and masks for people. That justifies keeping the lockdown/social distancing measures brought by the President. And I do think that it probably will be extended for a little while, we might get another 7-15 days of the original order, but after that I think we will see some things get eased back. 

What will that look like? I am guessing that older people and people with bad immune systems will be left in lockdown. These people are extra vulnerable even if Chloroquine proves effective. Younger healthier people will be able to return to work, possibly on a limited basis. Bars and restaurants probably won't be allowed to open right away or do so on a very limited basis. 

I think that it will also depend on the state. With the virus out of control in New York, I fully expect the lockdown there to continue for quite some time. But in other states which don't have many infections and where there isn't too much pressure on the health care system I think things will return to normal more quickly. 

I do think that it is important to note that lifting restrictions will probably lead to more deaths and infections even if Chloroquine and other drugs are able to treat this disease. The treatment may work for many people but not everyone will be able to take it and it won't work in some cases. And if the drugs don't work than a lot of people could get sick.

But I think there has to be a trade off. We can't just lock down the country indefinitely. We already have taken massive economic damage and at some point we have to do something to get the country back on it's feet. There has to be a trade off somewhere and at some point we have to decide that fighting the virus isn't worth completely destroying the economy, especially with Congress utterly failing to pass help for American families. 

I think it's right when President Trump says we can do more than one thing. We can fight the virus and get the economy back on its feet at the same time. We may have to make some serious sacrifices but if we have a treatment that is mostly effective those sacrifices will be a lot easier to bear.

Trillion dollar Coronavirus relief bill fails in the Senate.

An abandoned street in Chicago. AFP.

A trillion dollar Coronavirus relief bill failed in the senate in a 47-47 vote. AFP. The bill would have provided relief for American businesses and given cash payments to American citizens. At least five Senators did not vote due to Coronavirus concerns, including Rand Paul who recently tested positive. The shocking failure is already damaging futures markets and will increase pressure on Congress to act. Democrats blocked the bill saying that it did not do enough to protect American workers. 

My Comment:

Unbelievable. American citizens were depending on getting cash payments and now that won't happen for some time, if at all. And small businesses needed these loans. This is going to have a huge economic impact and will cause the stock market crash to get even worse. With so many people out of work, how are they going to take care of themselves without access to this cash? 

I don't buy the Democrats argument here. If I gave them the benefit of the doubt they are, at the very least, making perfect the enemy of good. Sure, they didn't get everything they wanted in this bill but they did get a lot that would have helped millions of Americans. Blocking it and hoping for a better deal is not a good move. More likely they just didn't want to give President Trump and the GOP a win. 

It's going to look terrible for them as well. No matter what the argument, the fact remains that they blocked a disaster relief bill instead of passing it or negotiating successfully. The campaign adds pretty much write themselves. I really don't understand why the Democrats are doing this, it's horrible optics. 

And there is a decent chance that they have extremely limited time to actually get something done, not just because of the severity of the outbreak, but because they may fall victim to the virus themselves. Rand Paul is infected and four other people are in quarantine. What happens if this was their only chance to pass a bill and everyone gets sick? 

As an aside, I am quite worried about Rand Paul. He was attacked in 2017 and almost died. He also lost part of his lung and I think he might be extra vulnerable to the virus. He's still relatively young at 57 and I remain optimistic about Chloroquine, but it's obviously bad news that he is sick. 

Either way, I think this shows how dysfunctional our government is. This was something that needed to get done and the Democrats seemed to have no interest in passing it. I am pretty sure that the voters will remember this in November. People will be out of jobs and bankrupt and they will want to take it out on someone... 

Chloroquinine and other drugs may be the key to fighting Coronavirus.

Chloroquinine and Quinine tablets. LA Times. 

Chloroquinine is one of many drugs undergoing clinical trials in an attempt to defeat the spread of the Coronavirus. LA Times. The most promising of these drugs is Chloroquinine, an anti-malarial drug. The drug is currently undergoing at least a dozen clinical trials and is being prescribed off-label to treat the disease in the United States. It has also proven effective against the closely related SARS and MERS viruses. 

