Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump is clashing with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over the coronavirus response again.

During Cuomos press briefing on the latest COVID-19 updates in the Empire State, Trump attacked the governor in a series of tweets Friday.

Governor Cuomo should spend more time doing and less time complaining.' Get out there and get the job done. Stop talking!" Trump wrote on Twitter. "We built you thousands of hospital beds that you didnt need or use, gave large numbers of Ventilators that you should have had, and helped you with... testing that you should be doing. We have given New York far more money, help and equipment than any other state, by far, & these great men & women who did the job never hear you say thanks. Your numbers are not good. Less talk and more action!

A reporter asked Cuomo about Trumps tweets, and the governor responded in real time.

First of all, if hes sitting home watching TV, maybe he should get up and go to work, right? Cuomo said. Second, lets keep emotions and politics out of it, and personal ego if we can."

Because this is about the people, and its about our job.

Cuomo has frequently clashed with Trump, asking for more federal help including ventilators and personal protective equipment to fight the coronavirus pandemic. Trump has recently tried to claim he would decide when states reopen for business, issuing a three-point plan for governors to use but admitted it would be to states to decide when to lift stay-at-home orders.

Trump has encouraged states to reopen by May 1, but Cuomo who has extended New Yorks stay-at-home order to May 15 said the presidents plan requires more federal aid.

Is there any funding so I can do these things you want me to do? Cuomo said Friday. That is passing the buck without passing the bucks.

Why dont you show as much consideration to states as you did to your big businesses and to your airlines? Cuomo added.

The governor also pointed out that, while other states may have lower numbers of coronavirus and could reopen sooner than others, New York is still seeing more than 600 new deaths daily from COVID-19. Trumps home state has seen more than 220,000 confirmed cases more than any country outside the U.S. and nearly 13,000 deaths.

Trump and Cuomo have repeatedly clashed on a number of issues beyond the coronavirus pandemic. Trump, a Republican, has previously claimed New Yorkers are leaving the state like never before" and refused to allow New Yorkers to enroll in Global Entry and other trusted traveler programs. Cuomo, a Democrat, has accused Trump of inciting hate and doing nothing but tweet when it comes to gun control, and also irked the president when he signed a law preventing presidential pardons for state crimes, including his associates like former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Trump further used Twitter Friday to show support for protesters in states demanding stay-at-home orders be lifted and non-essential businesses reopened.

LIBERATE MINNESOTA! Trump tweeted. LIBERATE MICHIGAN! LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!

MORE ON CORONAVIRUS

Cuomo rejects Trump claim of total authority: We dont have a king

Coronavirus timeline: How Gov. Cuomo has responded to pandemic since January

Trump attacks Cuomo, claims NY governor created death panels instead of buying ventilators

Cuomo to Trump: The president will have no fight with me

Follow this link:
Gov. Cuomo responds to Trump tweets: Maybe he should get up and go to work - syracuse.com

With unemployment claims ballooning to 22 million people, the coronavirus lockdown took an uncomfortable turn for state governors on Wednesday. Workers and small business owners clogged the streets of Lansing, Michigan, near the capitol, blaring car and truck horns, and waved signs calling on Governor Gretchen Whitmer to allow businesses to open up. Smaller protests took place in Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina and Utah.

The angry outburst came just as the nation teeters on what the computer models say is the "peak" of the COVID-19 outbreak. According to most calculations, the death toll, after rising with terrifying steepness for several weeks, should be flattening out and soon starting to drop. "The worst is over," said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo earlier this week.

Reality, though, seems to have other ideas. New Jersey, supposedly on the downward slope, reported 362 deaths on Thursday, the biggest single-day increase. Governor Phil Murphy said the death toll, at 3518, surpasses the number of state residents who died in World War I.

Despite the lack of clarity, reopening is on everybody's mind. President Donald Trump announced Thursday, "We are in the next front of our war, which we are calling, 'Opening Up America Again.'" Governors on both coasts are hammering out plans to lift restrictions on businesses. Governor Gavin Newsom of California said any plans to open the state would be "guided by science and data."

One thing is clear: regardless of whether the lockdown ends next week or next year, the virus will be waiting on the other side. A lockdown only delays the virus' progress through the population. It's designed to keep the burden off emergency rooms and intensive care units and buy time. The relevant question in considering how and when to lift the lockdown is not how to prevent deaths, but rather how to prevent too many deaths all at once.

