Of All The Banks That Shafted Small Businesses Out Of Coronavirus Relief, JPMorgan Takes The Cake
While JPMorgan provided loans to virtually all of their commercial banking customers who applied for coronavirus relief through the small business program, their business banking unit – which serves smaller firms – only funded around 6% of applications for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), according to Bloomberg.
Of t he bank’s more than 300,000 small business customers who applied, only around 18,000 were funded according to the report. Meanwhile, around 5,500 of the bank’s commercial banking customers – nearly all of them, received loans through the small business lending program.
In total, JPMorgan originated a total of $14 billion in loans through the program.
The data reveal that, in the race to get a loan in the first-come, first-served program, larger businesses had a leg up over smaller ones — even when applying through the same bank.
Restaurant chains, including Shake Shack Inc., Ruth’s Hospitality Group Inc., which operates Ruth’s Chris Steak House, and sandwich chain Potbelly Corp., received loans through JPMorgan. On Monday, Shake Shack said it was returning the money. –Bloomberg
JPMorgan claims it ultimately provided 26,500 loans to small businesses through both business units, which they say over 60% went to companies with fewer than 25 employees.
The commercial bank, however, was able to process applications faster due to its lower number of clients, according to a personal familiar with the matter. Larger companies also had lawyers and accountants filling out their paperwork, which gave them an advantage over small companies – who were left trying to input the documents themselves.
"We prioritized getting these loans to as many small businesses as possible," said JPMorgan spokeswoman Anne Pace. "We helped our clients as they came to us and stand fully prepared to help tens of thousands more small businesses apply as soon as additional funds become available."
In an email to clients, a JPMorgan executive said the bank unit that serves smaller firms received applications from more than 75,000 clients in the program’s first hour on April 3, and that the number grew significantly the following days.
“We had more than 2,000 Chase employees work over that weekend to review these forms, contact as many people as possible, and help position them to complete their application,” said Jennifer Roberts, chief executive officer of the unit, Chase Business Banking. –Bloomberg
What – was the bank supposed to simply make less money by holding up loans to giant corporations (many of which are public) in order to serve smaller clients that the PPP stimulus money was meant for? At least 29 public companies have disclosed receiving loans from JPMorgan, totaling approximately $141 million, and averaging around $5 million each.
The $349 billion PPP offered forgivable loans of up to $10 million for companies with up to 500 employees. The funds quickly dried up after a flood of large businesses and hedge funds tapped the program ahead of those who need it most – struggling small businesses.
With lenders inundated with applications, the Small Business Administration’s computer system temporarily froze – running out of money in just 13 days. Lawmakers and the White House are now negotiating for another $320 billion to replenish the program.
JPMorgan is one of four lenders named in a recent lawsuit by small business owners, who claim that the bank prioritized loans to large companies in order to quickly earn higher fees.
Huge, publicly traded companies have already sucked up hundreds of millions of dollars from the emergency funding Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) set aside for small businesses in the $2.2 trillion package passed by Congress last month.
The PPP started out with nearly $350 billion and was intended to help small businesses survive mandatory shutdowns or business slowdowns during the coronavirus crisis. But at least 75 companies — some of them with market values topping $100 million — have requested and received cash from the fund.
In fact, the federal government has paid out more than $243 million of the total $349 billion to publicly traded companies, new research published by Morgan Stanley shows.
“The research shows that several of the companies that have received aid have market values well in excess of $100 million, including DMC Global ($405 million), Wave Life Sciences ($286 million) and Fiesta Restaurant Group ($189 million). Fiesta, which employs more than 10,000 people, according to its last reported annual number, received a PPP loan of $10 million, Morgan Stanley’s data showed,” CNBC reported.
“At least 75 companies that have received the aid were publicly traded and received a combined $300 million in low-interest, taxpayer-backed loans, according to a separate report published by The Associated Press.”
The AP put the number even higher. “At least 94 companies that disclosed receiving aid since the program opened April 3 were publicly traded, the AP found, some with market values well over $100 million. And about 25% of the companies had warned investors months ago — while the economy was humming along — that their ability to remain viable was in question.”
“I think you’ve seen some pretty shameful acts by some large companies to take advantage of the system,” Howard Schultz, former Starbucks chairman and CEO, told CNBC. Instead, he said the government should act “as a backstop for the banks to give every small business and every independent restaurant a bridge to the vaccine. And that is the money and the resources to make it through.”
Massive restaurant chains have also cashed in. While the PPP was designed for companies with fewer than 500 employees, restaurants and hotels were exempt from the limit if they had fewer than 500 employees per location.
The owners of large restaurants chains like Potbelly, Ruth’s Chris Steak House and Taco Cabana qualified for the maximum $10 million in loans. Shake Shack, which revealed on Friday that it received a $10 million loan, faced massive backlash and by Sunday announced that it would return the money.