In addition to Chloroquinine, it's more modern counterpart Hydroxychloroquinine is being tested as well. Both of these drugs are well known and have limited side effects. Remdesivir, a drug that was developed to fight the Ebola virus is also undergoing testing. The drug failed to fight Ebola but has been used in limited cases against Coronavirus with positive results. However, Remdesivir is not as well tested and commonly used as the Quinine based drugs. 

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020

My Comment:

I'm fairly confident that Chloroquinine will prove to be an effective treatment for Coronavirus. The media, as awful as it always is, is screaming at the top of their lungs that it's not FDA approved but that also doesn't change the fact that it's being widely used to treat Coronavirus and is apparently having quite a bit of success. There have been multiple studies that have shown effectiveness and there are many accounts of it working from patients and doctors who have used the drug.

It's also a relief as the Quinine family of drugs is not only well understood and mostly safe, they are also in good supply due to the fact that malaria is such a concern. These are safe drugs for the most part and though there are some side effects from what I understand they mostly only happen with people who use the drug for a long time. It shouldn't be too difficult for the governments of the world to roll these pills out for people who are sick, though the most critically ill will be the first priority.

Azithromycin is more of a mystery for me. The LA Times article didn't have any information about it and the rest of the media is so hysterical right now it's hard to get good facts on it. As an antibiotic it makes little sense that the drug would help with Coronavirus itself but my guess is that it is used to help treat any opportunistic bacteria that attack the body while the immune system is dealing with the virus.

The combination seems like an effective treatment and I am glad that President Trump is allowing it to be used off label for compassionate use. This shouldn't be surprising as President Trump signed the Right to Try act, which allows people to try drugs that haven't been FDA approved if they are terminally ill. Though we may have some problems with dosage and side effects, I think that allowing people to take these drugs is the right thing to do as it seems pretty clear that they are working.

As for Remdesivir, it too looks promising. I remember hearing about the drug during the major Ebola outbreak that so devastated West Africa and was disappointed when it didn't prove effective in fighting the disease. Thankfully though it seems like it is more effective at fighting Coronavirus. However, unlike the Quinine derived drugs, this one is less well known and well studied and will probably take more time to fully prove that it is safe. I don't think it will be at the forefront for fighting the disease the way the Quinine drugs will be. But it is another tool in our arsenal for those who either can't take the Quinine drugs or have tried and failed. 

I do think that we are probably going to turn the corner on the Coronavirus soon. I think that the Chloroquinine/Azithromycin duo will treat many of these cases successfully and even if it doesn't get everyone Remdesivir may help pick up the slack. If it does it won't do much to slow the pace of infections but it will slow the rate of death and severe hospitalization quickly. Given that both drugs are fairly common I think we should see this rolled out pretty soon. And when it does the death rate should start to plummet.

I also think that President Trump is staking his presidency on this being an effective treatment. This tells me that it probably is as I doubt he would risk his presidency on a comforting lie. That's probably part of the reason the media is freaking out so much as they know that if this does end up stopping the disease to the point where people can return to work President Trump will be able to take credit for it, with good reason too as others may not have been so willing to allow the treatment in the first place.

Still, none of this means that we can go ahead an ignore all the rules and recommendations for the Coronavirus. Just because a treatment appears to be available doesn't mean that you can go party with your friends and stop washing your hands. Even with a treatment many people will still continue to die from the disease, even if the death rate collapses.

That being said, I'm more hopeful now that I have been since this whole thing started a couple of months ago. I was fully prepared for this to last until next year and having to bury many of my older family, friends and coworkers. That doesn't seem to be in the cards now. With an effective treatment we can fight back this disease and even get the world back on it's feat, probably by summer. It's still too soon to tell but I think the worst case scenario is a lot less likely now that it was before. 

Tulsi Gabbard finally exits the 2020 presidential race and endorses Joe Biden.

Tulsi Gabbard. LA Times/AFP.

