Tuesday, March 17, 2020

Washington COVID 19 policy based on British study


White House Takes New Line After Dire Report on Death Toll

Federal guidelines warned against gatherings of more than 10 people as a London report predicted high fatalities in the U.S. without drastic action.

President Trump at a Monday news conference on the Covid-19 pandemic.

President Trump at a Monday news conference on the Covid-19 pandemic.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Sheri Fink

By Sheri Fink

  • March 16, 2020


    • Sweeping new federal recommendations announced on Monday for Americans to sharply limit their activities appeared to draw on a dire scientific report warning that, without action by the government and individuals to slow the spread of coronavirus and suppress new cases, 2.2 million people in the United States could die.

To curb the epidemic, there would need to be drastic restrictions on work, school and social gatherings for periods of time until a vaccine was available, which could take 18 months, according to the report, compiled by British researchers. They cautioned that such steps carried enormous costs that could also affect people’s health, but concluded they were “the only viable strategy at the current time.”

That is because different steps, intended to drive down transmission by isolating patients, quarantining those in contact with them and keeping the most vulnerable apart from others for three months, could only cut the predicted death toll by half, the new report said.

The White House guidelines urged Americans to avoid gatherings of more than 10 people. That is a more restrictive stance than recommendations released on Sunday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which said that gatherings should be limited to 50.


The White House also recommended that Americans work from home, avoid unnecessary shopping trips and refrain from eating in restaurants. Some states and cities have already imposed stricter measures, including lockdowns and business closings.

Asked at a news conference with President Trump about what had led to the change in thinking by a White House task force, Dr. Deborah Birx, one of the task force leaders, said new information had come from a model developed in Britain.

    “What had the biggest impact in the model is social distancing, small groups, not going in public in large groups,” Dr. Birx said. “The most important thing was if one person in the household became infected, the whole household self-quarantined for 14 days. Because that stops 100 percent of the transmission outside of the household.”

ImageA new report shows the number of deaths that could occur in the U.S. and Britain in the absence of actions to control the epidemic.

A new report shows the number of deaths that could occur in the U.S. and Britain in the absence of actions to control the epidemic.Credit...Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team

Dr. Birx’s description of the findings was consistent with those in the report, released on Monday by an epidemic modeling group at Imperial College London. The lead author of the study, Neil Ferguson, an epidemiology professor, said in an interview that his group had shared their projections with the White House task force about a week ago and that an early copy of the report was sent over the weekend.

he group has also shared its fatality estimates with the C.D.C., Dr. Ferguson said, including that eight to nine percent of people in the most vulnerable age group, 80 and older, could die if infected.

“We don’t have a clear exit strategy,” Dr. Ferguson said of the recommended measures. “We’re going to have to suppress this virus — frankly, indefinitely — until we have a vaccine.”

“It’s a difficult position for the world to be in,” he added.

The report, which was not released in a peer-reviewed journal but was authored by 30 scientists on behalf of Imperial College’s coronavirus response team, simulated the role of public health measures aimed at reducing contact.

“The effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is likely to be limited, requiring multiple interventions to be combined to have a substantial impact on transmission,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ferguson said the potential health impacts were comparable to the devastating 1918 influenza outbreak, and would “kind of overwhelm health system capacity in any developed country, including the United States,” unless measures to reduce the spread of the virus were taken.

The White House task force did not respond to requests for comment. Officials stressed that the federal government’s restrictive new guidelines would be re-evaluated after 15 days, although they hinted that they were likely to be extended.

Image

The predicted impact that countermeasures could have on critical care bed use in Britain.

The predicted impact that countermeasures could have on critical care bed use in Britain.Credit...Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team

The study’s authors said their research made it clear that people in the United States might be advised to continue with draconian restrictions on their daily lives for far longer than Mr. Trump and the task force indicated on Monday.


“The major challenge of suppression,” the British scientists concluded, is the length of time that intensive interventions would be needed, given that “we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.”

The authors said that so-called mitigation policies alone — isolating people suspected of having the virus at home, quarantining their contacts and separating the most vulnerable people from others — might reduce the peak demand on the health care system by two-thirds and deaths by half if applied for three months. But that would still result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and in health systems “overwhelmed many times over,” they said.