“When I hear that these big chains are getting millions of dollars, it’s like a slap in our face,” said Ram Mehta, owner of In-Fretta Pizza outside Dallas, in an interview with the Daily Mail. “It’s not fair.”
Funding for the PPP ran out last week, but Congress on Tuesday finally reached a deal to add $310 billion in small-business loans.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a subscriber.
SouthFront offers a scientific-based survey providing an in-depth look at the real death toll statistics and the spread of SARS-COV-2.
1. The research issued by the Bonn University Hospital
The research issued by the Bonn University Hospital and made by the group of scientists including Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck (Institute of Virology), Prof. Dr. Gunther Hartmann (Institute for Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, Spokesman for the Cluster of Excellence ImmunoSensation2), Prof. Dr. Martin Exner (Institute for Hygiene and Public Health), Prof. Dr. Matthias Schmid (Institute for Medical Biometry, Computer Science and Epidemiology).
In the framework of the research, all residents of Germany’s Gangelt were tested on the existence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.
Gangelt is one of the most COVID-19-affected German municipalities. It is believed that the outbreak was caused by the carnival held on February 15, 2020. After the event, several people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Preliminary result: the existing immunity was determined at about 14% (IgG against SARS-CoV2, method specificity>, 99%). About 2% of people had current SARS-CoV-2 infection detected by the method of polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The overal infection rate (the presence of a current infection or antibody in the body) was about 15%. The mortality (mortality rate), based on the total number of infected people in the Gangelt community, is approximately 0.37% based on the preliminary data of this study. The mortality rate based on the total population in the Gangelt is currently 0.06%.
2. A new Epidemiological bulletin from German Robert Koch Institute
“in general, it is true that not all infected people have symptoms, not all who has symptoms go to a doctor’s office, not all who go to the doctor are tested and not all who test positive are recorded in a survey system. In addition, a certain amount of time passes between all these individual steps, so that no data collection system, however good, can make a statement about the current infection process without additional assumptions and calculations.”
Meanwhile, April 18 Daily Situation Report of the Robert Koch Institute shows that 86% of deaths, but only 18% of all cases, occurred in persons aged 70 years or older. The median age was 82 years. Pneumonia was reported in 2,764 cases (3%). COVID-19 related outbreaks continue to be reported in nursing homes and hospitals. In some of these outbreaks, the number of deaths is relatively high. The current estimate is R= 0.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.7-1.0).
3. On 13 April, the German National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina, published its third ad hoc statement on the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (the group of 26 Prof. Doctors)
The statement, which supplements its two predecessors, describes strategies for a stepwise lifting or modification of measures against the pandemic, taking into account psychological, social, legal, pedagogic and economic aspects. The document recommends in particular the re-opening of classroom primary and lower-level secondary education as soon as feasible, giving priority to the former, with observation of hygiene and physical distancing measures.
Click to see the full-size image
Click to see the full-size image
The National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina takes a stand with psychological, social, the legal, educational and economic aspects of the pandemic, following key recommendations:
Optimizing the basis for decision-making: The data collection, which has so far been largely symptom-based, leads to a distorted perception of the infection process. It is therefore important to collect the infection and substantially improve the immunity status of the population, in particular through representative and regional survey of infection and immunity status.
Enable a differentiated assessment of the risks both for social and individual dealings with the corona pandemic, contextual classification of the available data is important. Data to serious illnesses and deaths must be compared to those of other illnesses and related to the expected risk of death in individual age groups. A realistic one. Presentation of the individual risk must be clearly illustrated. This also applies to systemic risks such as overloading the health system and negative consequences for the economy and society.
To cushion psychological and social impacts: measures taken for implementation intrinsic motivation based on self-protection and solidarity is more important than the threats of sanctions. Providing a realistic schedule and a clear package of measures for gradual normalization increases the controllability and predictability for everyone. This helps to minimize negative psychological the physical andeffects of the current stress. Firs of all, aid and support should be provided for high-risk groups, such as children, who are particularly affected by the consequences of current restrictions in difficult family situations or people who are exposed to domestic violence must be provided become.
There are more another recommendations in the third ad hoc statement of the German National Academy of Sciences that now are being implemented by German leadership.
4. New research from the United States
Group of authors from Stanford University, Stanford University School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Health Education is Power, Inc., The Compliance Resource Group, Inc., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Bogan Associates, 8 ARL BioPharma, Inc., Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County and made some conclusions.
The data received and conclusions of the US team are well corresponding with the research of German Bonn University Hospital taking into account that the German research came out on April 9, and the American one on April 14, with the reasonable assumption that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the German city of Gangelt began at least two week earlier (February 15, 2020) than in the American Santa Clara.