Tulsi Gabbard has finally exited the 2020 presidential race and has endorsed Joe Biden. LA Times. She said that she didn't agree with all of Joe Biden's positions but that primary voters had decided he should be the candidate. She also praised Bernie Sanders, who is also still in the race, who she had endorsed in 2016. With her endorsement, fears or hopes of a third party run from Gabbard have disappeared. Gabbard ends her race a long time after many other candidates have and she had not been doing well in the elections, with no states being won. Gabbard's campaign focused on foreign policy but gained more headlines for her very public feuds with Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton. 

My Comment:

And thus ends the campaign of the only Democratic Candidate I kinda liked in the 2020 race. Though I hated the vast majority of her policy positions I did agree with two of them. If it wasn't for those to policy positions, she's be yet another far left Democrat but the field was so weak this time around, she was the best of a bad bunch.

On foreign policy, I agreed with almost completely. She did say something really stupid about President Trump providing air support for ISIS, but other than that she was spot on. I have always said we were on the wrong side on the Syrian Civil War and that we shouldn't have gotten involved and Gabbard agreed. Gabbard was the only anti-war candidate in the race and it's no surprise that the Democrats hated her for it. 

But it was her mutual hatred with Hillary Clinton that really sold me on Gabbard. Clinton was furious when Gabbard endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016, and she held that grudge until 2020. Clinton essentially sabotaged Gabbard's campaign and accused her of being a "Russian agent" which is a sure sign that Clinton was pissed. 

Gabbard in turn blasted Clinton with the largely accurate accusation that her foreign policy was an absolute disaster. She even sued her for defamation when she accused her of being a Russian agent. This is probably why she got blackballed from the debates and essentially ignored for the rest of the race. 

Gabbard never really had a chance to win though. There wasn't room for her in the 2020 race. Anyone that liked Clinton in 2016 hated Gabbard because she was so critical of her. That left the anti-Clinton left, who were largely divided between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Both of those candidates had a much more aggressive domestic policy than Gabbard did, leaving her with almost no supporters. About the only people that liked her were Republicans who liked her for the same reasons I did. 

I do think that Gabbard had a good case that the DNC and the media were biased against her. The didn't let her into the debates and changed the rules against her when she qualified under the old rules. She also got very little in the way of coverage from the media outside of Fox News, where Tucker Carlson seemed to have a major crush on her. 

I was very surprised that Gabbard endorsed Joe Biden. I think part of that is due to the fact that Sanders is essentially done. He's so far behind it's very unlikely he mounts a comeback and beats Joe Biden. But she did endorse Sanders in 2016 so it's unusual that she wouldn't back him again. Of course, Joe Biden isn't Hillary Clinton and he seems like a much less vindictive person that Hillary Clinton ever was. 

I think that Gabbard's political career is probably over. She might be hoping that she could get a position in the Biden White House, but even in the unlikely chance that he does get elected I don't think Biden would be willing to anger Hillary Clinton. She isn't running for her congressional seat again and I can't see her winning anything else. It's sad as I'd prefer her brand of leftism to the neo-liberal consensus and the socialist wing of the party. 

White House plan for Coronavirus stimulus package would involve a major cash payment to citizens.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. LA Times.

A White House plan for a $1 trillion Coronavirus stimulus package would involve major cash payments to citizens. LA Times. The package would include money for the airline industry, small businesses and would send checks to Americans within two weeks. Details about the checks are scarce but Treasury Secretary Steven Mnunchin said that they will likely be larger than the $1000 checks that have been floated. Payments and loans would also be made to small businesses. It's unclear if the payments will be means based or with the same amount given to everyone. The effort to stop payroll taxes has been shelved for the moment. 

My Comment:

Details are sparse on this package and there is no guarantee that it will pass. I am guessing the small business bailouts and the checks for citizens would be popular among Democrats but I don't think they want to bailout Boeing and the airlines. Already people like Elizabeth Warren are saying that they won't support this without giving them everything they want, like a $15 minimum wage. 

I do think the idea of direct payments is a good one. With many people out of work and living paycheck to paycheck a quick infusion of cash will mean that they will be able to pay for necessities like food and rent. If the payment is more than $1000 they should have more than enough to survive for awhile, especially when combined with things like unemployment and paid leave, which will likely pass in the other stimulus bill. 

