Russian Prime Minster Mishustin tests positive for the Coronavirus.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minster Mikhail Mishutin. BBC/Reuters.

Russia's Prime Minster Mikhail Mishutin has informed President Vladimir Putin that he has tested positive for the Coronavirus. BBC. Mishutin was shown on Russian news networks informing Putin. Mishutin suggested that First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov should take his place as he is getting treatment. Mishutin was active in responding to the outbreak in Russia, which has been severe. 100,000 people have been confirmed to have the disease in Russia and over 1000 have died. The outbreak could get worse as President Putin has admitted that Russia does not have enough PPE and is concerned that people will leave the cities as weather gets warmer, further spreading the virus. 

My Comment:

Not good news for Russia at all. Mishutin hasn't been in his role long but he is a trusted advisor to Putin and one of the most powerful people in Russia. He was also in a major role in fighting the Coronavirus outbreak and now he has been sidelined.

Mishutin's chances are pretty good. He's 54 years old which is in the danger zone but not in a super dangerous category. He will also likely receive the best treatment that Russia can provide. That might not be enough but I do think that he has a good chance to pull through. 

World leaders have largely been spared from the disease and the few that have been infected have mostly survived. Boris Johnson is one of the most prominent and Rand Paul survived as well, and never even displayed any symptoms. My guess is that Mishutin will survive as well. 

An additional fear is that Mishutin could have infected other major Russian politicians, up to and including Vladmir Putin himself. Russia needs leadership right now and if they lose their top figures they could be in serious trouble. 

I think Russia could be hit especially hard by the virus. Their health care isn't great and their population is not healthy at all. Russia also has huge apartment blocks where people live in close quarters. They also have major economic problems due to their oil war with Saudi Arabia. While many other countries are beating back the virus their new cases are blowing up and they are nowhere near herd immunity. It could be a very rough time for Russia in the next couple weeks and months. 

The good news for Russia is that they got some good will from the United States by sending a plane full of supplies last month. They did so with the understanding that America would help them after we got our outbreak under control. That means we will almost certainly help Russia in their time of need. 

Though the virus has been a disaster it does seem like America and Russia will have better relations from it. They have helped us and we have helped them. And Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have been in regular communication. I think it might be the opportunity for both sides to come to an understanding. 

FDA likely to approve Remdesivir as an emergency Coronavirus drug.

The chemical structure of Remdesivir. Wikipedia user Hbf878.

The FDA is likely to approve Remdesivir as an emergency Coronavirus drug after positive results from a US trial. The Hill. Remdesivir was developed as an anti-Ebola drug but has been used to fight the Coronavirus disease, Covid-19. The trial used 1063 sick people with the Coronavirus and showed that people that took the drug had a 31% faster recovery than the placebo. The treatment group also saw a lower death rate, 8%, than the placebo group, 11.6% but it was not statistically significant. 

My Comment:

This is potentially good news but I have to say that I don't fully trust any reports on drugs anymore. Without more information about this trial I can't say for sure how good of a trial it is. Other trials, including one in China, said that Remdesivir was less than useless.

These conflicting reports reminds me of the controversy over Hydroxychloroquinine. That drug, like Remdesivir, was promoted as a possible cure by President Trump. As soon as that happened the media reports went from positive and hopeful to the drug being fish poison that had killed someone because the President ordered it. The same thing may have happened with Remdesivir with the above Politico story coming from the WHO and China which have reasons to lie about the drug. 

What do I think? I think it's very possible that Remdesivir works. There is no reason it wouldn't work and I do think most of the trials have been positive, other than the Chinese study. It certainly doesn't seem like it's a panacea though and though it may help it's not a cure. 

However, I do wonder if we have done enough studies on the drug. Unlike the quinine based drugs Remdesivir is a new medication. It's only really been tried for Ebola and Covid-19 and it failed in the first case. We don't have good data on all possible side effects or long term problems it could cause. 

Cost is another issue. Unlike the quinine based drugs, Remdesivir is on patent and could be very expensive. The company that developed the drug, Gilead, hasn't revealed how much they will be charging but it's not basically free like the quinine based drugs are. Hopefully they won't be gouging people for the drug. I don't have a problem with them making a profit but this isn't the time for them to gouge us.

That being said, I do support it being used. One of the biggest problems we had with Coronavirus is that we did not have a good treatment for the disease. This meant that patients were either left with their own immune system as a defense or whatever drug the doctors thought might help. 

I do wonder if that the reduction in death rates compared to the early outbreaks in China and Italy is due to these treatments becoming widely available. I haven't heard any good explanation as to why the case fatality rate seems to be less than 1% when it was way higher in the early days and I think the treatment could be a plausible explanation. 

If Remdesivir proves to be a good treatment it's an additional good argument for opening things up. If there is a treatment out there that makes the disease easier to recover from and brings down the death rate (which isn't proven with Remdesivir but still) then there seems to be little reason to keep the hard lockdown we have right now. 

Finally, I wish I was more knowledgeable about investment. If I was I would have bought stakes in Gilead months ago. If I had in February, when I first heard rumors about Remdesivir being a treatment, I could have bought it at around $64 a share. Today that stock is worth around $83 and may go up further. Too bad I didn't because that would have been a nice profit for me... 

Justin Amash launches exploratory bid for the Libertarian party presidential race.

Justin Amash congressional photo.

Independent congressman Justin Amash is launching an exploratory bid for the Libertarian Party's presidential primary race. The Hill. Amash left the Republican Party last year and has been mulling a presidential run since. Libertarians have been pressuring him to do so as they lack a credible candidate. However, Amash is hated by the GOP for backing the Democrats impeachment effort. It is unclear who Amash would draw his votes from as President Trump earns very high ratings from Republican voters. 

My Comment:

I know the Libertarian Party is in dire straits lately due to a lack of candidates and recent candidate Gary Johnson refusing to run, but I don't think this is the answer. Honestly, I think they should send their support to Vermin Supreme, the joke candidate that promises free ponies for every American. He's not a serious candidate but then again, I don't think the Libertarians are a serious party. 

What the Libertarians think they need is a credible candidate that has name recognition and Amash is probably that. He's well known for his stunts and his betrayal of the Republican Party. If nothing else he's famous which is a lot better than people like Jacob Hornberger or Adam Kokesh. I would say that Vermin Supreme is the 2nd most famous candidate if Amash ends up joining the race. 