The US researchers estimated that under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions. The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
5. More data from the United States
Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, a total of 215 pregnant women delivered infants at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center. All the women were screened on admission for symptoms of Covid-19. Four women (1.9%) had fever or other symptoms of Covid-19 on admission, and all 4 women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of the 211 women without symptoms, all were afebrile on admission. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 210 of the 211 women (99.5%) who did not have symptoms of Covid-19; of these women, 29 (13.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of Covid-19 at presentation.
Our use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that at this point in the pandemic in New York City, most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic, and more than one of eight asymptomatic patients who were admitted to the labor and delivery unit were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although this prevalence has limited generalizability to geographic regions with lower rates of infection, it underscores the risk of Covid-19 among asymptomatic obstetrical patients. Moreover, the true prevalence of infection may be underreported because of false negative results of tests to detect SARS-CoV-2.
6. Hypothesis and justification from a Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at theMilan State University, Italy
The real number of COVID-19 cases in the country could be 5,000,0000 (compared to the 119,827 confirmed ones) according to a study which polled people with symptoms who have not been tested, and up to 10,000,000 or even 20,0000,000 after taking into account asymptomatic cases, according to Carlo La Vecchia, a Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at theMilan State University.
This number would still be insufficient to reach herd immunity, which would require 2/3 of the population (about 40,000,000 people in Italy) having contracted the virus.
The number of deaths could also be underestimated by 3/4 (in Italy as well as in other countries) [source], meaning that the real number of deaths in Italy could be around 60,000.
If these estimates were true, the mortality rate from COVID-19 would be much lower (around 25 times less) than the case fatality rate based solely on laboratory-confirmed cases and deaths, since it would be underestimating cases (the denominator) by a factor of about 1/100 and deaths by a factor of 1/4.
7. SARS-CoV-2 mortality in Italy
As for now, it is a well-known publicly recognized fact that Italy labels anyone who died with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the real causes of death, as the victim of the pandemic. At the same time, the objective fact is the increase of the overall mortality in Italy. According to Istat (Istituto nazionale di statistica), there is a general increase in mortality from all causes ⩾20% from March 1 to April 4, 2020 compared with the average for the same period in 2015-2019. Bergamo is at the top in the growth of mortality among municipalities, + 382.8% of deaths.
However, the mortality grew not only and not so much from the causes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A few examples:
Albino town: from February 23 to March 27, 2019 – 24 people died; from February 23 to March 27, 2020 – 145 people (SARS-CoV-2 causes – 30 dead).
Skandzoroshyate town: from January to March 2019 – 45 deaths; from January to March 2020 – 135 (SARS-CoV-2 – 20 dead).
San Pellegrino Terme town: March 2019 – 2 deaths, March 2020 – 45 (SARS-CoV-2 – 11 dead).
These numbers could be explained by the lack of SARS-CoV-2 tests in the specified period.
At the same time, the mortality from other diseases increased significantly in the comparative period of April 1-4, 2020 compared to April 1-4, 2019. The lack of transparence of the Italian system also should be noted. For example, on April 17, Istat said that at that moment it was impossible to draw any conclusions about the increase of the mortality in Italy in general (as well as in regions and provinces) from the data obtained by Istat for the first four months of 2020 and compare it with the same period in 2019. These graphs and tables show statistics:
Click to see the full-size image
8. SARS-CoV-2 mortality in Spain
Spanish Minister of Health Salvador Illa stated that every dead person, that tested positively to SARS-CoV-2, is considered as a SARS-CoV-2 death.
The mathematical model employed by the University of Carlos III in Madrid (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, UC3M) demonstrates that in the last decade in Spain, an average of 1,150 people die from all causes every day in March. According to the records of acts of civil status, from March 16 (the day quarantine began), the number of daily deaths from all causes began to increase, sometimes reaching 1,400 per day. From March 17 to March 30, 21,243 deaths were recorded in Spain. This is 5,398 more than the prediction based on the extrapolation of data from previous years. The forecasted number for the same period is 15,844 – 34.1% less. At the same time, the total number of deaths from whom SARS-CoV-2 during the period from March 17 to March 30, 2020 was 7,591 people. This is a consequence of the general recognition of SARS-CoV-2 as the cause of deaths regardless of the actual situation. In any case, there is no exponential growth of the overall mortality in Spain or Italy.
In this survey, we demonstrated the researches and approaches of about 100 eminent scientists from around the world. In general, they agree that the current statistical data does not reflect the actual state of affairs, and the publicly distributed media estimates of the mortality rate are at least incorrect, and do not correspond to the actual picture.
The actual number of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection or people that already passed through COVID-19 early-stage or without symptoms is several dozen times higher than the public numbers show.
This is primarily due to the approaches and scope of testing. The public numbers have little to do with science. This is, to a greater extent, either media or politically motivated data. You should also consider the factor of a special picture of the course of the disease, which affects medical statistics (RKI Epidemiological bulletins).
Accordingly, the real mortality rate from SARS-CoV-2 is 25-60 times less than the figures presented to us by MSM and a number of governments.