This was why the authors also recommended measures to distance the entire population, such as school closures. Those interventions, they suggested, could be “relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows" and then reintroduced if new infections began growing.

The researchers said that the long-term “social and economic effects” were likely to be “profound,” and that the measures were not guaranteed to succeed and could themselves have “significant impact on health and well-being.”

“No public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time,” they added. “How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.”

Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.

Sheri Fink is a correspondent in the investigative unit. She won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting and shared the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. She received her M.D. and Ph.D. from Stanford University.

Above is from:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/coronavirus-fatality-rate-white-house.html

President always knew this would be a pandemic?



Trump Now Claims He Always Knew the Coronavirus Would Be a Pandemic

The president tried to rewrite his history with advising Americans about the coronavirus. His own words prove him wrong.


“We have it totally under control,” President Trump said in January.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Katie Rogers

By Katie Rogers

  • March 17, 2020


    • WASHINGTON — For weeks, President Trump has minimized the coronavirus, mocked concern about it and treated the risk from it cavalierly. On Tuesday he took to the White House lectern and made a remarkable assertion: He knew it was a pandemic all along.

“This is a pandemic,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

This is what Mr. Trump has actually said over the past two months:

On Jan. 22, asked by a CNBC reporter whether there were “worries about a pandemic,” the president replied: “No, not at all. We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

On Feb. 26, at a White House news conference, commenting on the country’s first reported cases: “We’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had very good luck.”

On Feb. 27, at a White House meeting: “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.”

On March 7, standing next to President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil at Mar-a-Lago, his club in Palm Beach, Fla., when asked if he was concerned that the virus was spreading closer to Washington: “No, I’m not concerned at all. No, I’m not. No, we’ve done a great job.” (At least three members of the Brazilian delegation and one Trump donor at Mar-a-Lago that weekend later tested positive for the virus.)

    On March 16, in the White House briefing room, warning that the outbreak would “wash” away this summer: “So it could be right in that period of time where it, I say, wash — it washes through. Other people don’t like that term. But where it washes through.”


That comment on Monday was part of Mr. Trump’s inching toward a more urgent tone in recent days. But his assertion on Tuesday that he had long seen the pandemic coming was the most abrupt pivot yet from the voluminous number of claims and caustic remarks he has made about the disease.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spent much of a lengthy news conference praising his administration’s response to the pandemic, saying the only mistake his administration made had been a mismanagement of relationships with the news media.


When asked why he had suddenly adopted a somber and realistic tone about the virus on Tuesday, the president denied that he had changed his mind at all.

“No, I’ve always viewed it as very serious,” Mr. Trump said. “There was no difference yesterday from days before. I feel the tone is similar, but some people said it wasn’t.”

Besides denying the seriousness of the coronavirus over the past two months, he had also displayed an acerbic tone toward people who took it more seriously.

During a campaign rally in South Carolina on Feb. 28, Mr. Trump accused Democrats and the news media of hysteria and unfairly criticizing his administration by engaging in what he said was a political “hoax.” Some of his critics have stretched his comment to suggest that he was calling the virus itself a hoax, but his supporters have argued that he was referring to the Democratic criticism, not the virus itself.

And until recently, he and several of his advisers had privately mocked his health and human services secretary, Alex M. Azar II, as alarmist.

Another theme has been the president’s offering inaccurate information.

At a campaign rally on Feb. 10, Mr. Trump suggested that the virus would be gone by April, a claim he has frequently repeated, even though his advisers had warned him that much about the virus was still not known.

As his administration came under intense criticism for a lack of urgency in issuing guidance to Americans or expediting tests for the virus, Mr. Trump continued misrepresenting what was available.


“Anybody right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test gets a test,” the president said on March 6 during a tour of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. “They’re there. They have the tests and the tests are beautiful.”

During that visit, Mr. Trump praised his own “natural ability” to grasp scientific theories, and then he likened the quality of the test to a White House recounting of a phone call. “The transcription was perfect, right?” he asked reporters. “This was not as perfect as that, but pretty good.”

While his administration struggled to form a uniform answer about testing, Mr. Trump also made misleading claims about whether there would be a vaccine for the virus.

On Feb. 29, the president said a vaccine would be available “very quickly” and “very rapidly,” as he praised his administration’s actions as “the most aggressive taken by any country.” His statement about how long it would take for a vaccine to be publicly available was corrected by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, a member of the coronavirus task force, in front of reporters.