Several private studies have laid out frameworks for a plan, and the governors are no doubt fashioning their own. There is a consensus that life will not go back to normal until scientists figure out how to defang the viruswith a vaccine, or treatments that keep the acutely ill from dying on ventilators, or both. New treatments will take months to roll out and a vaccine is at least a year away. How, then, do we negotiate the coming months?

Most plans present a post-lockdown scenario in which life wouldn't exactly be normal but would still be an improvement on lockdown. People would wear masks when they go outside, some businesses would reopen with social-distancing precautions, large gatherings would be forbidden and bars would stay closed. Baseball season might reopen, but teams would play to empty stadiums. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, an author of a report published by the American Enterprise Institute, told Vox that it would look like a "gradual reintroduction of activity."

As social interactions increased, of course, the virus would begin to make a comeback. Epidemiolgist Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and his colleagues recently performed a computer analysis of how SARS-CoV-2 was likely to behave after lockdown is lifted, which the journal Science published on Tuesday. The authors found that loosened restrictions would almost certainly produce a rebound later in the year. A false sense of security during the summer months in northern states such as New York and Michigan, where the virus might be less active during the summer heat, could lead to a spike in cases in the autumn or winter that's even more severe than the one we're only now recovering from.

To avoid another catastrophe, doctors would use contract tracing to jump on small outbreaks before they turn into big ones. Contact tracing would require PCR tests to detect the presence of the virus in patients' blood, and serological tests to measure the presence of antibodies, an indication of whether or not a patient has immunity. The monitoring would have to be done at the local level, which means tests would have to be cheap, plentiful and quick. Paul Romer, a Nobel laureate and professor at New York University, calls for administering tests to every person in the country every two weeksmore than 20 million tests per day.

Testing on that scale is not going to happen anytime soon. Tests are only now being rolled out and it will be "at least weeks before there are results for more than a handful of places," said Lipsitch at a press conference.

Without testing and tracing, the only tool available to keep the outbreak in check is social distancing. Lipsitch's team explored scenarios for controlling the rebound with social-distancing measures alone. No one wants a permanent lockdown, so they also ran their computer models on a strategy of intermittent lockdowns. Public health officials would monitor the prevalence of the virus in the population at large and, as the number of infected people reached a certain threshold, social distancing rules would once again go into effect. A lockdown in March and April might give way to a few months of relative freedom, but then it would be time for a second lockdown, and eventually a third and a fourth and so on.

Without a vaccine or effective treatments, a strategy of on-again, off-again lockdowns would have to continue through 2022 before enough people carried antibodies to the virus to protect the most vulnerable, known as herd immunity.

It sounds awfuland it might not even work. Without adequate testing, public health officials would have to use indirect metrics, such as hospitalizations, to assess at what point a new lockdown is needed. This would hamper their ability to recognize a spike quickly enough to avoid another catastrophic increase in COVID-19 cases. Would politicians listen and act in time to close down businesses? Would the public accept and abide by these recurring rounds of restrictions?

The recent of experience of Singapore doesn't bode well. In the early days of the pandemic, Singapore, which arguably has the best health care system in the world, managed to avoid severe social distancing through a program of comprehensive testing and rigorous contact tracing. Still, it lost control of the outbreak. Last week, it had to resort to closing businesses and reducing social contact. If Singapore can't keep its economy open with a robust system of testing and monitoring, can the U.S.?

The lack of alternatives to social distancing makes charting a realistic course from lockdown to normalcy exceedingly difficult. Until scientists can come up with some other interventiona vaccine, a treatment, a drastic expansion of ICU capacityit looks like social distancing is going to be a way of life for a while.

Originally posted here:
Donald Trump Says America Will Open Up But Scientists Predict We'll Be Back in Lockdown Again. Here's Why - Newsweek

Media playback is unsupported on your device

US President Donald Trump has said he is going to halt funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) because it has "failed in its basic duty" in its response to the coronavirus outbreak.

He accused the UN agency of mismanaging and covering up the spread of the virus after it emerged in China, and said it must be held accountable.

In response, the UN's chief said it was "not the time" to cut funds to the WHO.

Mr Trump has been under fire for his own handling of the pandemic.