The number of people with SARS-CoV-2 virus, but without the COVID-19 disease or with a mild form of the disease, according to various estimates, ranges from 85% to 95%. This group, as a rule, does not fall into official statistics, as it is not tested, not hospitalized, and does not seek medical help.
The negative consequences for life and health of people from ill-conceived social measures can at times surpass the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2. There has been a significant increase in the mortality from diseases unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 already.
Countries, whose leadership works closely with scientists, consistently and quickly responds to changes in the situation and the emergence of new data, will receive a huge advantage in the post-COVID-19 world.
The current actions of politicians in a number of countries are difficult to explain with anything other than incompetence or deliberate actions to achieve their personal/clan political ambitions or promote interests of external actors.
Email Addresses And Passwords From WHO, NIH, Wuhan Lab, And Gates Foundation Dumped On 4chan
A cache of nearly 25,000 email addresses and passwords allegedly belonging to the World Health Organization (WHO), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wuhan Institute of Virology, Bill Gates Foundation and several other groups involved with the coronavirus pandemic response were dumped on 4chan before appearing on several other websites, according to the SITE Intelligence Group.
The report by SITE, based in Bethesda, Md., said the largest group of alleged emails and passwords was from the NIH, with 9,938 found on lists posted online. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had the second-highest number, with 6,857. The World Bank had 5,120. The list of WHO addresses and passwords totaled 2,732. –Washington Post
WHO chief information officer Bernardo Mariano told Bloombergthat the organization wasn’t hacked, and that the data was possibly obtained through prior data breaches.
"The employees may have used their work email address to register an account for a particular website, and then that website has been hacked, leaking their password."
According to Mariano, 400 of the credentials were still active – and he claims that none of the passwords were used to access sensitive information due to the organization’s two-factor authentication system. 4chan users, on the other hand, said that they were able to use the passwords to gain access to a WHO website called "Extranet," according to Bloomberg.
Mariano added that the organization has been seeing an increasing number of attempted cyber-intrusions since mid-March, and that there had recently been a "sustained attempt" to hack into the computers of four WHO employees in South Korea, along with the organization’s Geneva headquarters.
4chan users said they were using the credentials to download ‘everything’ they could.
An unverified photo posted as part of the dump appears to refer to "Splicing HIV" into "coronavirus," fueling speculation that COVID-19 was genetically engineered with HIV spike proteins – a theory posted by Indian researchers soon after the virus’s genome was published, and later withdrawn after their findings were refuted.
The Gates Foundation told WaPo "We are monitoring the situation in line with our data security practices. We don’t currently have an indication of a data breach at the foundation."
If legit, someone named Mararet at the Gates Foundation (last name withheld) is apparently a fan of the dark lord:
Australian cybersecurity expert Robert Potter said he was able to verify the WHO information, and that "their password security is appalling."
"Forty-eight people have ‘password’ as their password," he said. Others used their own first names or "changeme."
Potter said the alleged email addresses and passwords may have been purchased from vendors on the dark Web, a portion of the Internet that is not indexed by most search engines and where hacked information often is posted for sale. He said the WHO credentials appear to have come from a hack in 2016. –Washington Post
President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced that he had ordered the destruction of Iranian gunboats harassing American ships.
“I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea.
The president reacted to ongoing reports of Iranian gunboats who continue harassing American ships in the Persian Gulf.
Last Wednesday, 11 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gunboats repeatedly harassed six U.S. Navy warships.
Video of #IRGCN vessels conducting dangerous & harassing approaches on U.S. naval vessels in the international waters of the North Arabian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/zL9VKQ0eiQ
Iran acknowledged their aggressive activity on Sunday, but accused the United States for “unprofessional and provocative actions” without offering any evidence.
Fact checking was devised to be a trusted way to separate fact from fiction. In reality, many journalists use the label “fact checking” as a cover for promoting their own biases. A case in point is an Associated Press (AP) piece headlined AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s inaccurate boasts on China travel ban, which was published on March 26, 2020, and carried by many news outlets.
Defending early missteps in the U.S. response to the coronavirus, President Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted of travel restrictions on China that he suggests he decided on his own over the objections of health experts and saved “thousands” of lives.
The verdict of the AP piece:
His claims aren’t substantiated.
To support its verdict, the AP piece presents several arguments, all of which begin with the words “THE FACTS” (in all caps). Let us address these arguments. For the sake of clarity, THE FACTS presented by the AP piece are italicized. My responses begin with the words “THE REBUTTAL.”
THE FACTS: His [President Trump’s] decision was far from solo nor was it made over opposition from health experts, as the White House coronavirus task force makes clear. His decision followed a consensus by his public health advisers that the restrictions should take place.