I don't know if that deal should be means tested or not. I don't really think it makes sense to pay people like me, since I am still working. I also don't think it makes sense to cut checks to millionaires either. On the other hand if you give it to everyone, including the millions of workers who are in the critical industries, you stimulate the economy as people will spend this money. 

And I think people will spend this money. People usually blow through windfall money if they are on the lower end of the income level. That might change slightly due to the fact that all the non-essential stores are closing but online shopping is still a thing. And people will spend this money on rent and food as well, so I think it will help things. 

Andrew Yang's supporters are trying to take credit for this idea but I don't think he deserves it. From what it sounds like it's going to be a one time payment, not a monthly one. Plus, we have given stimulus payments like this before, most notably in the Bush administration where everyone got a check due to the budget surplus. 

Given the unprecedented circumstances we are all under now I am glad that the government is at least trying to take care of people. This virus is changing everything and it sounds like the government will try and keep some semblance of normalcy. 

Editor's note: Coronavirus

An image of the Coronavirus. NIAID.

As you obviously know the Coronavirus epidemic is the biggest new story in the world right now. Practically everything in the world is going to be effected and that includes me. I rarely write about myself on this blog but I figured I could give a heads up about how I am doing. 

First though, I do have to say that I don't know how frequently I will post during the crisis. The only news right now is Coronavirus, and that is fairly oversaturated already, I don't think I can add much. I will probably keep up my normal pace of a post per day but that could either decrease or increase depending on circumstances. If I miss a day or two, don't worry about it, and if I get sick I will probably post about it on here. 

I'm generally ok. I've got enough food stocked up to be set for awhile. And unlike a lot of people I don't live paycheck to paycheck. I've got a decent savings account, but I also just bought a new car last year, so I have a bit of debt too. But unlike other people I was preparing for this ever since it was clear that it wasn't going to be contained to just China. As soon as Iran blew up, I started buying extra food each week. Plus I have more than enough guns and ammo if things REALLY go bad, but I am not expecting that. 

My biggest concern right now is my family. I'm the youngest person in my immediate family by far while by parents, stepparents and aunts and uncles are all in their late 60's and early 70's, which means they are very vulnerable to this virus. And since they are scattered across the Midwest there isn't a whole lot I can do to help them, which is a bad feeling. More than anything else, this is what is bothering right now, which I am sure is the same for the vast majority of people reading this.

I'm less worried about my job. I work in the food production industry and I think my job is probably safe even if everything else shuts down. People will always need to eat and my role in making that happen isn't something that can go away. They only way work will be closed down is if a breakout happens there, which is possible but even that might not change my job that much. And given how much help is being given I think I should be ok if I have to be in lockdown for some time for whatever reason.  I know I am pretty lucky here, so I am thankful for what I've got. 

I'm only slightly worried about my own health. I'm in my mid thirties and have no underlying health concerns (that I know of at least). If I get the virus I will probably be laid up for a week or two but I doubt I will have to go the hospital or even die, but you never know. I certainly don't want to get the virus though as I would rather not have to take that chance. 

I do think that I will probably get the virus at some point, unfortunately. With it unlikely that I will join everyone else in lockdown my chances are already above average. But the circumstances of my job means that I regularly get into contact with truck drivers who are moving across the country. I am taking as many precautions as I possibly can but all it takes is one sick person who is too stubborn or dumb to cover their mouth when they cough. Truck drivers have gotten me sick before this way, so I have resigned myself to getting the virus. 

A more remote concern is how all of this is going to play out. I think that a whole lot of people are likely to die, most of them old and sick already. That's tragic enough, but I think a lot of people will probably go broke. The government here will likely try and take care of people, but with the economy going into the toilet who knows how that will work out?  

I also don't know how long this is going to take. My old thoughts were that this would blow over by summer due to the virus not being able to spread well during warmer weather. But with the outbreaks in Brazil and Australia, I am not sure that is going to be the case. President Trump today mentioned it might be until July or August and even that might be optimistic. This could last a lot longer than anyone thought... 

