Latest COVID-19 Model Data Shows A Running Catastrophe- And Why Preparations For Mail Only Voting Need To Be Started NOW

"The inability of so much of the public to remember what Trump was saying just a month ago suggests that, in addition to the coronavirus crisis, we’re also experiencing a national amnesia pandemic."   - Bret Stephens, NY Times  

"Do not be like us!  Don't make the same mistakes we Italians made!  Learn from our experience!  Be aggressive  in containing the spread of the infection from the very beginning."  -  Dr. Cristina Capellini, physician from Bergamo, quoted in WSJ today ('Italian Cases Starting To Slow',   p. A10)

  "If a few people do the wrong thing it hurts everybody. We saw a picture this weekend of a beach in Florida that was totally empty. The county next door didn't have that rule and as soon you crossed the county line there were people lined up  and squished together.  We can't have that! We are in this together." - Dr. David Agus on CBS this a.m. referencing the new, more dire model forecasts  

"The hope is that the number of American deaths now - if we're lucky - could be more in the range of 100,000 to 240,000, and not 1 to 2 million.  That is essentially the goal as described by the Trump administration. And that is only if the United States somehow gets more serious about preventing people from getting it, and passing it on... But the U.S. has the worst epidemic in the world  and the worst managed. "  Rachel Maddow last night, in her first segment.



Here's a newsflash:  The top government scientists battling the coronavirus estimated Tuesday that the deadly pathogen could kill between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans, in spite of the social distancing measures that have drastically limited citizens’ interactions and movements.  Given the COVID-19 pandemic will very probably last into at least well into November,  at least from what I can discern using an adaptation of earlier diffusion wave models, e.g.

Applying The Mathematics Of Traveling Waves & Diff...

It's time states commence preparations for mail voting in the general election. The key equation (1)  is that defining the rate of increase in the infected population  I,  which is now increasing for the  U.S. S and I denote the densities of the susceptible and infected populations (per sq. km or per sq. m).  D is the diffusion coefficient and  m  is the mortality rate for the given disease. The coefficient K defines the rate at which the disease is transmitted locally. Using the values currently available and incorporating projections from a just released Univ. Of Washington data ,model, e.g. 

https://covid19.healthdata.org/

It is abundantly clear this COVID-19 pandemic crisis will go on for months at minimum likely through August and with over 100,000 Americans dead even in the "optimal"  projection case of immediate severe mitigation by ALL states, not just the big Blue ones.  Currently six states have no stay at home orders at all: Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Arkansas. That means those states are inevitably susceptible to further spread of the virus no matter what the quarantine states do. That means we are looking at an extension of the disease to months, not just weeks.  In addition, a host of states have only partial stay at home orders: Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi and Alabama.  Again, meaning there is no chance we can expect any "perfect" mitigation to limit the deaths to just 100,000 - 240,000.  The point? Without statewide orders to stay the hell inside, we are looking at a joke or jokes, not any serious plans or proposals.  We are certainly not looking at the given states being seriously committed to limiting deaths, especially in their elderly residents.

Even in the "best case" scenario for rigorous state lockdowns, mitigations we are looking at over 2,000 deaths per day going through May.  See e.g.


But this is assuming full mitigation, not partial like we have now.  The takeaway then cannot possibly be as sanguine as portrayed because it would mean a nation wide order for all citizens to stay at home. Not six states blowing it off, and 11 others only doing it partially. That is the assumption for these models for which the projections are so dire. Hence, the outcome in reality cannot possibly be as "good" as that depicted.  This is given how the Trump bunch has loused up pandemic planning, lying through their teeth with 'happy talk' every step of the way, and even forcing health workers to compete for masks, gowns, ventilators.  But most abominably refusing to order national shutdowns while coordinating use of scarce supplies.  Like it or not, the PR maestro and reality TV idiot -  so beloved by his freakish base-   now faces the specter of being responsible for more deaths than in the Korean and Vietnam Wars combined.

 This means deaths will still be mounting  deep into the fall and we will be faced with mass shutdowns throughout the U.S. past November 3rd - as inconceivable as that sounds now.  That means the states need to get going with planning and preparation for an all mail ballot general election..