THE REBUTTAL: As head of the executive branch, President Trump may seek advice from any expert, both inside and outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As the example below shows, there was no consensus among the experts. In the end, the president makes a decision, and he and only he is responsible for it. Curiously, Trump is usually criticized for not listening to experts. This AP piece denies him credit because he presumably followed experts’ advice.
Among the experts who opposed Trump’s decision was Dr. Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), a United Nations agency responsible for international public health. In other words, Dr. Adhanom is supposed to be an expert of the highest caliber in the field of fighting pandemics. His reaction to President Trump’s decision was rather harsh: “We reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”
Many news outlets and politicians immediately condemned the travel restrictions as racist and xenophobic. Thus, the New York Times published an op-ed on Feb. 5 with the headline “Who Says It’s Not Safe to Travel to China?” and the subhead “The coronavirus travel ban is unjust and doesn’t work anyway.” Joe Biden accused Trump of xenophobia in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic on Jan. 31, on the day when the ban was announced. But later, per CNN, he totally flipped on this issue. Realizing that the public opinion supported the travel ban, on April 3 his campaign clarified that Biden supports President Donald Trump’s ban.
THE FACTS: The impact [of the travel ban] hasn’t been quantified. While Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health has praised the travel restrictions on China for slowing the virus, it’s not known how big an impact they had or if “thousands and thousands” of lives were saved.
There were plenty of gaps in containment.
Trump’s order did not fully “close” the U.S. off to China, as he asserts. It temporarily barred entry by foreign nationals who had traveled in China within the previous 14 days, with exceptions for the immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
THE REBUTTAL: Not only was the impact of the travel ban not quantified, but it also wasn’t tabulated or plotted. We are in the middle of a war. Future historians can quantify and analyze each battle, but first we have to win this war.
The argument about “not fully closing” the travel between the U.S. and China is interesting. Anti-Trump authors blame him for the ban that was both “xenophobic” and simultaneously “not draconian enough.” I am not even sure that banning U.S. citizens from returning to their country would be constitutional.
So, my verdict on this AP fact-checking piece is: Baseless.
Fact checking was devised to be a trusted way to separate fact from fiction. In reality, many journalists use the label “fact checking” as a cover for promoting their own biases. A case in point is an Associated Press (AP) piece headlined AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s inaccurate boasts on China travel ban, which was published on March 26, 2020, and carried by many news outlets.
Defending early missteps in the U.S. response to the coronavirus, President Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted of travel restrictions on China that he suggests he decided on his own over the objections of health experts and saved “thousands” of lives.
The verdict of the AP piece:
His claims aren’t substantiated.
To support its verdict, the AP piece presents several arguments, all of which begin with the words “THE FACTS” (in all caps). Let us address these arguments. For the sake of clarity, THE FACTS presented by the AP piece are italicized. My responses begin with the words “THE REBUTTAL.”
THE FACTS: His [President Trump’s] decision was far from solo nor was it made over opposition from health experts, as the White House coronavirus task force makes clear. His decision followed a consensus by his public health advisers that the restrictions should take place.
THE REBUTTAL: As head of the executive branch, President Trump may seek advice from any expert, both inside and outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As the example below shows, there was no consensus among the experts. In the end, the president makes a decision, and he and only he is responsible for it. Curiously, Trump is usually criticized for not listening to experts. This AP piece denies him credit because he presumably followed experts’ advice.
Among the experts who opposed Trump’s decision was Dr. Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), a United Nations agency responsible for international public health. In other words, Dr. Adhanom is supposed to be an expert of the highest caliber in the field of fighting pandemics. His reaction to President Trump’s decision was rather harsh: “We reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”
Many news outlets and politicians immediately condemned the travel restrictions as racist and xenophobic. Thus, the New York Times published an op-ed on Feb. 5 with the headline “Who Says It’s Not Safe to Travel to China?” and the subhead “The coronavirus travel ban is unjust and doesn’t work anyway.” Joe Biden accused Trump of xenophobia in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic on Jan. 31, on the day when the ban was announced. But later, per CNN, he totally flipped on this issue. Realizing that the public opinion supported the travel ban, on April 3 his campaign clarified that Biden supports President Donald Trump’s ban.
THE FACTS: The impact [of the travel ban] hasn’t been quantified. While Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health has praised the travel restrictions on China for slowing the virus, it’s not known how big an impact they had or if “thousands and thousands” of lives were saved.
There were plenty of gaps in containment.
Trump’s order did not fully “close” the U.S. off to China, as he asserts. It temporarily barred entry by foreign nationals who had traveled in China within the previous 14 days, with exceptions for the immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
THE REBUTTAL: Not only was the impact of the travel ban not quantified, but it also wasn’t tabulated or plotted. We are in the middle of a war. Future historians can quantify and analyze each battle, but first we have to win this war.
The argument about “not fully closing” the travel between the U.S. and China is interesting. Anti-Trump authors blame him for the ban that was both “xenophobic” and simultaneously “not draconian enough.” I am not even sure that banning U.S. citizens from returning to their country would be constitutional.