I do have to say that this will probably be a generation defining event, much like World War II was for the Greatest Generation and World War I/The Spanish Flu was for the Lost Generation. This is a global challenge and the one thing anyone who makes it though this time will be able to tell the people that come after exactly what happened through it. If nothing else, we live in interesting times... 

Editor's note: Dem Debate.

Joe Biden by Gage Skidmore

As you may be aware there is going to be a debate tonight. It will be broadcast on CNN (ugh) and will star Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the only two candidates in the race that qualified for it. Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race but the DNC keeps changing the rules to screw her over so she won't be attending. The debate starts at 7:00 PM central time and I will be watching barring some kind of disaster (which is certainly possible these days!)

As always I will be live tweeting the debate and you can follow along on Twitter and Gab. Even though I dislike both Sanders and Biden I do like covering these debates and you never know what will happen with those two. With Biden seemingly losing his mind and Sanders as angry and loud as ever it might be interesting.

Of course the Coronavirus is going to dominate the debate and with CNN moderating I expect there to be about 30 minutes of so of uninterrupted Trump bashing. Though the Coronavirus is obviously the biggest story right now, it makes little sense for these candidates to debate it since even if they both survive (no sure thing even before the virus!) and get elected, the crisis should hopefully be over by the time they are sworn in.

It's going to be an odd debate with one of the moderators already dropping out. Jorge Ramos is in self-quarantine due to being exposed to the virus. And there won't be an audience due to similar concerns. This probably hurts Bernie more as his supporters tend to make a lot of noise and help him out. Either way, it's going to be a historic debate regardless of what happens and I am going to watch it as it happens!

President Trump extends Coronavirus travel ban to the United Kingdom and Ireland.

London's Heathrow airport. BBC/EPA.

President Donald Trump has extended his travel ban to include the United Kingdom and Ireland. BBC. The ban will start on Monday at midnight eastern time. The ban comes a week after President Trump banned travel from the EU. US citizens will be allowed to come back to America but will be screened at airports. The UK and Ireland had been exempt but the President hinted that they might be added in the future. With the UK having 1140 cases and 21 deaths as of this writing, the President decided to include them. 

My Comment:

At first I supported leaving the UK off the list as they didn't have that many cases but it's pretty clear that they are not handling this outbreak well. Unlike other European countries they are not issuing quarantines and social distancing under the idea that if introduced to early people will get frustrated and ignore orders. Instead the UK is promoting hand washing and "herd immunity" and admit that up to 60% of people there could get the disease. 

I think that plan alone would be enough to ban travel from the UK. I think it's a terrible idea and it seems similar to what Iran is doing. They too said that quarantines don't work and now they are digging mass graves. China and South Korea on the other hand have greatly reduced new cases to the point where China is actually reducing some of their restrictions. Quite frankly, I think this plan is insanity and I sincerely hope that President Trump won't follow suit. To be fair to President Trump, his response seems totally different. 

Ireland is a bit more of a mystery to me. Unlike the UK, I haven't been able to find too much about their response but they are closing schools and seem to be more proactive than the UK. They only have a few cases but I am thinking they are getting banned because of their close relationship with the UK and the fact that they share a border (kinda) with the UK. They only have 129 cases and 2 deaths as of this writing so this might be a bit of an overreaction to include them. 

I do think that these travel bans will help. It seems clear that Europe is now the primary hot zone and if we had kept open borders with Europe we could have gotten a lot of new cases. Though it wouldn't have helped with our current cases of community transmissions it will prevent new cases coming from foreign countries. It doesn't matter if we have a special relationship with us, our first priority has to be the United States. 

As far as the global response to Coronavirus, I think the United States is doing pretty well. We have had some major road bumps with the testing process but that seems to be getting better and we aren't doing totally stupid things like Iran and some of the countries in Europe are doing. It's too bad that we got a few cases of community transmission but what can you do at this point? At least there have been some actions to improve testing and take care of our people and small businesses financially.