He has sought to deflect persistent criticism that he acted too slowly to stop the virus's spread by pointing to his decision in late January to place restrictions on travel from China.

He has accused the WHO of having "criticised" that decision and of being biased towards China more generally.

"I am directing my administration to halt funding while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization's role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus," Mr Trump told a news conference at the White House on Tuesday.

The US is the global health body's largest single funder and gave it more than $400m in 2019.

A decision on whether the US resumes funding will be made after the review, which Mr Trump said would last 60 to 90 days.

The WHO is yet to directly respond but UN Secretary General Antnio Guterres said the international community should be uniting "in solidarity to stop this virus".

"It is my belief that the World Health Organization must be supported, as it is absolutely critical to the world's efforts to win the war against Covid-19," he said.

Germany's foreign minister tweeted that strengthening the "under-funded" WHO was one of the best investments that could be made at this time.

The WHO launched an appeal in March for $675m to help fight the coronavirus pandemic and is reported to be planning a fresh appeal for at least $1bn.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder and philanthropist, said on Twitter: "Halting funding for the World Health Organization during a world health crisis is as dangerous as it sounds."

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest funder of the WHO.

"With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have deep concerns whether America's generosity has been put to the best use possible," the US president said.

The US has by far the highest number of coronavirus cases and deaths worldwide- with more than 600,000 cases and 26,000 deaths.

Mr Trump accused the WHO of having failed to adequately assess the outbreak when it first emerged in the city of Wuhan.

"Had the WHO done its job to get medical experts into China to objectively assess the situation on the ground and to call out China's lack of transparency, the outbreak could have been contained at its source with very little death," he told reporters.

"This would have saved thousands of lives and avoided worldwide economic damage. Instead, the WHO willingly took China's assurances to face value... and defended the actions of the Chinese government."

Chinese officials initially covered up the outbreak of the virus in Wuhan, and punished whistleblowers who tried to raise the alarm. Beijing later imposed draconian restrictions, including quarantine zones on an unprecedented scale, drawing effusive praise from the WHO and its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

WHO experts were only allowed to visit China and investigate the outbreak on 10 February, by which time the country had more than 40,000 cases.

White House reporters pointed out, however, that Mr Trump himself praised China's response to the outbreak and downplayed the danger of the virus at home long after the WHO had declared a "public health emergency of international concern".

Democrats accused him of trying to shift blame away from himself in an election year, but many Republicans in Congress praised his decision to cut funding.

It is not the first time the WHO's response to the outbreak has come under scrutiny.

On 14 January, the organisation tweeted that preliminary Chinese investigations had found "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" of the new virus.

Mr Trump and others have used the tweet to attack the WHO for simply believing China, despite evidence to the contrary. But about a week after that tweet, on 22 January, the agency released a public statement saying that human-to-human transmission did appear to be taking place in Wuhan.

At the end of January, on the same day it declared a public health emergency, the WHO said that travel restrictions were not needed to stop the spread of Covid-19 - advice that was eventually ignored by most countries, including by the Trump administration the next day.

In March, the UN agency was also accused of being unduly influenced by China after a senior official refused to discuss Taiwan's response to the outbreak.

Meanwhile, some health experts also say that the WHO's guidance on face masks has led to public confusion.

Other frequently-made criticisms of the WHO more generally are that it is constrained by politics and a sprawling bureaucracy. It came under particular fire for its response to the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa and how long it took to declare a public health emergency, leading the organisation to announce reforms in response.

At one level, this move is about the coronavirus. Administration officials have been sharply accusing the WHO of missteps in the handling of the pandemic, saying it was biased towards China.

They say the WHO was too ready to support China's deceptive early claims about the virus and then didn't push hard enough against Beijing's attempts to cover up its misinformation. In particular President Trump has latched onto the WHO's criticism of his travel restrictions against China.

But at another level, the move to defund the WHO is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curtail China's growing global influence.

The argument is that Chinese leadership in international organisations undermines the rules-based, accountable international system needed to prevent and fight a pandemic.

But, the Wall Street Journal reports that the decision also stems from an ongoing discussion on whether to link US aid dollars to the number of Americans working in the groups that receive them.

See the rest here:
Coronavirus: US to halt funding to WHO, says Trump - BBC News

Rapper Kanye West made known who he plans to vote for in the November presidential election.