The problem is that the Libertarian ideal is more unpopular than ever. Though I admire their stance on gun rights the party is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Some of their platform is popular to some degree, like drug legalization, but economically their party isn't going to get support. Democrats hate their economic policies and the GOP hates their support of open borders, which is a non-starter under normal circumstances and just insane when there is a major pandemic going on. Nobody cares about federal deficits either. 

Amash also angered many on the right who might have voted for him. He bashed President Trump and even supported efforts to impeach him, which almost all of the GOP agreed was a witch hunt that distracted from more important issues, most notably the Coronavirus pandemic. This was viewed as a total betrayal and if forced at gunpoint to choose between Amash and any Democrat I would vote for the Democrat. His behavior was atrocious and he never seemed to realize that libertarians need to choose between supporting a party that can win or complete annihilation.  

As for the left, they already hate him, despite some kind words for him in the past as a useful idiot to be used against President Trump. Amash is trending on Twitter right now and the blue checkmark brigade has turned on him already. They fear, correctly in my opinion, that Amash will draw more voters from Joe Biden than Donald Trump. The only people that Amash would appeal to are libertarians, who aren't voting for either candidate anyways, and the few remaining Never Trump "Republicans" who were going to vote for Biden but might be persuaded to vote for Amash. The Democrats appear to be furious with Amash, which is a big turnaround from his praise when he was attacking President Trump. 

Gary Johnson only got 3.28% of a vote in and election that was widely saw as the biggest chance of a 3rd party contender to ever do well. I can't see Amash reaching those levels as President Trump is a known factor and Joe Biden, despite being a pretty bad candidate, isn't hated like Hillary Clinton is. If Amash does actually run I don't see him doing too much. 

President Trump will use the Defense Production Act to keep meat plants open.

File photo of workers at BPI. Reuters.

President Donald Trump will use the Defense Production Act to keep America's struggling meat producers open. Reuters. The President is expected to issue an executive order instructing the plants to stay open and will provide liability protection for the companies affected. America is facing a major shortage of meat, especially of pork products and many hogs are being euthanized instead of being brought to market due to a lack of operating meat plants. As many as 20 slaughterhouses and processing plants have been closed due to the Coronavirus outbreak leading to a 43% reduction in pork production and a 38% reduction in beef. Critics disagreed with the order saying it didn't go far enough to protect workers, though the order will likely include guidance on allowing more vulnerable workers to stay home. 

My Comment:

First a disclaimer. Though I don't often talk about my job I think it's important to note that I do work in this industry. I don't want to say much more than that but I think the potential for bias here is obvious and should be pointed out. I also want to say that my words below are my own and should not be considered to be coming from my employer. 

With that out of the way I do think that this was necessary. I went to the store today and it was clear that supply is not meeting up with demand. There was a little beef there but almost no poultry and almost no pork available at the store and it seemed like a lot of the various staples were running low throughout the store. This is a problem that will get worse over time if it's not dealt with.

I think we are pretty close to a serious food crisis in this country, one that could be way more dangerous than the Coronavirus. Though I am hoping that some people stocked up supplies, we really can't afford to risk it if people did not. I have always said people are willing to put up with a lot but going without food is pretty unprecedented in America and not something that will go over well to say the least. I know that we still have vegetables and seafood, which don't seem to be as affected for whatever reason, but that's still not enough to feed the country. I don't think this is a problem of people not getting the food they want but a problem with people not getting enough food period. 

I also think that these plants needed the political and legal cover to stay open. There was a lot of pressure to close these plants from both activists and some members of the community and there is also the fear that workers could sue if they catch the disease. Neither of these things should be a concern for now. I don't think there will be any protests though, as the people that seem most concerned about this virus are the people on the left. 

I think the "why" is pretty well covered but the "how" is a mystery for me. Most of the plants that closed seemed to do so because they ran out of workers, not because they were worried about lawsuits. With many of these plants reporting hundreds of people sick and widespread cases of absenteeism, I am not sure how they are expected to open. These plants are fairly complex and it only takes a few missing people to derail operations.  I'm kind of wondering if there won't be an exception for the hardest hit plants. Without the order sitting in front of me it's hard to say how the government will deal with this issues. 

Complicating things is the role the media and the Democrats will play in this. I am guessing that they will try and whip up the unions to try and force plant closures. The fact that if we close all of these plants it will lead to hunger and widespread misery is seen as a benefit to these people as they will do anything to keep President Trump from being reelected. They do not care at all who gets hurt. 

That being said, I do have to say that the workers are being asked to take a big risk here. Though the PPE situation seems to be resolved, they are not a panacea and wearing facemasks, shields and gloves won't stop all infections. This order will likely lead to more people getting sick. I won't be surprised if people don't show up after the harder hit plants are reopened. 

But I also don't know what else can be done. We need meat in this country to feed people. I think it's a hard ask to open these plants up but it's necessary. And I say that as someone who is at risk (though I am at lower risk than most) of catching the disease if the plants stay open. 

Supreme Court punts on gun rights case saying the issue is moot after New York City withdrew the law.

Guns seized in New York. NBC News/Getty.

The Supreme Court refused to rule on a gun rights case from New York City instead ruling that the issue is moot. NBC News. In a 6-3 ruling the court said that because New York City repealed the law the court would not rule on it. The case concerns a firearm transport law that said gun owners could not take their firearms outside of New York City. Three gun owners in the city filed suit and appealed to the Supreme Court but when it was clear that the city risked losing at SCOTUS, they changed the law. The three dissenting justices said the law was unconstitutional and should have been overturned despite the change in the law. Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the majority but said that gun cases should be taken up by the Supreme Court more frequently. 

My Comment:

It looks like New York City's strategy to prevent an unfavorable ruling worked. It seems pretty clear that if they hadn't pulled the law they would have lost. It was clear that the court thought that the law was unconstitutional but they refused to rule. 

I think this will encourage more shenanigans like this. Anytime an obviously unconstitutional law is made the lawmakers can just pull it and avoid an unfavorable ruling. No rulings will be made and the next time a law comes up people might be less inclined to sue. 

I'm not sure why that argument didn't convince the Supreme Court to rule on this case. You would think that New York City's actions in this case would be the kind of thing that would piss of the court but I guess not. 