So, my verdict on this AP fact-checking piece is: Baseless.
Harvard got some bad press today, and deservedly so. First, it turns out that, even as Americans are standing in breadlines, Harvard got $9 million from taxpayers. Second, America learned that a Harvard professor thinks children must be pushed into public education to protect them from uneducated, abusive, religious parents.
Harvard University has a $40.9 billion endowment, the largest academic endowment in the world. This is separate from the tuition students pay to fund most of the college’s day-to-day operations. The annual tuition for Harvard is currently $47,730, but fees, room, board bring a year at Harvard to $72,000.
Harvard may be wealthier than half the countries in the world, but it’s still greedy. When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act sent $9 million in taxpayer money to Harvard, it accepted it:
Harvard University will receive nearly $9 million in aid from the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the Department of Education announced last week.
The CARES Act — the largest economic stimulus package in American history — was signed into law on March 27. It allocates nearly $14 billion to support higher education institutions during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Of the $8,655,748 Harvard is slated to receive, the government has mandated that at least half — $4,327,874 — be reserved for emergency financial aid grants to students.
The Department of Education will distribute the first $6.28 billion to colleges and universities to cover expenses such as course materials, technology, food, and housing students have incurred “related to disruptions in their education due to the COVID-19 outbreak,” according to a April 9 press release.
Harvard’s $40.9 billion endowment, of course, is subject to conditions. Still, it’s impossible to believe that Harvard has no way to tap into that money to provide “emergency financial aid grants to students” without having to grab taxpayer money.
Greed isn’t Harvard’s only problem this week. An article in the latest issue of Harvard Magazine went viral today. It’s entitled “The Risks of Homeschooling” and recounts ideas from Elizabeth Bartholet, the Wasserstein public interest professor of law and faculty director of the Law School’s Child Advocacy Program.
According to Bartholet, keeping children in the hellhole of an American home, one without credentialed parents and, quite possibly, with excess religion, is destroying a generation. The only way to save these children is to put them in public schools – you know, the ones that routinely fail American children.
Bartholet’s most predictable complaint is that the 50 states don’t impose strict rules on parents, thereby allowing people without the proper credentials to teach their own children. Another concern is that, if children are kept at home, there’s no way teachers can report suspected child abuse. If the state’s not spying on you, you must be doing something wrong. As proof for this, Bartholet points to Tara Westover’s memoir, Educated, about her childhood with survivalist parents who educated her minimally while off the grid. Apparently, one memoir is enough to indict an entire cohort of homeschooling parents.
For Bartholet, though, the worst thing is that homeschooling is . . . Christian!
But surveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.
These evil Christians have prevented legislators from following their more enlightened German and French legislatures, which have banned homeschooling entirely:
She views the absence of regulations ensuring that homeschooled children receive a meaningful education equivalent to that required in public schools as a threat to U.S. democracy. “From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,” she says.
[snip]
In the United States, Bartholet says, state legislators have been hesitant to restrict the practice because of the Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, a conservative Christian homeschool advocacy group, which she describes as small, well-organized, and “overwhelmingly powerful politically.”
[snip]
“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” Bartholet says. “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”
The illustration supporting the article shows a sad, homeschooled child, locked behind bars in a house made of books, watching public school children play. The books making up the house are “Reading,” “Writing,” “Arithmatic” [sic], and “Bible.”
Ironically, Harvard was established in 1636 as a private institution to educate Christian ministers. It’s still private, but now it feeds hungrily at the taxpayer trough and teaches its students to hate Christianity.
Harvard got some bad press today, and deservedly so. First, it turns out that, even as Americans are standing in breadlines, Harvard got $9 million from taxpayers. Second, America learned that a Harvard professor thinks children must be pushed into public education to protect them from uneducated, abusive, religious parents.
Harvard University has a $40.9 billion endowment, the largest academic endowment in the world. This is separate from the tuition students pay to fund most of the college’s day-to-day operations. The annual tuition for Harvard is currently $47,730, but fees, room, board bring a year at Harvard to $72,000.
Harvard may be wealthier than half the countries in the world, but it’s still greedy. When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act sent $9 million in taxpayer money to Harvard, it accepted it:
Harvard University will receive nearly $9 million in aid from the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, the Department of Education announced last week.
The CARES Act — the largest economic stimulus package in American history — was signed into law on March 27. It allocates nearly $14 billion to support higher education institutions during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Of the $8,655,748 Harvard is slated to receive, the government has mandated that at least half — $4,327,874 — be reserved for emergency financial aid grants to students.
The Department of Education will distribute the first $6.28 billion to colleges and universities to cover expenses such as course materials, technology, food, and housing students have incurred “related to disruptions in their education due to the COVID-19 outbreak,” according to a April 9 press release.