As for me personally, I'm not too worried about myself but I am worried about my older family members. I'm in decent health and I have enough money in my bank account to last quite some time. Plus, unlike many people, my job isn't likely to be shut down even if we go full Wuhan style lockdown as it's a critical industry (though my own place in that industry might be more expendable than I think). Still, this story is going to be a huge one so I am guessing that I will be writing about the Coronavirus for quite some time in the future. 

US launches air strikes in Iraq after an Iran-backed militia attacks a base there, killing three soldiers.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Reuters. 

The United States has launched several airstrikes after an Iranian backed militia killed two US soldiers and one UK solider. Reuters. The strikes were limited and were targeting Kataib Hezbollah's weapon caches. It is unclear what the effect of the strikes were. The attack that killed the soldiers was launched using 107mm Katyusha against the Taji military camp north of Baghdad. 30 rockets were fired and 18 hit the base. Though the attack has increased tensions, it is unlikely that the United States will target any leadership like they did when they killed General Soleimani.

My Comment:

An important story that is getting drowned out by the almost ubiquitous Coronavirus news coverage. This attack killed two of our soldiers and wounded several more. Plus a few foreign service members were hurt as well killing a UK soldier. This was a major attack and one that drew a response. 

This Hezbollah group is allied with Iran and I am guessing they probably had, at the very least, knowledge of this attack. Iran has long tried to kill our troops in Iraq but until recently they haven't been paying a price for it. These airstrikes will likely damage their ability to make further attacks and may have even killed some of their troops. 

I think Iran did this because they wanted more revenge for the death of General Soleimani. The attack occurred on what would have been his birthday and I never thought they were entirely satisfied with their missile strike. They wanted more revenge but they knew that they risked a war if they did so, so they waited until things calmed down.  

That being said, this was a dumb move by Iran. With the Coronavirus ravaging their country and killing some of their politicians the last thing they need is further conflict with the United States. What they really need is sanctions relief but this strike too will make that goal less likely. This attack was incredibly counterproductive. 

But I also think that there won't be much more in the way of a response. The United States also has a huge problem on their plate with the Coronavirus outbreak and the economic damage it is doing. The last thing we need as well is more tensions with Iran. Which may have been a reason why Iran did this, they know the country and President Trump specifically is in a tough situation right now. 

Still, I think a proportional response was the correct move here. Blowing up these arms depots will send a message and make further attacks more difficult. It is also possible that we even killed some of the people responsible for it. Such a response is a lot better than a major war with Iran, which probably won't come anytime soon. 

President Trump announced new travel restrictions and economic action on the Coronavirus.

President Donald Trump. White House photo.

President Donald Trump addressed the nation and outlined new steps to protect the country from the Coronavirus outbreak, including a ban on travel to Europe. USA Today. The biggest news is a new travel ban to Europe that excludes the UK. Italy has a major outbreak and France, Germany and Spain are catching up with many new cases. The ban will last for 30 days and will begin this Friday at midnight. President Trump also said that he would be taking action on paid family leave to ensure that people who are sick, in quarantine, or caring for someone who is sick are taken care of financially and he would be asking congress to extend the relief. Trump also said he would extend the tax filing deadline and called on congress to give Americans temporary payroll tax relief. He also instructed the Small Business Administration to provide capital and liquidity to businesses effected by the virus. 

My Comment:

The travel ban is the biggest news from this address and I support it. It's very clear that Europe doesn't have the Coronavirus outbreak in hand. They haven't really done much to stop travel and the outbreak in Italy has now spread to Spain, France and Germany. Though America has our own outbreak to worry about, a travel ban will ensure that we won't get new outbreaks from outside of our country. 

Leaving the UK out of this ban will be controversial. Though they don't have as many cases as the European countries effected by the ban, they do have cases which seem to be community transmission. They are probably only a few days to a week behind countries like France and Germany and I assume this ban will be updated to include them as well. My guess is that they weren't included due to the fact that they are somewhat insulated from Europe due to being an island and the fact that they have the "special relationship" with the United States. 

It's unclear how this travel ban will work. I am assuming that we will still try to evacuate our citizens who are in Europe. There are people who are stuck there on vacation or in study abroad programs. If the do come back though, they are going to be quarantined. 