Currently, as noted in a recent WSJ piece (March 28-29, p. A5, 'States Weigh Expansion of Vote by Mail') "all states allow some voters to cast mail ballots, but a third of states apply conditions for residents to use that method."   In order to ensure fairness in the general election those conditions need to be removed, despite what the DOE-Turd said about "Dems winning too easily if we allow mail voting."  No, dope, if you don't allow mail voting in a parlous time such as we're in you are taking away the citizens' franchise - and that is downright unconstitutional.  Besides, we already know the pandemic has already caused some states to delay primary voting (e.g. Ohio).  This can't happen for the general election for which the date is mandated under federal  law.

Colorado, our state, already has mail voting and has used it for years now. Both of us, let me note, have also done the traditional thing of going out to the polling station - both here in the Springs and earlier in Columbia, Maryland - and believe me there is no comparison.  It is far easier to not have to take time off from a job to vote, or to battle illness, physical handicap or whatever. Nor is it necessary to stand in long lines to wait to cast a ballot- only to learn on arriving at the polling station there are no more ballots, so you have to use a "provisional" ballot. 

Why don't more states offer the convenience of mail ballots and early voting? Who knows? But my suspicion is basically they want  to make it difficult to vote for certain demographic groups they don't trust - such as African-Americans, Native Americans and others.  Trump's very words cited earlier, indict him of wanting to "stack the deck" for Repukes by not allowing mail ballots.  He knows in his black heart that easier voting means many more voters going Dem and his Reptiles being forced out of office. This is a no brainer. Or should be, but evidently not among Repukes.  

In the same piece we learn that Miss0uri  Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft isn't buying it. He insists a decision "shouldn't be rushed".  Of course, this is insane and insupportable given "election officials need months to prepare options for the November votes, a date set by federal law."   

As par for the course, Ashcroft's concerns are specious, i.e.:   "He said while he is open to changes his concerns include logistics and protecting mail ballots from tampering."

This is specious because as the Brennan Center of Justice has repeatedly shown ballot tempering is minimal to non-existent. We are talking of incidents in the range from 0 to 0,0001%.  (I.e. out of 10,000 ballots one may be tampered with.) It simply isn't worth bothering about in relation to the potential to invoke this nonsense to deny millions the vote.   Possibly realizing after he said that this was arrant codswallop, Ashcroft then blurted that "there could be problems for voters who mail ballots or vote early - like some did for the Democratic primaries - but for which the candidate then dropped out."  Again, nonsense, as I don't expect either Biden or Trump to "drop out" and those are the two principals to be voted on     

Ashcroft then showed his true Reeptardo colors as he went on to blab:  "If you want to have  the safest election you got to have people show up on election day."  Uh, no you do not, Einstein. Not in the midst of what is turning out to be the worst pandemic in over one hundred years.  Again, this turkey is thinking in terms of the minuscule incidence of ballot tampering which he is blowing up into some major pervasive issue, which it is not.    But his spin falls in line with Trump's given the realization that more expeditious voting plays in favor of the Democrats, not Repubs.  So that is why it is not "safe", because THEY will lose!    

Wendy Weiser, head of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center was quoted as saying:  

"Our election infrastructure right now is not currently prepared for the dramatic increase in mail voting that we're going to have to anticipate and allow."

Well, our election infrastructure had better wake up and get going, or watch our general election dive into the dumpster.  As for the scofflaw red state governors and their obsession with the economy over mitigation, they do well to learn the "first rule of virus economics". As articulated by the University of Chicago's Austan Goolsbee, the essence is to resuscitate the economy you need to stop the virus.  Trying to resuscitate the economy prematurely will only lead to greater disaster because more infected people will be unleashed to spread the virus later and later,.  This should not be 'rocket science' or like a Mensa entry test.


See also:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's misfires on virus death rates, tests

AND:

2020 Elections | Election Integrity

We Need Universal Mail-In Ballots for the 2020 Election

And:

Donald Trump

The April Foolish Fake Leader

And:

Coronavirus | Donald Trump | Mitch McConnell

McConnell Rewrites History to Blame Massive Fail on Coronavirus on (Checks Notes) Impeachment

Trump's 401(k) And Stock Market Blather Shows He's Out Of Touch With His Base

Trump at a recent rally in Pensacola bloviating about 401ks. Most of his base don't have one..

A question that comes to mind after a recent Dotard spiel about 401(k)s is whether he really knows his base, his indefatigable deplorables who appear prepared to suffer any insult on behalf of their little dolt messiah. For reference, a recent New Republic article ('It's the Culture, Stupid!', November, p. 14) provided this insight on his prime supporter:

"In last year's election, according to an analysis by political scientist Tim Wood, 61 percent of the poorest whites - those in the bottom third of income distribution - voted for Trump."