This case doesn't appear to be over though, the Court sent the issue back to the lower courts. If the plaintiffs continue the case they can argue about getting damages from the old law and arguing about the constitutionality of the replacement law that says people can travel with their firearms but only if they don't make any side stops along the way. But again, if that issue comes to the Supreme Court again, why wouldn't New York City just pull the law again to make the issue moot?

If there is good news here it's that it looks like the Supreme Court is more likely to take further gun rights cases. Brett Kavanaugh seems to be chomping at the bit, which makes his ruling here strange. Regardless it's been way too long since these cases have been tried in court and I am hoping that more gun rights cases make it to the court soon. 

I also think that the gun control movement is on life support. After an infusion of cash and supporters after a rash of mass shootings, the movement was devastated by the Coronavirus outbreak. Millions of people purchased firearms due to fear of civil unrest and chaos and many of them realized for the first time how horrible these gun laws are. And they will now be less likely to support the confiscation of their property. 

WHO deletes tweet that suggested that people would not gain immunity after a Coronavirus infection.

Yahoo News/Getty.

The World Health Organization has deleted a tweet that suggested that people would not gain immunity after a Coronavirus infection. Yahoo News. The tweet said “there is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from Covid-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection”. The tweet caused outrage and the World Health Organization was accused of fear-mongering. Today the WHO tweeted out that they expected people who recovered from the disease to have some level of protection from the virus, though it's unclear how long the protection will last and how effective it will be. The original tweet was about the proposed "immunity passports" which would allow people to go back to work regardless of the social distancing policies in several countries. 

Earlier today we tweeted about a new WHO scientific brief on "immunity passports". The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify:

We expect that most people who are infected with #COVID19 will develop an antibody response that will provide some level of protection. pic.twitter.com/AmxvQQLTjM

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) April 25, 2020

My Comment:
These days I trust very little coming out of the World Health Organization.  They have proven themselves to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for China and have ignored good medical advice, like mandating facemasks, for months now. I generally ignore what they say and listen to the CDC instead. Even though they have been far from perfect as well, at least they aren't putting out crap like this.

This tweet is just the latest example of the WHO posting things that have very little basis in reality. The idea that people infected with Coronavirus don't get immunity after they survive the infection is foolish at best. If people didn't develop some immunity than nobody would have ever gotten better. I fully expect people will be immune to the virus for some time after they recover.

I do think it's valid to question how long that immunity will last. In some viruses immunity lasts forever and for others it only lasts years or months. It's unclear how long the immunity will be for the Coronavirus though regardless, it's obvious that it will exist. My guess is that if you get the virus you will be immune to in for at least a few years and if you do contract it afterwards you will be more resistant, assuming no other changes in your health.

Another factor is the fact that the virus will evolve over time. Though the Coronavirus has been fairly stable, it is changing over time. It's possible that the virus will mutate enough that people's immunity won't work anymore. Though people will probably be more resistant to newer strains if they have been infected previously, it might not stop people from getting sick. Still, the virus has been fairly stable and doesn't seem to be mutating as fast as we would expect.

I know there have been reports of people getting reinfected in Asia, but I find those studies to be dubious at best. The obvious cofounders are bad testing with false negatives and positives. People failing to fully recover to the virus and the virus getting a 2nd wind is likely as well. I think that those studies are wrong and obviously so as China hasn't seen a major 2nd wave in Wuhan.

All that being said, I do think that immunity passports are a dumb idea. Not because I don't expect there to be immunity to the virus, but because it would create two classes of people. With only recovered people allowed to live normal lives you would create a huge incentive for people to infect themselves just so they could go outside again. It could also cause a major amount of resentment from those people who have not gotten sick. It's a bad idea and I think that the WHO was right to speak out about it, but they did it for extremely stupid reasons.

A 1993 Larry King interview adds evidence to Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden.

Joe Biden. The Federalist. 

A newly discovered clip from Larry King adds evidence to Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations against presidential candidate Joe Biden. The Federalist. In the clip Reade's mother asked how a staffer could deal with a problem with a Senator that had not been dealt with properly. She said that her daughter had not gone to the press out of respect. The story corroborates some of Reade's claims, who said that Biden sexually assaulted her. Her mother did not mention sexual assault or harassment but did substantiate her claims that she had gone through the complaint system and did not go anywhere. Reade's brother and friend have also confirmed that Reade had told them at the time that Biden had harassed and raped her.

Video👇🏻@ReadeAlexandra — is this your Mom’s voice? https://t.co/ospBhlKSvb pic.twitter.com/r5WsXJ2vQb

— Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) April 24, 2020

My Comment:
A quick note one the video. I included both a link to a twitter post as well as a YouTube link as I am afraid that one or both are deleted. I will also post the transcript of the call below:

 KING: San Luis Obispo, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.

KING: In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?

CALLER: That’s true.

This isn't strong evidence that Reade's sexual assault allegations are true but at the very least they seem to prove that Reade's comments about trying to deal with Joe Biden through the system are more likely. If her mom was commenting about the allegations to Larry King back in 1993 than I think it's pretty clear that Reade's problems with Biden aren't new and aren't due to her being upset that Bernie Sanders lost the nomination (she supported Sanders in the primary).

Does that mean that Joe Biden is guilty? Not at all. It's still a he said, she said allegation with no direct evidence of wrong doing. The story could still be made up, but if it was it was made up 30 years ago and Reade told a lot of people about it.

Do I think Biden is guilty? Probably. He's always struck me as a creepy guy. There are so many videos of him practically groping people on camera, including small children. If unimpeachable evidence came out that Biden had assaulted someone I would not be surprised at all.

Still, I have always said that without a fair trial, strong evidence of guilt or a confession we should treat all claims of sexual assault with more than a little suspicion. When those accusations are against a political figure that goes double. The sad fact is that people lie about sexual assault all the time.

But I can't help but think that the Democrats are being hypocritical here. When dubious accusations were raised against Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh we were told to believe women no matter what. To the credit of some, there are a few people saying we should believe Tara Reade. But the majority of Democrats? Believing women went right out the window when it became politically inconvenient.

Will it hurt Joe Biden though? Maybe. It does seem like this story is getting mainstream attention. The main news networks seem to be ignoring it and the establishment cheerleaders like the Huffington Post are just embracing the hypocrisy. But others, like The Intercept and The Guardian, are covering this story, along with conservative outlets.