The economic relief is probably more important. The paid family leave is extremely important as many people in America don't have sick days or even paid time off. We don't want sick people to work because they don't have any options and President Trump specifically said that sick people should stay home. 

The best idea Trump put forth was also the least likely to happen. The payroll tax cut would be a huge deal for any workers that are able to continue working. They would have more money to buy supplies and would be able to help prop up the economy. But it likely won't happen as Democrats in congress will not vote for it. 

As for the speech itself, President Trump seemed more than a little tired. I think this outbreak is taking a toll on him and it seemed pretty obvious from his voice and posture. He's got a huge responsibility right now and it's going to be very hard for him to deal with. It was a good speech, with good policy recommendations but I do hope that President Trump is taking care of himself as well. 

As for the outbreak, I'm still not sure how it's going to turn out. Italy is showing us how bad it can get, with triage for old people and some people even being turned away. But China and South Korea have shown that the virus can be slowed considerably by enforcing quarantines. We aren't there yet in America but we could be soon. 

I honestly expect lockdowns at this point. The outbreaks in California, Washington and New York will likely spread across the country. President Trump's actions here have bought us some time, especially now that Europe is off the table, but the virus is already here. It will spread and the only action that will stop it will be quarantine. I still believe the virus will die out once summer hits, as it is not spreading well in the Southern Hemisphere and in hotter climates, but we still have 2-3 months before then and the virus could spread quite a bit. And if it continues to spread in the Southern Hemisphere, it might come back to America this fall... 

Thankfully, it seems like the government is trying to handle things. They had some issues with testing which seems to be under control now, but these travel bans have and will help. The economic assistance will be nice as well and even if the virus becomes widespread I think we will have a better chance at containing it than other countries will. 

Joe Biden yells at and threatens union worker over the 2nd Amendment

Joe Biden at the Mack Assembly plant in Michigan. Reuters.

Joe Biden swore and yelled at a union worker at a Michigan auto plant in an argument over gun rights. Reuters. The worker accused Biden of being against the 2nd amendment and said that by putting Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke in power as a "gun czar" he would be coming for guns. Biden said the man was "full of shit" and a "horses ass". Biden also demonstrated a lack of knowledge of weapons claiming the popular AR-15 rifle was fully automatic and referring to the gun as an AR-14 and admitting he would ban it. He also invited the man to step outside before his aides made him move on. The outburst raises further concerns about Biden's mental state as he has gotten into several gaffes recently, including calling a young voter a "dog faced pony solider".

WATCH: "You’re full of sh*t," @JoeBiden tells a man who accused him of "actively trying to end our Second Amendment right."

"I support the Second Amendment," Biden adds while vising under-construction auto plant in Detroit. @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/sueOSBaY9P

— Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) March 10, 2020

My Comment:
Make sure you watch either the video in the Reuters piece or the quoted tweet above as the video is way worse than the Reuters article made it sound. Joe Biden got really aggressive with this man very quickly just for asking an admittedly confrontational but fairly standard question. There was no reason for Biden to just start yelling and swearing at the man, let alone starting to threaten him.

It's also very clear that Joe Biden doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to guns. Calling an AR-15 and AR-14 is the least of his problems, though I could forgive that as a slip of the tongue. But the rest? He's either lying deliberately about what an AR-15 is or he just doesn't know. An AR-15 is specifically NOT a machine gun as it only fires one round per pull of the trigger. And though 60 and 100 round AR magazines exist they are not standard or common like the 30 and 20 rounders are.

He's also talking through both sides of his mouth as you can't say you are not going to ban guns while at the same time saying you are going to ban AR-15's. You also can't say you support the 2nd amendment if you are at the same time planning on banning an entire class of guns. Biden does seem to realize that a full on confiscation scheme isn't going to work, but he can't deny he's coming at the right to buy guns.

And I think this is one of the reasons Biden was so angry at this man. He really is planning on coming after guns but he does not want more moderate voters to know that. The voter exposed him and Joe Biden didn't like it at all. He knows that gun control might play well in the primaries but is a huge disadvantage for him in the general and doesn't want general voters to know how extreme his position actually is.