Sixty one percent of the poorest whites. That is, a demographic that likely would no more have a 401 (k) than they'd be able to afford an immediate annuity.  But it seems Trump,  aka Donnie Dotard, has no clue about their financial capacities, or he doesn't care. (After all, he did offer the disclaimer remark after being elected "You all knew I was a snake and you still put me in office!"   Well, not everyone, asshole .)

  As observed in a recent  Bloomberg report:  Trump has been trying out a new "campaign" slogan: “How’s your 401(k) doing?” The answer for more than half of Americans is that they don’t have one.  Having one means you are earning enough in a salary to salt money away in such a plan, i.e. you have disposable income. The problem is that most people in the bottom third of income don't have such disposable income. These are exactly the poor white Trumpies.

Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, commented in response:

"I’m not sure he understands that only a fraction of the population has 401(k)s, or he just may not realize that he’s speaking to the privileged few.”

Personally, I suspect he knows he's speaking to the privileged few and his supporters are either too dumb or brainwashed to give a shit.

The fact is only a third of workers contribute anything to their retirement accounts, according to a Census study released this year. Among workers in the bottom half of the income scale, less than 25 percent participate in a retirement program, according to the GAO.. With wages largely stagnant for most Americans in recent years, saving for retirement has been crowded out by other expenses. Student debt and auto loans are at record levels, according to Federal Reserve data released in February, and overall consumer debt is rising at the fastest pace in three years.

According to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush:

“You can give people all the tax-deferred accounts you want, but if they don’t have enough money it’s not going to work,”

Despite that, Dotard has repeatedly tested out the line at a fundraiser, a campaign rally and in a White House meeting, predicting that the rising U.S. stock market will help him win re-election. But for his supporters to make that same error again, and I do believe when their healthcare is pared back from his tax cuts they will see it's an error, they'd need to have 401(k)s and be getting benefits from them. They don't and aren't.

The truth? Only about 45 percent of private-sector workers participate in any employer-sponsored retirement plan, and the lower-income workers in Trump’s political base are the least likely to hold money in such an account, according to the Government Accountability Office. Again, this isn't startling given their wages - assuming they have any - are likely so low they can barely afford their rents and utilities, far less groceries. So there's nothing left at the end of any given week to put into a retirement fund.

Donnie Dotard - in another disconnect  - also  mentions the stock market almost daily in tweets or public remarks. He intends to take direct credit for record highs by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and other indexes. He seems not to appreciate that had Obama not pushed for a $797 b stimulus package back in 2009 - passed by Dems - we'd likely still be in a great Depression.  All the financial indices and data that followed the great market meltdown in 2008 showed that without a stimulus - after the credit freeze - the recession would have morphed into depression. By now we'd likely still be in it, with 30 million or more unemployed.

Trump in his elitist, privileged mind, seems not to grasp that only about 14 percent of U.S. families directly own stocks, an asset class dominated by the country’s top earners, according to the Federal Reserve.  (This direct ownership definition directly contradicts Jill Schlesinger's claim on CBS nine days ago that 45 percent directly own stocks. But she was including those who have mutual funds in their 401ks, which is not direct ownership.)

Meanwhile, as Bloomberg reports, Dotard has  rolled back efforts to expand retirement savings options to more middle-class and low-income workers. This involves neutering the fiduciary rule.

For a dolt propelled into office by a sense of grievance - from poor whites who feel left behind economically - Dotard's continual references to the stock market and 401(k)s risk alienation.  This according to Austan Goolsbee, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.  Goolsbee,  in the aforementioned Bloomberg piece,  puts it thus:

“As a political slogan, ‘how is your 401(k) doing?’ suggests he’s most interested in the one-third of people who have a 401(k). The more you highlight how great that group of financial winners is doing, you at least run the risk of angering and irritating the very people who revolted against what they perceived as the financial and political elites in the first place.”


White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said Trump’s statements reflect “a strong economy” that is “good news for everyone.”  She added to this initial BS by claiming- in an email statement:

“For the Americans that don’t have the opportunity to invest in a 401(k) plan or who choose not to, the Trump agenda of lower taxes, higher wages, and better jobs allows them to save more on their own, and potentially have a better chance of finding a job in the future that provides those benefits,”


Of course this is codswallop that only the most gullible, uncritical thinker would swallow. No set of financial data supports it, period. The agenda of trickle down via lower taxes on the richest, indeed, has always been shown to curtail economic growth and jobs as well. A Financial Times analysis of the Bush tax cuts appearing in the FT issue of 9/15/10 showed precisely this.  Other analyses from the Reagan tax cuts in the 80s showed similar slow growth, coupled with exploding deficits. ( Deficits, by the way, which were later invoked to cut social services and even Social Security (by raising the retirement age.)