This week, Mr. Trump announced that a vaccine candidate was entering a clinical trial — only the first phase in a lengthy process to find a preventive measure.

Trump and Coronavirus

Inside the Coronavirus Response: A Case Study in the White House Under Trump

March 16, 2020

For Trump, Coronavirus Proves to Be an Enemy He Can’t Tweet Away

March 8, 2020

White House Takes New Line After Dire Report on Death Toll

March 16, 2020

Above is from:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/us/politics/trump-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Politico: Trump Transition Uninterested in Pandemic Simulation


Trump Transition Team Was Uninterested In Obama Planning To Battle the 'Worst Epidemic Since 1918'

DannyB

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 17, 2020 · 3:29 AM CDT


trump-administration-clowns-cartoon-morin.jpg

During the transition,  Trump cabinet officials and other aides were given a three hour brief and a hypothetical exercise in responding to a global epidemic.

Detailed briefing books were prepared by Obama administration officials for scenarios like this and others.  They were later found in the trash.

As Politico reports, incoming Trump administration officials gave Obama officials a big “meh.”  Consequently,  coupled with the tremendous turnover during the tumultuous Trump’s presidency, the U.S. was unprepared, by choice, to to meet the challenge of this very real global epidemic that has beleaguered America.

In a tabletop exercise days before an untested new president took power, officials briefed the incoming administration on a scenario remarkably like the one he faces now.

The briefing was intended to hammer home a new, terrifying reality facing the Trump administration, and the incoming president’s responsibility to protect Americans amid a crisis. But unlike the coronavirus pandemic currently ravaging the globe, this 2017 crisis didn’t really happen — it was among a handful of scenarios presented to Trump’s top aides as part of a legally required transition exercise with members of the outgoing administration of Barack Obama.

POLITICO obtained documents from the meeting and spoke with more than a dozen attendees to help provide the most detailed reconstruction of the closed-door session yet. It was perhaps the most concrete and visible transition exercise that dealt with the possibility of pandemics, and top officials from both sides — whether they wanted to be there or not — were forced to confront a whole-of-government response to a crisis. The Trump team was told it could face specific challenges, such as shortages of ventilators, anti-viral drugs and other medical essentials, and that having a coordinated, unified national response was “paramount” — warnings that seem eerily prescient given the ongoing coronavirus crisis.

Susan Rice had this to say about this January 2017 meeting and the reasons we now find ourselves facing likely mass infection in the U.S.

“Rather than heed the warnings, embrace the planning and preserve the structures and budgets that had been bequeathed to him, the president ignored the risk of a pandemic,” Rice wrote. (Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, who oversaw the dissolution of the NSC’s global health security and biodefense section, has defended it as necessary streamlining, countering that global health “remained a top NSC priority.” Trump, when recently asked about the reshuffling, called the question “nasty” and said, “I don’t know anything about it.”)

The story is another example of the unforced errors and nonchalance that led to threats we now face.  Probably ‘because Obama.’  This event precedes Trump’s disbanding of the Pandemic Response Unit at the NSC. 

Thanks to the arrogant attitudes and inaction, the dangerous clown show Trump and his aides have made of their (oh, the irony) ‘pandemic response’ has put us all in danger.

www.politico.com/…

Above is from:  https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/17/1928215/-Trump-Transition-Team-Uninterested-In-Obama-Exercise-To-Battle-Worst-Epidemic-Since-1918

March 17: 4,226 confirmed cases of COVID-19

Cases in U.S.


Updated March 17, 2020

This page will be updated regularly at noon Mondays through Fridays. Numbers close out at 4 p.m. the day before reporting.

CDC is responding to an outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus. The outbreak first started in Wuhan, China, but cases have been identified in a growing number of other locations internationally, including the United States. In addition to CDC, many public health laboratories are now testing for the virus that causes COVID-19.

COVID-19: U.S. at a Glance*

  • Total cases: 4,226
  • Total deaths: 75
  • Jurisdictions reporting cases: 53 (49 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and US Virgin Islands)

* Data include both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 reported to CDC or tested at CDC since January 21, 2020, with the exception of testing results for persons repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China and Japan. State and local public health departments are now testing and publicly reporting their cases. In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

Cases of COVID-19 Reported in the US, by Source of Exposure*†

Cases of COVID-19 Reported in the US, by Source of Exposure

Travel-related
229

Close contact
245

Under investigation
3,752

Total cases
4,226

* Data include both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 reported to CDC or tested at CDC since January 21, 2020, with the exception of testing results for persons repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China and Japan. State and local public health departments are now testing and publicly reporting their cases. In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date.