West, who faced backlash after he wore a red "Make America Great Again" hat, which he said made him feel like Superman, to an October 2018 Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump, told GQ "I'm definitely voting this time," when asked whether he plans to speak more about the upcoming election.

"And we know who Im voting on," said West, who appears on the cover of the magazine's May issue. "And Im not going to be told by the people around me and the people that have their agenda that my career is going to be over. Because guess what: I'm still here!"

The Morning Rundown

Get a head start on the morning's top stories.

West noted that his album "Jesus Is King," which was released a year after his highly publicized Oval Office visit, "was No. 1!"

"I was told my career would end if I wasn't with her," West said, seemingly referencing former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's 2016 slogan. "What kind of campaign is that, anyway? That's like if Obama's campaign was 'I'm with black.' What's the point of being a celebrity if you cant have an opinion? Everybody make their own opinion! You know?"

That wasn't West's only mention of former President Barack Obama, whom he has been critical of in the past. (In April 2018, West tweeted: "Obama was in office for eight years and nothing in Chicago changed.")

"I buy real estate. It's better now than when Obama was in office," West told GQ. "They don't teach you in school about buying property. They teach you how to become somebody's property."

The rapper, whose wife Kim Kardashian West has become a force in the world of criminal justice reform and met with Trump on multiple occasions at the White House to advocate for sentencing reform, said black people "are controlled by emotions through the media."

West made that remark after the GQ reporter told him: "A lot of the reaction to you wearing the hat was 'How could the guy who gave us the gift of 'George Bush doesn't care about black people' now do this?'"

"The media puts musicians, artists, celebrities, actors in a position to be the face of the race, that really don't have any power and really are just working for white people," West responded. "When it's said like that, it's kind of obvious, right? We emotionally connect to someone of our color on TV and feel that this person is speaking for us. So let me say this: I am the founder of a $4 billion organization, one of the most Google-searched brands on the planet, and I will not be told who I'm gonna vote on because of my color."

West said he did not "intend for anything" except to speak his mind and express how he felt when he wore the hat and that he makes his own decisions.

"Both my parents were freedom fighters, and they used to drink from fountains they were told they couldn't drink from, and they used to sit in restaurants where they were told they couldn't eat from," West said. "They didn't fight for me to be told by white people which white person I can vote on."

Janelle Griffith is a breaking news reporter for NBC News.

Go here to see the original:
Kanye West implies he plans to vote for Donald Trump in 2020 - NBC News

In 2018, Jason Stanley, a philosophy professor at Yale, published How Fascism Works. Although it was a slim volume, it ranged broadly, citing experimental psychology, legal theory, and neo-Nazi blogs; although it was by an academic philosopher, it was a popular book that prioritized current events over syllogisms. Viktor Orbn is mentioned more times in the book than Hannah Arendt. Donald Trump shows up dozens of times, and he is portrayed not as a distractible bozo but as a concerted aspiring strongman. Fascist politics can dehumanize minority groups even when an explicitly fascist state does not arise, Stanley writes. Elsewhere, in a chapter called Sodom and Gomorrah, he argues that Trumps habit of extolling the heartland while decrying urban squalor makes sense in the context of a more general fascist politics, in which cities are seen as centers of disease and pestilence. Stanley couldnt have known that many American cities were, in fact, about to become centers of disease, but he could have predicted that Trump would use such a development to his rhetorical advantage. Some people would like to see New York quarantined because its a hot spot, Trump said, late last month. Heavily infected.

Stanley isnt, or isnt mainly, a scholar of public policy; he is a philosopher of language. When he insinuates that Trump is a fascistand you dont have to be a philosopher of language to catch the insinuationhe means that Trump talks like a fascist, not necessarily that he governs like one. Still, many passages in Stanleys book begin with a discussion of Germany in the nineteen-thirties, or Rwanda in the nineteen-nineties, before pivoting to a depiction of the contemporary United States. Ever since my book came out, Ive been fighting with critics who go, Youre overreacting, youre exaggerating, its irresponsible to call this fascism or that fascism, Stanley said. Ill point to a step Trump has takenhes using ICE to round up children, hes surrounding himself with loyalists and generals, hes using the apparatus of government to dig up dirt on a political rivaland the response is always Sure, thats bad, but its not a big enough step to justify the F-word. Im starting to feel like the its-not-a-big-enough-step people wont be happy until theyre in concentration camps.