It also appears that at least some of Dotard's supporters may be wise to his con. An October Politico/Morning Consult poll found that only a third of voters think Trump “cares about people like me.” Trump’s tax overhaul is opposed by a two-to-one margin because independent analyses have found it largely benefits the wealthy, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Dec. 13.

Trump also appears not to be aware that the 401(k) was never intended as an investment vehicle but rather as a saving vehicle. This was pointed out by William Wolman and Anne Colamosca, the authors of The Great 401k Hoax.   This saving dynamic was further reinforced and assisted by companies matching the savings of employees.   It was only after this matching diminished that risky investment strategies were emphasized for the 401(k).  But these stock-mutual fund investments were never originally envisaged for ordinary small fry investors with  little disposable income they could afford to lose. (As the stock crash showed in 2008).

Another huge theme of the authors is that labor is devalued precisely because we live in a "Judas Economy" where capital is revered over it.  Look at the abnormal degree to which companies opt for stock buybacks to inflate their stock P/E ratios rather than create enough new jobs.

One of the most disgusting indices as the authors note, is that productivity in relation to GDP has increased more than 40% in the interval since 1973 even as wages-salaries have remained almost stagnant. Of course, one major reason is how "greater productivity" is attained. Often by firing a number of workers and ditching their benefits, and making the remaining force do their work plus that of the downsized one.

The authors' primary advice for little guy would-be investors is to steer clear of the markets until and unless the balance between Maul Street and Main Street is restored. Mainly, that much higher wages emerge which specifically allow more disposable income  to invest so one can afford a measure of loss if such occurs. Otherwise, steer clear and go conservative - saving with a view to ultimately getting an immediate annuity to provide supplemental income as one ages.  A stock crash, meanwhile -  namely in the current bubble - will set millions of 401(k) ordinary investors back years, maybe decades. Hell, they may never get to retire.

Something someone ought to make clear to Trump's followers who praised his stock market and 401(k) speeches for making them believe one day they can strike it rich too. Yep, and pigs fly and I have a beach front acre on Barbados east coast to sell for a Bajan buck. (That's U.S. 50 cents).

Trump: The 'Hannibal Lecter' Of Climate With His Coal E.O.

"Ah, for some nice roast planet, pickled Dems and ....fahvah beans!"

Let us admit right now that about the worst fuel that can be used on this planet is coal. As Bill Nye ('the Science Guy') explained last night on 'The Last Word', it is the stuff of ancient plants that existed millions of years ago. And not just in any era, but a very high CO2 era. Hence, burning coal releases the long sequestered CO2 within it, tipping our planet further toward the runaway greenhouse effect.

Let's also understand that coal mining jobs are decreasing and this is as a result of primarily automation. Coal companies have already cut mining jobs by nearly  two thirds since 1985 - because of factors like automation, as well as the fact that fracking produces a bigger 'bang for the fuel' buck for energy companies.  But don't tell Donald Trump that. Each day it seems this turkey occupying the highest office in the land knows less and less about less and less.

If not why would this odious gasbag issue yet another "executive order" this time to increase coal production, mesmerized by the "clean coal" oxymoron. Which makes about as much sense as "benign VX nerve agent" ... or "President Trump". 

But let's not mince words here, Trump launched an all-out assault on Barack Obama’s climate change legacy on Tuesday with a sweeping executive order that undermines the U.S. commitment to the Paris agreement. The worst aspect? This travesty took place at a ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, where BLOTUS FECES signed an order to trigger a review of the clean power plan, Obama’s flagship policy.

No surprise this move was swiftly condemned by environmentalists and climate scientists as a “dangerous” and “embarrassing” attempt to turn back the clock that would do little to revive the U.S. coal industry while threatening cooperation with major polluters such as China and India. In a speech noted for its stupidity and ignorance before he signed the order, Trump promised “a new era in American energy and production and job creation”.

He actually said: “The action I’m taking today will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom and allow our workers and companies to thrive and compete on a level playing field for the first time in a long time. I’m not just talking eight years.”