And I do think there will be some voters who just won't be able to vote for someone who is accused of rape. Those people won't vote for President Trump either but they won't vote for Joe Biden either. They might have been able to hold their nose and vote for Hillary Clinton as it was only her husband that was accused of sexual assault, but they won't be able to do so with Biden. That might hurt him come November.

Plus this story is still just starting. With the Coronavirus dominating the news it is under the radar for now but as the pandemic fades as summer hits (I hope) we will go back to political news and this should be the number one story until the election. And I wouldn't be surprised if more people come forward before this election is over.

Judge overturns California's background check requirement on ammo purchases.

A gun store owner shows off a .45 ACP bullet. NBC News/AP.

A judge has overthrown California's background check requirement on ammo purchases, calling it "onerous and convoluted." NBC News. In 2016 proposition 63 passed in the state which banned standard capacity magazines as well as the new background check requirement. Judge Roger Benitez ruled in both cases in favor of gun rights supporters, though he did allow a halt on sales of standard and high capacity magazines in California while the case makes its way through appeals. Judge Benitez said the background check law hurt legal gun owners while doing nothing to actually stop criminals from obtaining ammunition. It is unclear if California will appeal the ruling. The law went into effect last July.

My Comment:

This was the right call. I always thought California's background check law was an attempt to do nothing but punish gun owners for existing. I can see the logic of forcing someone to do a background check if they are buying a firearm but not for ammo. 

I also think there are non-gun rights related reasons to be opposed to the law. I personally like to use background checks as a decent proxy for gun sales but California's new law screwed things up so the numbers aren't quite as useful.

This law as pretty stupid on it's face and was an obvious attempt to punish people who bought ammo. People tend to buy ammo much more frequently then they buy guns for pretty obvious reasons, and this law hurt them for it. If you buy one gun a year and you have to pay for a background check and wait awhile while it is processed, it's not a big deal. But if you have to do so every time you buy ammo that could be a couple of times a month if you are really into shooting. It was adding a massive cost and major inconvenience for people exercising their 2nd amendment rights. 

And it would have done nothing to actually prevent crime. Criminals don't care where their ammo comes from and can either buy it on the black market or just steal it when they steal their gun. It's even fairly easy to make your own ammo if you can find the right components. And of course, the same problem with background checks for firearms is just as present for ammo. Straw buyers purchasing ammo for a forbidden person would pretty much mean the whole system is pointless.

I also think that the Coronavirus pandemic showed how dangerous such a law is. With a rush of new gun buyers everything was slowed down during the great panic buy. People had to wait in hours just to try and buy a gun and ammo and had to do a background check for both. Plus the people that just wanted to top off their supplies had to wait in line with all the gun owners. This probably helped spread the disease in California and I wish that this ruling had come sooner. 

Will California fight this ruling? They probably will but I don't think it will matter. The anti-gun logic here is pretty terrible. Even if you could buy the argument that background checks on ammo is somehow constitutional I don't think that this particular law passes the smell test due to how it was crafted and because of how much of a disaster it was when it was implemented. 

I also think that the anti-gun community is pretty much on their back feet at this point. They are reeling due to rulings like this and the Coronavirus outbreak suddenly creating millions of new gun owners, many of whom are furious with all the restrictions and checks they had to go through just to have a gun to protect their family. My sincere hope is that we have finally defeated this evil movement for good. But I'm not holding my breath. 

What's going on with North Korea's Kim Jong Un? President Trump throws cold water on reports Kim is gravely ill

President Trump at the Coronavirus briefing. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump said he did not believe reports that Kim Jong Un is gravely ill. Reuters. Trump said that he believes the reports that Kim was ill are incorrect and are based on old documents. The President has not contacted North Korea to confirm Kim Jon Un's health but may do so in the future. Though Kim Jong Un has had some health issues, it is also not out of character for him to be out of public eye. There have been reports that Kim Jong Un had open heart surgery but they have not been confirmed. 

My Comment:

This story broke the other day and I was always a little suspicious about it. The article came from CNN and they have never been a good news organization. They use unconfirmed reports from anonymous sources and in this case the sources were people in the intel community who wouldn't have direct knowledge anyways. 

Does that mean that something happened to Kim Jong Un? I am not sure. The problem is that North Korea is such a secretive state Kim could be dead and we wouldn't know it for sure. We don't have much in the way of human assets in the country and it's very hard to confirm things happening there. 

I do think that the idea that Kim had surgery due to a bad heart is plausible. He is overweight and even though he's in the mid thirties I don't see much evidence that he has taken care of himself. It's very possible that he did indeed have some heart issues. 

The other theory I have heard is that Kim has caught the Coronavirus somehow. Though North Korea isn't really sharing data there about the outbreak it's very possible that he caught the virus from someone. If he did North Korea would want to keep it quite due to the loss of face they would suffer if they admitted that not only did they have the virus but even their leader could catch it. 

Of course all of this is speculation and it is very possible that there is nothing wrong with Kim at all. He has disappeared from the public before and it's not like he doesn't have a very good reason to do so right now. The pandemic is limiting the events of all world leaders so that's enough to explain why he hasn't been around. 

But what happens if Kim Jong Un does die? His sister, Kim Yo Jong is presumed to be next in line. She's already a major advisor and has been seen at many public events with Kim Jong Un. She's be next up if something were to happen to Kim. 

Still, I doubt that anything will come from this story, except maybe another exchange between President Trump and Kim Jong Un. If anything I think it's another example of why you shouldn't trust the news. 

Coronavirus came to the United States in January.

A lone man walks his dog in California. Reuters.

The Coronavirus came to the United States in January in California. Reuters. Due to autopsy results the first recorded death in America was a woman in California on February 6th, which was much earlier than the first known death on February 29th in Washington. Medical examiners are now looking at other deaths in February, January and December to determine if other people may have died from the disease. The newly found deaths radically changes the timeline of the Coronavirus outbreak and may indicate that the virus is much more widespread than believed. 

My Comment:

This seems to be pretty critically important as it massively changes our understanding of the outbreak. If the virus was widespread enough in America to cause a death in February, it's pretty likely that nothing could have been to done to stop the virus. If someone died on February 6th that means the virus was probably in California at least by January 24th, which was before President Trump ordered the travel ban. 

This could also explain why California has been relatively less affected by the virus despite having cases and crowded cities. California has only had 33,000 cases and 1270 deaths roughly. This is despite the fact that they have many crowded cities. Though 33,000 cases is no small thing it is a lot less than New York, for example. 