Harvard’s $40.9 billion endowment, of course, is subject to conditions. Still, it’s impossible to believe that Harvard has no way to tap into that money to provide “emergency financial aid grants to students” without having to grab taxpayer money.
Greed isn’t Harvard’s only problem this week. An article in the latest issue of Harvard Magazine went viral today. It’s entitled “The Risks of Homeschooling” and recounts ideas from Elizabeth Bartholet, the Wasserstein public interest professor of law and faculty director of the Law School’s Child Advocacy Program.
According to Bartholet, keeping children in the hellhole of an American home, one without credentialed parents and, quite possibly, with excess religion, is destroying a generation. The only way to save these children is to put them in public schools – you know, the ones that routinely fail American children.
Bartholet’s most predictable complaint is that the 50 states don’t impose strict rules on parents, thereby allowing people without the proper credentials to teach their own children. Another concern is that, if children are kept at home, there’s no way teachers can report suspected child abuse. If the state’s not spying on you, you must be doing something wrong. As proof for this, Bartholet points to Tara Westover’s memoir, Educated, about her childhood with survivalist parents who educated her minimally while off the grid. Apparently, one memoir is enough to indict an entire cohort of homeschooling parents.
For Bartholet, though, the worst thing is that homeschooling is . . . Christian!
But surveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.
These evil Christians have prevented legislators from following their more enlightened German and French legislatures, which have banned homeschooling entirely:
She views the absence of regulations ensuring that homeschooled children receive a meaningful education equivalent to that required in public schools as a threat to U.S. democracy. “From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,” she says.
[snip]
In the United States, Bartholet says, state legislators have been hesitant to restrict the practice because of the Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, a conservative Christian homeschool advocacy group, which she describes as small, well-organized, and “overwhelmingly powerful politically.”
[snip]
“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” Bartholet says. “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”
The illustration supporting the article shows a sad, homeschooled child, locked behind bars in a house made of books, watching public school children play. The books making up the house are “Reading,” “Writing,” “Arithmatic” [sic], and “Bible.”
Ironically, Harvard was established in 1636 as a private institution to educate Christian ministers. It’s still private, but now it feeds hungrily at the taxpayer trough and teaches its students to hate Christianity.
Facebook says it is working with state governments to take down organizing announcements for protests of the COVID-19 Chinese coronavirus lockdowns. The protests have been spreading around the nation by Americans concerned the cure is worse than the disease and is killing the country and that the orders by governments go far beyond what is necessary to control the spread of the virus and are more about controlling citizens.
CNN’s Oliver Darcy and Donie O’Sullivan posted Monday about Facebook and the state’s conspiring to suspend the First Amendment rights of Americans.
“Anti-quarantine protests being organized through Facebook in California, New Jersey, and Nebraska, are being removed from the platform on the instruction of governments in those three states because it violates stay-at-home orders, Facebook spokesperson @andymstone tells @donie”
“Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events in California, New Jersey, and Nebraska after consultation with state governments”
“Says it is working to get answers from New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as to whether anti-quarantine protests breaks those states’ social distancing measures.”
Anti-quarantine protests being organized through Facebook in California, New Jersey, and Nebraska, are being removed from the platform on the instruction of governments in those three states because it violates stay-at-home orders, Facebook spokesperson @andymstone tells @donie.
Says it is working to get answers from New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as to whether anti-quarantine protests breaks those states’ social distancing measures.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that Democratic leaders House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) have “slowed down” the federal government’s ability to get Americans financial help during the coronavirus crisis.
Barrasso made the remarks in response to Bartiromo asking him about the Paycheck Protection Program, which ran out of money last week after Senate Democrats refused to replenish it.
“There are small businesses and paychecks needing to be gotten taken care of,” Barrasso said. “There are people who are still applying for these loans. I see it in Wyoming. It’s been very successful, $350 billion already spent. It’s helped 15 million Americans stay on the payroll.”
“The money — we had a vote Friday, and the Democrats blocked it. The money in that program is really paychecks for hardworking Americans, people who work for small businesses, which is over half of all Americans,” Barrasso continued. “I heard earlier on the news that Mnuchin and Schumer and Pelosi are working on a deal. Every Republican is going to want to scrutinize that, because we know that, when Schumer and Pelosi are involved, we know they slowed down the CARES Act because they wanted their wish list included.”
Barrasso, who is a medical doctor, said that the country needed to get the economy back open but needed to do so “using science” and using precise metrics to track coronavirus cases across the United States.
WATCH:
On FOX News, @SenJohnBarrasso (also a doctor) says "it’s time to re-open America" with a smart, science-backed approach. He notes it’s nonsensical to treat WY the same as NJ. Energy, agriculture, construction can be opened right away, he says, while still being safe. pic.twitter.com/0akyNhDbAS
— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) April 20, 2020
TRANSCRIPT:
MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: President Trump is laying out a three-phase plan to reopen the economy.