Stanley, a descendant of Holocaust survivors, acknowledges that he is unusually prone to worst-case thinking. (As my colleague Masha Gessen once observed, It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room.) Stanley has written that, during his childhood, his fathers Holocaust induced anxiety was all encompassing; his mother taught him that the moment where one must accept that a situation is genuinely dangerous is usually well past the time when one can exit it. He also acknowledges, of course, that there are plenty of big steps that Trump hasnt taken, and may never take: imposing martial law, closing the borders, indefinitely postponing the 2020 Presidential election. Still, if Trump were ever going to be tempted to try something like this, wouldnt now be the time? A lot of us who were deeply worried about Trump from the beginning were specifically worried about what would happen when he got his Reichstag-fire moment, Stanley said. (The Reichstag, a government building in Berlin, was set ablaze in an arson attack, in 1933; Hitlers government blamed the arson, falsely, on Communist agitators, and used it as a pretext to suspend civil liberties.) Trump is lucky, in a way, because the coronavirus is a real crisis, Stanley continued. He didnt have to manufacture one. And now hes acting the way strongmen always act in a time of crisisgrandstanding, hogging the media spotlight, demanding obedience. So far, at least, his approval rating seems to have held fairly steady.

On March 6th, Yale closed for spring break and never reopened. Instead, like so many other institutions around the world, Yale has become a very expensive and prestigious series of Webinars. Stanley is still teaching his big spring lecture course, Propaganda, Ideology, & Democracy, now via live stream, from a red wingback chair in his living room. The fascist leader is a tough guy who acts from his gut, who just knows whats right by instinct and doesnt need to rely on pointy-headed intellectuals, Stanley said earlier this month, addressing a few dozen students on Zoom. All those people who reason and say, On the one hand, on the other handthats weakness and cowardice and decadence.

A few moments later, a preposterously cute child wandered into the frame. Sorry, its my sons fifth birthday, Stanley said.

Wheres all the people? his son said, looking at the screen.

The people are hiding behind their cameras, Stanley said.

A few of the students unmuted themselves and wished the child a happy birthday. Stanley thanked them, then kissed his son on the forehead and ushered him out of the room. We need to get back to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he said.

On March 27th, Congress passed a two-trillion-dollar coronavirus-relief package, the largest stimulus bill in U.S. history. It included what Democrats pejoratively called a corporate slush fundhalf a trillion dollars that could be doled out to various large companies, including hotels, at the discretion of the executive branch, which is run by a hotel magnate. But the bill also required oversight: a special inspector general, Glenn Fine, would monitor the spending, reporting to Congress anything that seemed amiss. President Trump signed the bill, then immediately issued a signing statement making clear that he would not obey the laws oversight provision. (Asked about this by reporters, Trump responded, Ill be the oversight.) A few days later, Trump fired Fine and announced that Brian Miller, a White House lawyer, would oversee the pandemic-relief spending. On Wednesday, the Treasury announced that, in an unprecedented move, stimulus checks would bear the Presidents name, and Trump threatened to force Congress into adjournment, which no President has ever done. When somebodys the President of the United States, the authority is total, Trump said at a recent press conference. Its total.

Stanley has not rewritten his syllabus in light of COVID-19. Even so, his students cant help drawing connections between what they see on the news and what they read in classThe Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt; Conspiracy Theories, a recent book by the philosopher Quassim Cassam; and, naturally, Stanleys own How Fascism Works. On a recent Thursday afternoon, Stanley and a few of his students gathered (virtually, of course) to discuss overtly what theyd all been weighing privately: How does what were discussing in class bear on our present, and on our near future?

Lulu Chang, a graduate student at Yales School of Management, said that one of the courses main themes was the authoritarian leaders desire to control the truth: Something that Professor Stanley says all the time is If you take away truth, and you cant speak truth to power, all thats left is power. In the early days of the coronavirus crisis, she continued, there was initially a sense that this was not going to be that big of a deal. And then, as it became clearer and clearer that that was not going to be the case, that narrative continued to shift, as though everyone knew all along. (Trump, on February 27th: One dayits like a miracleit will disappear. Trump, on March 17th: Ive always viewed it as very serious.)

Go here to see the original:
Studying Fascist Propaganda by Day, Watching Trumps Coronavirus Updates by Night - The New Yorker