If the outbreak started weeks or months earlier than it is widely thought than it isn't surprising that the state hasn't been hit as hard. The virus may have been raging through the state for months and a lot of people may have had it and recovered. With fewer people to infect it's likely that there were fewer hosts and California might be a lot closer to herd immunity that previously thought. 

This theory is backed up by the various California antibody studies that have shown that between 20 and 80 times more people had antibodies to the virus than confirmed cases in California. If those studies can be repeated and if more deaths are discovered than I think it's pretty clear that the virus was widespread long before we thought.

But why were deaths so low in California? Some of it may be demographics. Compared to New York, California is younger, fitter and generally healthier than New York. And it's also possible that California got a weaker strain than New York got. It's a huge question for sure. 

The theory also seems to mesh with the fact that a lot of people reported having a "bad flu" in December, January and February. With no testing available during these times and Coronavirus not even expected, it's very possible that many of these cases were not the flu at all but in fact SARS-CoV-2. 

The major policy effect this discovery would cause is the fact that we may be much closer to herd immunity in some places. That means that lifting the lockdowns is a lot less risky than it would seem. I believe immunity is widespread and will last for some time so there isn't much of a point in keeping these lockdowns forever. However, just because the virus was widespread in California it doesn't mean that it was widespread everywhere. More studies are needed for sure. 

Canada to push for new gun laws in the wake of the Nova Scotia shooting.

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau. The Hill/Getty.

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau said that he will continue for new gun laws, including an "assault weapon" ban, in the wake of a mass shooting that killed 23 people. The Hill. The new restrictions were being considered even before the shooting but was tabled due to the Coronavirus outbreak which suspended Parliament. Details about the shooting, including what weapon the attacker used, have not been released. 

My Comment:

Once again, a country responds to tragedy by trying to ban guns. To be fair, Trudeau was already moving in this direction in the first place. He has always been an enemy of gun rights and wants to further restrict the rights of Canadians to keep and bear arms, a right that has already been degraded to an unacceptable degree. 

And, of course, it's pretty clear that gun control wouldn't have stopped this attack. Canada's gun laws are already draconian but this attacker was able to find a gun to use in his attack. What law would have stopped him? He was wealthy enough to afford multiple properties and restore police cars. Even if there were no legal guns available at all, he had enough resources to buy one illegally or use a different method of attack, like a bomb or vehicle ramming.

Further complicating things is that we still don't know what kind of weapon the attacker was using. I haven't heard any evidence that he was using an "assault weapon" or even a handgun. His method of attack, shooting one or two people at a time, could have easily been accomplished with a bolt action hunting rifle or shotgun. 

Canada's gun laws may have made this attack worse. In Canada, you cannot open or conceal carry a handgun. That means that the people killed in this attack had no chance to defend themselves. That may have been difficult regardless as he posed as a cop, but it may have helped stop the shooter earlier. It would have been a slim chance of stopping the shooter but some chance is better than no chance at all.

I also have to say that Trudeau's priorities are completely out of whack. The man is talking about restricting gun rights while the Coronavirus is still rampaging. Just like Democrat governors here that tried to ban gun sales it's clear that anti-gun people hate guns more than actually trying to help their people. 

President Trump says he will suspend immigration in the United States due to the Coronavirus

President Donald Trump. The Hill/Getty.

President Donald Trump tweeted today that he will be drafting an executive order to suspend all immigration to the United States due to the Coronavirus outbreak. The Hill. The order will likely be challenged in court and will be temporary in nature. It is unclear how and when the order will be implemented and it will be seen as an expansion to his recent virus related travel bans. President Trump ran on an anti-immigration platform and his decision will likely thrill his supporters and infuriate his enemies.   

In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!

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

My Comment:
I don't have the time to make an in depth post on this one but I did want to get something out this evening given the importance of this news. This is probably going to be a huge story tomorrow only eclipsed by the virus and whatever is happening in North Korea right now.

So why did President Trump do this? I do think the virus does have a major role to play in it. Given how bad the outbreak is in the world right now every immigrant that would come in could be a potential minefield. And though our own outbreak is nowhere near under control, as things get better stopping immigration might stop new outbreaks from happening.

I also think that his voters probably convinced him to do this. More than a few people pointed out that it made zero sense to import new people into this country when more than 20 million people are out of work. Losing your job is bad enough but not being able to get another one because some immigrant took it? Not a good look for anyone.

President Trump's supporters are going to be thrilled (and I'm a little happy with this myself). They have wanted more restrictions on immigration since before he was inaugurated and though President Trump has been fairly effective on illegal immigration, legal immigration remained a major problem.  The roaring economy helped quell those people but now that the economy is in the toilet their voices became a lot louder.

I fully expect the Democrats will do everything in their power to stop this. It doesn't matter what argument the President makes the Democrats will fight him regardless. I think that's a very bad look for them as I think this will be incredibly popular among many of Trumps fans and even many centrists and Democrats who aren't on board with unlimited immigration.

Who will win that court fight? I have no idea. I do expect that there will be a lawsuit filed in a favorable district and it will likely work it's way up to the Supreme Court eventually. By that time though it might be a moot point as this is not going to be a permanent thing. I am guessing by the end of May when the outbreak slows things will be getting back to normal, including immigration. 

Mass shooting in Canada ends with 13 people and the suspect dead.

The RCMP said the attacker was using this police car to carry out the attack. BBC/Reuters. 

A mass shooting in Canada ends with 13 people and the suspect dead in Canada's worse incident of mass violence since 1989. BBC. The attacker, named by police as Gabriel Wortman, wore a police uniform and was driving a car made up to look like a police car, but was not a member of the police. The attack lasted for more than 12 hours before he was stopped and killed by police and police are still trying to find out if there are more victims. One of the victims was a RCMP officer. Police say that the suspect may have had a connection with some of the victims but others were attacked randomly. Mass violence is somewhat rare in Canada and this attack was the worst since the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre.

Other sources are saying that 17 people died in the attack which would make it the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history, with more deaths possible. 

My Comment:

It's been awhile since there has been a mass shooting. Under the Coronavirus lockdown a traditional mass shooting isn't easy to accomplish. But this isn't a traditional mass shooting, it's a spree killing. He killed many people in many different locations so this isn't a mass shooting. 