† CDC is no longer reporting the number of persons under investigation (PUIs) that have been tested, as well as PUIs that have tested negative. Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide.



Coronavirus in Illinois updates: State announces 55 new cases of COVID-19 — an uptick of more than 50%

State officials on Tuesday announced 55 new cases of the coronavirus, bringing the total in Illinois to 160 COVID-19 cases since the start of the outbreak. Cases have occurred in patients ages 9 to 91. The virus has now been detected in 15 counties across the state.

Is Trump our President or a hat sales dummy?


TRUMP USED PANDEMIC PRESS CONFERENCE TO MODEL CAMPAIGN HAT


By Jordan Libowitz
March 17, 2020

With the world watching, President Donald Trump, flanked by his most senior advisers, stepped to the podium at the White House and…modeled a hat his campaign sells for $40. For people who’ve been paying close attention, this is the latest in a long overlap of Trump using a crisis to shill campaign hats. For those not used to seeing the president in crisis mode, this was an introduction to the overlap in the Venn diagram of Trump the president, Trump the candidate and Trump the salesman.

Above photo is March 14, 2020 news conference.


It’s almost irrelevant whether Trump’s intention was to use Saturday’s press conference as a de facto campaign event or a chance for his campaign to make a buck. Trump has done this over and over again, and each time is a slap in the face of presidential decorum.

Trump’s history of donning campaign hats during emergencies lines up with the natural disasters of his administration, from Hurricane Harvey to the California wildfires. You could even call the hat he wore on Saturday the campaign’s official crisis hat, since Trump debuted it in a photo op at Camp David for the official White House response to Hurricane Dorian, less than 48 hours before his campaign started selling it.

For President Trump, promoting his campaign merchandise is not limited to times of crisis. Campaign hats have shown up in his typical presidential duties, from talking to press at the White House to meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan. This is just the logical progression for a president who made a career out of branding himself and spent much of his presidency promoting his private company.
This behavior extends to his senior staff: then-acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was photographed on the job wearing a Space Force hat sold by the Trump re-election campaign, before Space Force even had a logo. Had the senior government officials surrounding Trump at Saturday’s press conference been wearing campaign hats, they could have broken federal ethics law. A law that, of course, does not apply to the president.
That Trump has tied his campaign hat to his coronavirus response should come as no surprise, given how often he’s done something like this. There’s little use attempting to gauge his intentions. For Trump, it’s clear everything, presidency, crisis, campaign, business, are all really just different ways of approaching the same thing–the chance to sell a product that will benefit him.

Above is from:  https://www.citizensforethics.org/coronavirus-trump-campaign-hat/

Local GOP leaders criticize state emergency actions



GOP lawmakers criticize Gov. JB Pritzker’s coronavirus response



Illinois state Sens. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, and Brian Stewart, R-Freeport, and state Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, have criticized Gov. JB Pritzker’s response to the coronavirus. [PHOTO PROVIDED]


By Isaac Guerrero
Staff writer

Posted Mar 16, 2020 at 3:52 PMUpdated Mar 16, 2020 at 8:04 PM

Brian Stewart, Dave Syverson and John Cabello say decision to ban diners from restaurants was hasty

ROCKFORD — Three Republican legislators are criticizing Gov. JB Pritzker for his decision to close restaurants and bars for two weeks to slow the spread of the new coronavirus.

“To bureaucrats and billionaires, two weeks without a paycheck is nothing,” said a joint statement issued Monday by Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, and Sen. Brian Stewart, R-Freeport. “In fact, the bureaucrats’ paychecks are guaranteed by the taxpayers of Illinois, unlike the cooks, the servers, the dishwashers, and the owners of those bars and restaurants.”

Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, turned to Facebook to mock what he described as government and media “hype” of the coronavirus with a post featuring a Scooby Doo meme.

“Governor and local leaders are making emotional decisions without thinking through consequences of their actions,” Syverson wrote in another Facebook post on Sunday.