My next guest’s state has been much more impacted economically than health-wise in his state, because of the shutdowns and what it has done to the energy sector, tourism and agriculture.
Joining me right now is Republican Conference chairman, member of the White House Task Force on Reopening the Economy, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso.
Senator, it’s great to see you. Thanks very much for being here.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: You are a medical doctor, so you clearly understand the health risks.
Are you worried that you’re going to be opening the economy too soon, and we get a relapse? And tell us about the impacts that Wyoming has seen from coronavirus.
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Well, it is time to reopen America, to do it in a smart way, following the metrics, using science. But we need to get Americans back to work.
Everyone in this country has been impacted by coronavirus, some more from the medical standpoint, others more from the economic standpoint.
In Wyoming, for one, we have been very fortunate in terms of the disease. But the economy has been flattened, energy, agriculture, tourism, all of those things.
And as an example of how we can start opening the country, we have a county in Wyoming, Maria, it is larger geographically than the entire state of New Jersey. So the sizes are so vast out here.
And in that county, there have only been nine people who have tested positive. None have been hospitalized. The businesses have been shut for a month. The hospital itself is on life support because patients aren’t coming in for elective procedures.
This is an area of the country and the economy that can be opened, using the criteria, watching all of the science. These are the people and the jobs, Maria, that I’m fighting for.
BARTIROMO: Yes. I mean, Wyoming is an energy state. You’re looking at rig counts that have gone down. Already, we have a bankruptcy in the shale sector. So we may very well see more bankruptcies there because of that.
What about the money and the stimulus going toward it? Are you going to have a vote on Monday about an additional $250 billion that’s going to go into that Paycheck Program?
BARRASSO: Well, I sure hope so.
The money — we had a vote Friday, and the Democrats blocked it. The money in that program is really paychecks for hardworking Americans, people who work for small businesses, which is over half of all Americans.
I heard earlier on the news that Mnuchin and Schumer and Pelosi are working on a deal. Every Republican is going to want to scrutinize that, because we know that, when Schumer and Pelosi are involved, we know they slowed down the CARES Act because they wanted their wish list included.
So I know members of our conference are going to want to take a scrutinizing look at what is in this agreement.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
BARRASSO: What we really need to do is put more money in the Paycheck Protection Program.
BARTIROMO: Right.
BARRASSO: That’s the one right now, Maria, that’s run out of money.
BARTIROMO: Hold on. Hold on, Senator. I want to talk about that. This is an important issue that you’re getting to.
We will take a break, come back with that.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
We are back with Senator John Barrasso.
And, Senator, you were going through the Paycheck Protection Program. You say it needs more money. It’s run out of money, right?
BARRASSO: It ran out Thursday.
There are small businesses and paychecks needing to be gotten taken care of. There are people who are still applying for these loans. I see it in Wyoming. It’s been very successful, $350 billion already spent. It’s helped 15 million Americans stay on the payroll.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
BARRASSO: There’s probably another 10 million who would be able to stay on the job.
And we need these businesses to be able to be ready to be open when it’s felt safe to do so. And that’s why, as a member of the president’s task force…
BARTIROMO: Sure.
BARRASSO: … I have been saying, we need to do it scientifically, but we need to start now.
BARTIROMO: You have also been talking about certain industries that might be able to open in a reopening.
We know it’s going to be slow and a rolling open. So which industries do you believe can start getting going right now and opening?
BARRASSO: Well, you can start construction right away, energy, agriculture. In certain office settings, you can do those sorts of things.
So there are a number of places. You are going to still need to do all of the issues of handwashing, social distancing, taking care of our most vulnerable. But we need to start opening the areas where it’s safe to do it.
And there are lots of places, counties like the one I described in Wyoming. There are counties like that all over the country. And that’s why it’s important to have governors involved, have people at the local level involved. That’s the way we can start slowly opening.
There may be some bump up in new cases when that happens.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
BARRASSO: You need to make sure the hospitals have testing capacity and ICU capacity to take care of those people.
BARTIROMO: Sure.
BARRASSO: But that’s why we can, I think, slowly go phase one, phase two, phase three, and then a fully reopened economy.
BARTIROMO: Senator, our viewers know that I was the one who broke the story on the test failures. We didn’t have enough testing.
The CDC sends out the tests, and they have to call the governors back and say, don’t use the tests, they are defective.
What happened? They were actually looking — studying the coronavirus in the same lab as the lab that they were making the tests? How come there’s such a disaster around these tests?
BARRASSO: This is a permanent black eye for the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.
They have failed us here. There’s a front-page story in The Washington Post today and in newspapers all around the country about the failures.
BARTIROMO: OK.
BARRASSO: Centers for Disease Control, they sent it to 100 labs. None of them worked.
And we have been — we have lost about a month in testing because of their failures.
BARTIROMO: Because of that.
Senator, thank you. Thank you so much for everything.