There isn't a whole lot of information about the attacker. According to The Heavy, the attacker was a denturist, someone who makes dentures. He also had an interest in the police and owned multiple retired police cruisers. But there is almost no information on why he carried out this attack. 

It's also unclear if this was a planned rampage or a spur of the moment thing. Though having a vehicle painted up as a police car and a full police uniform suggests planning, it does sound like he had those things in the first place. And it is possible that he had some true targets in mind and killed everyone else as a spur of the moment thing. 

If the death numbers are right and this is the worst shooting in Canadian history, expect it to be a major blow to gun rights. It's unclear what weapons the attacker may have used but it is clear that he used some form of gun. With Canada already insanely hostile to gun rights I wouldn't be surprised that new gun control laws are made. 

However, I do think this shows that gun control laws in Canada are less than useless. This attacker was able to get a gun and without CCW nobody could defend themselves against the attacker. And given how much effort he put into this attack I am guessing that if he hadn't been able to get a gun he would have been able to figure out another effective way to kill a large number of people. 

That being said, I don't think the people who were attacked had much of a chance. With a police uniform and cruiser people would have pulled over for him and not offered much in the way of resistance. He could have killed them at his discretion. It also may have been harder for police to track down this killer if he was wearing their uniform. 

I do wonder how related to this to the Coronavirus lockdown. Canada has been essentially closed now for weeks with no end in sight. The economy has collapsed there too and a lot of people are feeling the pinch. Not everyone is handling it well. Could it be that this attacker, who may have been on the edge already, was pushed off by the lockdown? It's unclear but I would be very interested to find out. 

Coronavirus may end up dividing China and Africa.

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Politico/AP.

The Coronavirus outbreak, and the reaction to it, may drive a wedge between Africa and China. Politico. China has long had ambitions in Africa and has invested billions of dollars in the region in order to help secure the natural resources found there. However, China's recent reaction to the Coronavirus, which involved harsh measures against Africans living in China has set off a firestorm. Out and out discrimination against Africans in China was observed with Africans being evicted from homes and refused service from restaurants. China also seems less likely to write off debt as African countries are suffering massive economic damage from the virus and the response to it. This has not only angered African citizens but also their leadership with many of them offering up rare public criticism of China. Complicating things is the fact that the pandemic has damaged trade and slowed many of the infrastructure projects in the region. 

My Comment:

I'm a little late on this post as this controversy erupted a couple days ago, but I thought it was worth covering. China has been engaging in soft colonialism in Africa for some time now and for the most part it's been tolerated or even praised by the people that live there. However, it seems to be clear that the Africans are getting an idea of what the people of China actually think of them. 

It's hard to argue that it wasn't racism that was motivating these restrictions of Black Africans in China. China is, fairly dubiously, blaming its continued Coronavirus cases on foreign travelers. There is some truth to this but it should be noted that Africa's outbreak problem is a lot less than the outbreaks in America and Europe and I haven't seen any reports of White people getting harassed in China. Though I think there is a case to be made for China cutting off travel to Africa, punishing Black people who just happen to be in China at the time seems to be pretty stupid. 

How much of this is the Chinese government's fault is unclear. My guess is that it was likely the Chinese people themselves that did this without government sanction. China has a fairly strong reputation of being racist so I doubt that this was the kind of thing that came from the top. And I am guessing that the people that did these things are going to have a very rough time of it, China won't tolerate citizens that embarrass them internationally. Seeing them punished might quell this anger over the perceived racism. 

But the anger over the rest of China's actions? I think that will last longer. China has been acting like a friend to Africa for awhile and I think the Africans are discovering that when the chips are down, they Chinese aren't going to bail them out. There is basically no way that the Chinese are going to forgive any debt, especially considering the economic damage that the pandemic has done to their economy. And China's number one priority will be restarting their economy, not propping up Africa's. 

I also think the Politico article ignored the most obvious thing Africa has to be angry about. It's largely China's fault that the virus came to Africa in the first place. Regardless if the virus was an accidental release from a lab or not, it still originated in China and China did not do everything possible to keep it from spreading. And Africans have heard the same thing Americans and Europeans have heard and I think they will blame China as well.

But will it last? I don't think so. Africa is a needy place and it doesn't seem likely that anyone else will step in and give them the loans and expertise that they need other than China. Even if they have to put up with racism and other nasty things from China, what choice do these African countries have? Europe and America aren't going to waste their money there, so it's probably China or no one. And that means China will likely continue to get away with what they have done. 

California antibody test suggests many more people may have been exposed to Coronavirus than first thought

A woman wearing a facemask. The Hill. 

A California antibody test study suggests many more people may have been exposed to Coronavirus than first thought. The Hill. The study tested 3300 people in Santa Clara country and found that 2.5 to 4.2% of people in the country could be infected. That would mean that 48,000 to 81,000 people could have had the virus compared to the roughly 1000 people that tested positive by the county. That would mean that in California there could be 50 to 80 times more infections than have been reported. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and even if confirmed it would show that 90 to 95% of the population has yet to be exposed to the virus and has no immunity. 

My Comment:

I have heard similar things from other countries. In both Denmark and Iceland, where testing people without symptoms have occurred for different reasons, they also found that a lot of people had the disease who had either extremely mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.

If these studies are confirmed than it vastly changes the way we perceive the disease. Right now the Coronavirus is seen as a deadly virus that kills up to 4% of the people infected with it. If we find out that 50 to 80 times more people have gotten it without a huge number of deaths and infections than we probably need to reevaluate our reaction to this disease. 

This could reduce the death rate by a massive amount. If we are missing so many cases than the percentage of deaths for people who get infected would be much lower than we think it is now. It could mean that the true death rate is much closer than the common flu than the current estimates of 2 to 4%. 

That would mean that we should probably change how we are reacting to this virus. If we are missing thousands of cases, most of which are mild or without symptoms, than we should seriously consider accelerating how fast we open the country up. The most vulnerable will still have to stay home but the less at risk people can return to work and get the economy going again. 

However there are some important caveats. We need to realize that Santa Clara country might be unique in some way. For one thing the obesity rate in California is a lot less than the rest of the country so that could be holding the severe and lethal cases rate down. It could also be due to the weather or dozens of other factors we don't know. And the study could, of course, be flawed. 