When asked on Monday which local leaders he believes are making emotional decisions, Syverson said:

“Any of them. The local leaders that were supporting the idea of closing all the restaurants and bars — it’s not their decision to do it, but supporting it without questioning the governor or stopping to think and ask why are we doing this? I think the governor is sincere. I don’t doubt his sincerity.

″... My only concern is some of that stuff just doesn’t make sense. Why not close grocery stores also? Why only restaurants and bars? I don’t see how closing A and pushing people to B is going to solve the problem. And it will create further problems, especially economic and financial problems, especially for hourly workers.”

Winnebago County Public Health Administrator Sandra Martell said during a news conference on Monday that she was disappointed to hear criticism of the governor’s response to the pandemic — a response crafted by public health experts.

“This puts my community at social determinant risk even more than it was before,” Martell said of the comments from Cabello and Stewart. “When you start talking about economics and school closures and disruption and everything — that is terrible. We’re not making these recommendations with the idea that this is not intended to help.”

County Board Chairman Frank Haney and Rockford Mayor Tom McNamara, who were also at the news conference, said they, too, were disappointed with the statements made by the trio of lawmakers.

Right now is not the time for politics. ... Right now is the time for leadership,” McNamara said.

“Neither of those two individuals have reached out (to ask) if they could help,” McNamara said of Cabello and Stewart. “That’s what we need leaders to do. We don’t need leaders sitting on the bleachers taking pot shots.

“To my knowledge, I don’t know either of them all that well, but to my knowledge none of them have a medical degree from anywhere. We need to follow the medical professionals’ advice, and that’s what we’re doing.”

Pritzker on Sunday ordered that all Illinois restaurants and bars close — for in-person dining only — at midnight Monday to interrupt the spread of the virus. The governor’s order came after Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on CNN: “I would like to see a dramatic diminution of the personal interaction that we see in restaurants in bars.”

During an appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Fauci said: “I think we should really be overly aggressive and get criticized for overreacting.”

He added: “Americans should be prepared that they’re going to have to hunker down significantly more than we as a country are doing.”

Indiana, the home state of Vice President Mike Pence, on Monday joined at least 17 other states that, as of Monday, have restricted or banned in-person dining at restaurants, bars and other establishments in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention advises that people practice “social distancing” and avoid close contact by maintaining a 6-foot distance from others to prevent the spread of the virus. Among the White House recommendations made Monday by President Trump: Avoid eating and drinking in bars, restaurants and food courts, avoid gatherings of 10 people or more and avoid discretionary travel.

Syverson said he patronized Rascal’s Bar & Grill in Loves Park and at Murphy’s Pub & Grill in Rockford on Sunday “as a last hurrah, and to show my support for local businesses.”

It makes little sense for Illinois to keep restaurants and taverns open for carryout purchases only, Syverson said.

“So you’re going to force all these people who are ordering carryout to go into this little 8-feet-by-8-feet carryout room, where they’re going to pick up and pay for their food and be a lot closer than 6 feet?” Syverson said.

Furthermore, Syverson said, Wisconsin has not banned dining inside its restaurants and bars. So Rockford residents can simply drive a few miles to a restaurant in the Badger State, where they could be exposed to the coronavirus and then drive home and potentially expose others.

Haney said Syverson’s criticism is out of line with guidance given Monday by Trump and other federal and state health experts.

“Everyone is concerned about economic disruption but I just heard the U.S. president, the Illinois governor and more importantly, health experts at all levels of government express serious concern over crowd size and social distancing,” Haney said. “The senator needs to listen or perhaps people need to stop to listening to Dave Syverson and his Facebook memes.”

The trajectory that Pritzker is on “could lead to some permanent damage to the Illinois economy and the confidence of the people of Illinois,” the news release from Cabello and Stewart said. “We urge the governor to proceed with the same caution that all of us have been advised to do when dealing with the coronavirus. Gov. Pritzker, please don’t kill the patient.”

Isaac Guerrero: 815-987-1361; iguerrero@rrstar.com; @isaac_rrs

Above is from:  https://www.rrstar.com/news/20200316/gop-lawmakers-criticize-gov-jb-pritzkers-coronavirus-response?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Rockford%20Register%20Star%20daily%202020-03-17&utm_content=GTDT_RRS&utm_term=031720