I think this could be a "deplorable" moment for Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton famously said that half of Donald Trump's voters could be put in a "basket of deplorables" as they were all racist, sexist and otherwise terrible people. This strategy backfired on her immensely as it was hugely insulting, not only for the Trump voters she was trying to get to vote for her, but the friends and family of people who were supporting President Trump. I always thought it was this that cost her the election, though obviously she had a lot of other problems as well.

The one rule in politics is that you never insult the voters you are trying to reach and that's what Hillary Clinton did back in 2016 and now Joe Biden has done the same in 2020. Telling a voter (and a union member as well!) that he's full of shit for expressing a very common blue collar concern about all the Democratic candidates is going to hurt his chances in November. I am guessing that he probably changes a few minds at the Mack Assembly Plant who are probably going to side with their worker over Joe Biden.

This is a very obvious own-goal for the Biden campaign. This incident is going to fire up gun owners for sure and may even cause unions to reconsider him. I am sure the NRA is putting together an advertisement quoting Biden here, which is to be expected, but the union thing is probably more of a threat. Auto workers are already sliding towards President Trump since he has fought pretty hard for them and this incident will likely push them even further away, regardless of what their union leadership says.

I also think that this incident is another example that could be put in the evidence pile for Joe Biden's possibly senility. The vast majority of politicians know you never get into a shouting battle with a voter, but Biden either forgot or didn't care. Outbursts of disproportionate anger is a sign of senility and Biden sure expressed that here.

This incident, added with all the other strange, jumbled and just plain weird things he has said lately might not be conclusive evidence that Biden is going senile, but it a circumstantial case at the very least. Getting into fights with union workers, confusing his wife with his sister, even calling a voter a "dog faced pony soldier" are not the actions of a well man. Even if he isn't suffering from the early signs of Alzheimer's or another dementia disorder, there definitely something off with Joe Biden.

I don't think it will hurt Joe Biden that much in Michigan though. Bernie Sanders is on life support and it's not like he's all that much better on gun rights than Joe Biden is. There might be a few people so disgusted with Biden here that they will vote for Sanders today, but I can't see that number being enough to erase the huge leads Biden has shown in polling.

Prince Andrew is refusing to cooperate in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Prince Andrew. Reuters. 

Prince Andrew is refusing to cooperate in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Reuters. Prosecutors in the case said that the Prince will not submit to any interviews despite previously saying he would help any investigation. Prince Andrew was accused of sleeping with underaged girls that were provided to him by Epstein. The United States government is still investigating Epstein's girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell due to the fact that Jeffrey Epstein allegedly killed himself in prison. It's unclear what steps prosecutors will take next. 

My Comment:

Just a quick update on a story that has been completely drowned out by the Coronavirus outbreak, and, to a lesser extent, the Prince Harry/Meghan Markel nonsense. The Jeffrey Epstein scandal may not be dead but it may as well be given how little media coverage this is getting. 

I am not surprised that Prince Andrew is not cooperating. I have always suspected he would shut down investigators. If he is honest about what he did and what he knows not only does he risk being prosecuted himself, there is a chance he could meet a similar fate as Jeffrey Epstein himself. I still don't believe that he killed himself and I think that if Prince Andrew talks he could end up "killing himself" as well. 

There hasn't been much news into the investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell. As far as I am aware she is still on the run and has not been arrested. She really is the key to all of this as she knew everything that Epstein was doing and could point the finger at Prince Andrew and other rich and powerful people. 

I do think that Prince Andrew deserves punishment for his actions. He is accused of having sex with underaged girls who were victims of human trafficking. He also has shown very little remorse for what he has done and has denied everything. Though he has lost face and been shunned by the Royal Family, that isn't anywhere near enough. He's also not cooperating which could give some justice to some of Epstein's victims. 

I still say that the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was one of the biggest stories in recent history and it's still amazing to me that it died off. Some of that is due to the current news cycle being crazy, but I have always thought the story deserved more coverage than it received. Prince Andrew is a bit part of that story and I hope that he is finally brought to justice.