And even if even more cases are mild or asymptomatic that doesn't mean that there isn't a huge threat to older and more vulnerable people. Even if the death rate is around what the flu is the virus is so infectious that it could spread a lot faster than the disease and still kill tens of thousands of people or even overwhelm hospitals. 

Either way more testing is needed. We need to confirm this studies findings before we take any actions and we should probably be doing antibody testing on pretty much everyone in the country. In general, we need much more information about the SARS CoV-2 virus as there are far too many "known unknowns" right now, including a lot of basic stuff like the death rate and rate of spread.

Though this is certainly not scientific I do remember hearing reports from many of the people I know that had illness in the run up to the outbreak in January, February and March, before the disease was supposed to be widespread. If we are missing a lot of the cases than it's very possible that the virus already went through and this actually is the "second wave" that everyone is talking about.  

I also think that if the Santa Clara rates are true it's possible that hard hit places like New York might be getting close to herd immunity. With roughly 200,000 confirmed cases, if they actually have 50 to 80 times more cases than New York could actually have 10 million to 16 million cases, which would be more than enough for herd immunity to kick in. Those numbers don't seem quite right but even if it's close to that than it means this outbreak is almost over. 

I do sincerely hope that this study is right and we have missed a lot of cases. That means the virus is not anywhere near as deadly as feared and that it will be over a lot sooner than we expected. If confirmed that would be the best news we have gotten so far in this outbreak. 

President Trump's plan to reopen America's economy.

President Donald Trump. 

President Donald Trump has unveiled a plan that will open up the economy of the United States in the wake of the Coronavirus outbreak. ABC News. The plan will be in three phases and it will be up to individual governors to implement them. Phase one will be implemented when benchmarks are met, including 14 days of decreasing infections, enough hospital space to deal with patients and a robust testing program for healthcare workers. Phase one will allow some businesses to open up but only if they protect vulnerable employees and keep up sanitation and social distancing. Phase two would allow business travel and would allow schools, camps and bars to open, with diminished capacity for the bars. Phase three would allow businesses to fully reopen and would let people visit hospitals and senior care facilities again. 

You can read the full 16 page document below:

Reopening Guidelines by ABC News Politics on Scribd

My Comment:
Not a whole lot to say about this plan as it was pretty much what I expected. We were obviously not going to have a transfer between a full lockdown and a full release. A phased approach is the right move and it's one that makes a lot of sense.

There are of course complications. It might be awhile before we get the widespread testing this plan requires. Antibody tests are just starting to become available and even regular tests are still being rationed. We are getting better in terms of testing but it still might be awhile before we can test all healthcare workers.

Another problem is the Governors. To be quite frank, I don't trust all of them to do the right thing. A few of the Democratic Governors are probably willing to keep their state shut down for months past the end of the outbreak just to spite President Trump. Most of them are fine, even the Democrats, but I could see someone like Governor Gretchen Whitmer acting out of spite.

Still, it's very good that we have some benchmarks for when this crisis will end. A lot of people are sick and tired of this lockdown and need to have some idea of when it will end. With this new plan at least people can kind of know what to expect, even if it's not a set date.

It sounds like bars are going to be the biggest losers from this order. They won't even be able to open until phase two and only then in a limited fashion. And that's assuming people will even want to come in, people will still be afraid of the virus. I could see a lot of bars going out of business.

That being said though, phase one should massively help a lot of other companies. Many of them are close to going under and having a plan in place will help them possibly weather the storm. They should be able to get short term loans and once we reach phase one they can finally open again and a lot of people can get back to work.

President Trump says that the United States is investigating if the Coronavirus came from a Chinese viral lab.

President Donald Trump during his daily press briefing. Reuters. 

President Trump says that the United States is investigating if the Coronavirus came from a Chinese viral lab. Reuters. No source for the virus that is currently raging globally has been found. Reports have determined that it was of natural origin and was not a bioweapon but China has released little information about the early days of the outbreak. It is possible that the pandemic originated from a Chinese lab and some intelligence reports seem to confirm that. The Chinese research would have been legitimate in nature but safety standards may have been lax that someone there could have caught the virus and brought it to the Wuhan wet market where the virus first became widespread. The US government, including President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

My Comment:

I don't have the time to give this post the effort it deserves but I did want to discuss this accusation. The origin of the virus is a mystery. The most accepted theory is that it originated in the Huanan Seafood wet market in Wuhan. Presumably and infected bat infected one of the animals for sale there and then transferred to a human. 

That is still a very real possibility and there is some evidence that the endangered Pangolin, which is sold at these markets, may have been an intermediate host. This is plausible but I do wonder how a bat would have infected anything there since they aren't sold there and I'm not even sure if they are living in the area. However, health standards at wet markets are non-existent and I certainly could see it happening.

However a lab release is just as likely. There is nothing about that theory that is not plausible. This isn't like the bioweapon theory that doesn't hold up upon examination. A bioweapon release makes zero sense as governments don't want bioweapons that spread uncontrollably and it's stupid to develop one that you don't have a vaccine for. The best bioweapons are things like Anthrax and Tularemia that are deadly but don't spread easily. 

But an accidental lab release? It makes sense. Since the SARS outbreak, the Chinese government had an obvious and legitimate interest in studying Coronaviruses. They represent a major threat and finding a cure or preventing an outbreak would have been a major coup for the Chinese government. It would also prevent the loss of face an outbreak that originated in China. 

And I doubt that the security at these labs was very good. There are so many ways that people can be infected at one of these labs. They could mishandle an infected animal, have an accident with a test tube or simply screw up with their PPE. And I am also partial to the idea that the lab workers brought an infected animal to the wet market to be slaughtered. That would explain why the outbreak was centered there.

However, this is just a theory and it's very possible that we won't ever know the truth. China has already lost a lot of face and respect due to this outbreak and is unlikely to tell us if the virus was due to a lab screw up. They have a dubious relationship with the truth in the best of times but if the have a huge motivation to not be honest. If it was a lab release than China would have to accept more blame for this outbreak than they are already going to get. Right now the wet market theory means that the outbreak is nothing but a natural tragedy. If it was from their lab though, it's all on them and I don't think they will ever admit to it. 

Protest erupts in Michigan against severe Coronavirus lockdown order.

Protesters in Lansing Michigan. NBC News/AFP.

Protests erupt in Michigan against severe Coronavirus lockdown orders put into place by Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. NBC News. The conservative led protest was called "operation gridlock" by it's organizers and mostly involved people in their cars. Some people did leave their cars and protested on foot. Whitmer's restrictions are more extreme than many states and include travel bans to vacation homes and banning the sale of hardware supplies and, most notably, gardening supplies. Michigan does have one of the worst outbreaks in the country with 27,000 cases and 1,700 deaths.

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. I do think that this protest had the potential to spread the Coronavirus. Though the vast majority of people in this protest stayed inside of their cars and did not put anyone at risk, the people that went outside and weren't wearing proper PPE and staying six feet away from people might have put others at risk. All it would have taken was for one infected person to cough and a whole group of people could have gotten sick. 

And I do think that Michigan is having a rough time of it. They have one of the bigger outbreaks and a lot of people are dying there. It's obviously not under control there yet and something has to be done to ensure that new infections slow down. 

On the other, I think Governor Whitmer has gone pretty far off the deep end. I'm generally supportive of the lockdowns in the short term but Whitmer went way too far with her bans. Though I understand the argument for now allowing people to go to their summer homes, it seems like a blatant violation of civil rights. People have a right to travel to property they own. 

Much more concerning was her banning products that could be critical. Hardware and paint are necessary things but even more concerning was her banning of seeds and gardening supplies. Those are absolutely critical right now as some people might need to grow their own food during this crisis. Though I doubt it will come to it, Governor Whitmer is basically saying that it's more important to maintain the lockdown than it is to have people able to feed themselves. 

Would I have protested if I was in Michigan? I am not sure. I'm a critical worker so I doubt I would have had the time, but I do agree that Whitmer is out of control and that we need to loosen things up there. I wouldn't have gotten out of my car though without a facemask and I sure as hell would not have posed for a crowded picture. 

I do think that these kinds of protests are going to be more common in the future. The people that are working from home (or in a critical industry) don't seem to understand how bad things are for the people out of work. Though the stimulus checks are going out, it's a band aid at best. We are going to have to open things up sooner or later and if it continues people will start to fight back. 

President Trump to halt funding to the World Health Organization

World Heath Organization logo.

President Trump will halt funding to the World Health Organization due to pro-China bias and mismanagement of the Coronavirus crisis. The Hill. The United States will conduct an official review of the WHO's response. President Trump said that the organization condemned travel bans for the sake of political correctness and did not vet and share accurate information on the virus. The review will last between 60 and 90 days and the money will be diverted to fighting the virus, though details have not been released yet. The United States is a major source of funding to the World Health Organization

My Comment:

I think this is the right thing to do. Though no country or organization has covered themselves in glory during this outbreak, including the United States, the WHO's response has been shameful. The entire point of the organization is to help prevent the situation we are in and they failed. Miserably. 

This is largely due to the organization's pro-China bias. Time and time again they did what was best for China and not what was best for the world. If they had said that every country should ban travel to and from China they could have saved many lives but instead they said that travel bans were racist. And they said that there was no human to human transmission when it was obvious that was the main way the virus was spreading. 

They also refused to help Taiwan with the virus and did not accept the countries help because of the "one China policy" that refuses to acknowledge the existence of the country. Taiwan has done an excellent job in fighting the virus and would have been a great place to learn from but the WHO didn't want to offend China.

They also gave some bad advice. To this day the WHO doesn't recommend facemask usage for normal people, only recommending it for people treating people with the disease. This is bad advice that even the CDC doesn't agree with anymore. People should have been using facemasks since the beginning and though the WHO wasn't the only group to get this wrong, it doesn't change the fact that they blew it. 

Clearly we aren't getting our money's worth. The WHO should pay a price for what they have done and a cut of funding may force them to act better. We don't give them millions of dollars to get things this wrong and they are not helping the world all that much. 

Some are going to say that this is the wrong time to cut funding. I disagree since the WHO has been worse than useless. When they are screwing things up so badly and serving the interests of China and not the whole world than what is the point? We are just throwing money away, money that could be better used elsewhere. 

However, I do wonder how President Trump will cut this funding. From what I understand Congress controls that and doubt that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the house will go along with this. Like the WHO, they too are beholden to China and will undermine President Trump in any way they can. President Trump may try to do this but it's unclear if he will succeed or not. 

A second wave of locust in Africa may be 20 times worse than the first wave.

A swarm of locusts in Kenya. The Guardian/AP.

A second wave of desert locusts in Africa may be 20 times worse than the first wave which has already done a large amount of damage. The Guardian. The locusts are a major threat to food security as a swarm that is the size of a third of a square mile can eat enough food to feed 35,000 people. New swarms are being formed in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia. The insects are following new vegetation growth after spring rains and have already spread to Uganda. February's outbreak of locusts was already the worst seen in 70 years and this new wave is expected to be much worse. The lockdowns in response to the Coronavirus is complicating things, due to border restrictions and difficulty delivering pesticides. 

My Comment:

A second wave of locusts was expected and this probably is the worse case scenario. This year's desert locusts have been a terrible swarm that has spread across the world, reaching as far as central Africa and even China. This next swarm is going to be 20 times as large and it will cause a massive amount of damage. 

The first swarm already did a lot of damage. They ate crops and generally made everyone miserable. It also proved that the local countries are not capable of defeating the swarms. Countries like Kenya and Somalia did not have enough pesticides to deal with the swarms and could not stop them. That situation is not any better now. 

There is a real chance that Africa will have major issues with food soon. The first swarm came early enough that most crops weren't even planted yet but now spring crops are going to be growing and will be vulnerable to the locusts. If those crops are destroyed than potentially millions of people are going to be without food. 

This would be a disaster in normal times but these are anything but. The countries in Africa (and presumably the Middle East as well) are dependent on countries in Europe and North America who are having massive problems fighting the Coronavirus. They will have very little in the way of resources to fight the locusts when their own countries are dealing with the massive outbreak. 

Not that Africa is immune to the virus either. Though their population is younger, therefore less vulnerable, the virus is going to make it more difficult to fight the insects. Either disaster would be too much to handle for some of these countries but with both going on at the same time? I don't see how they will be able to deal with this. 

The only good news is that the virus seems to have peaked in most of Europe and the United States. That means that things could be very different at the end of the month. As the locust plague gets worse, the hope is that the Coronavirus will be getting better. That might mean that the 1st world will be able to help. Let's hope that is the case because if it isn't pretty much everyone in the region is screwed.