Trump promised the measures would be “bringing back our jobs, bringing back our dreams and making America wealthy again”.

Don't believe it, not now or ever! Those jobs aren't coming back no matter what this glorified baboon says. The entire energy dynamic no longer supports coal miners. And no amount of Trump wishing it so or tweeting like a drunken canary will make it so. Even if this buffoon thinks of himself as a canary in a clean coal mine.

Adding insult to felonious injury Trump also pledged a future of “clean coal”, and dismissed “the so-called clean power plan” as “a crushing attack on American industry”. The executive order also lifted a moratorium on the sale of new coal leases on federal land, removes “job killing restrictions” on energy production, and returns power to state level. Of course, with no federal oversight most energy generating states will just go hog wild and try to expand fracking, for example, wherever they can. I expect now that Colorado will probably open fracking wells in or near Rocky Mountain National Park.

All of this amount to a recipe for ensuring this planet is uninhabitable for a future generation, say by 2100. Because if the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima scale bombs are now being unleashed every year in the atmosphere -  comparable to the watts per square meter excess CO2 input from man-made global warming, then Trump's E.O will ensure it hits 500,000 bombs per year equivalent within 8 years.

While the fictional "Hannibal the Cannibal" butchered and ate 36 odd humans over his vile career (usually served with a fine Chianti and fava beans), the EPA estimates that 3,600 more will die each year if Trump's new climate insanity gets implemented.

And yes this nation's wealthy days, at least for the general population, are over. I've gone over the reasons until blue in the face in numerous posts but basically it's because the energy efficiency of our current fuels - that determined by EROEI or energy returned on energy invested- is much less than previously. If you want to talk of a "Peak oil" era we can.

At the heart of these considerations is the concept of net energy (cf. Weisz, in Physics Today, July, 2004, p. 51). Weisz posed this in terms of a concise equation:

Q (net) = Q (PR) – [Q (op)  + E/T]

In effect, for break-even oil one would find Q(net) = 0

For the last 700 billion barrels:    Q(net) = negative quantity =  - Q

Since the rate of energy production (Q (PR) must be debited by the energy consumed for its operation Q(op), and the energy E invested during its “lifetime” T. Thus its Q(PR) will be small in relation to the bracketed quantity.  In a similar vein, Richard Heinberg has used the quantity EROEI or ‘Energy returned on energy invested’ which for oil reached a high of 30 (ratio) in the 70s and is still the highest of all energy sources at around 22.   Thus, the problem in a nutshell is not “running out of oil’ per se but running out of CHEAP oil.

Right now, to fix ideas, we are very nearly at this Q(net) = 0 level with shale oil - which is why once its price falls to much lower than $50 /bl. it makes little economic sense to take it out of the ground. Compared to light sweet crude it is effectively garbage fuel. Bottom line, we need not run out of the stuff before the world economy runs into problems of untold, unspeakable proportions!

Alas, fracking shale oil - drilling into shale rock to get kerogen, or alternatively, natural gas, is in fact evidence of grabbing BREAK EVEN oil NOT high EROEI oil!  It is a sign of defeat and desperation.  not success - just like deep sea drilling for oil.

As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book: 'Snake Oil - How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':

"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Get that? Adding it to the total world pool of higher quality oil merely "glutted the market". This is also what's dragging your 401k down right now, though yeah, you will catch kind of a break at the pump. Let's also grasp that this crap oil isn't even used here in the U.S. it's shipped off to places like China - where it fouls their skies and creates health havoc along with the CO2 and SO2 from factories and autos.

Given all of this which transpired yesterday, as Austan Goolsbee pointed out to Lawrence O'Donnell last night, what planet is Trump living on? How can he take a sledge hammer to Obama's climate legacy on the one hand and then expect to find comity and work with Dems on the other? Only a nut, a fruitcake who's 52 cards short of a full deck would fail to process the inherent cognitive dissonance.

Thus we have the latest evidence 'the Donald'  belongs in a face mask like Hannibal Lecter. Especially after Trump declared  some babble the past two days about "working with Democrats" including on infrastructure.   No Dem I know in his right mind would want to work with this orange-haired psycho ape, first because he can't even parse the most basic aspects of legislation and how to pass it. And second, well, because everything he touches turns to shit. Look at his foolish health plan and his claim to repeal Obamacare. If anything the win with health care will embolden Dems to further opposition of this maniac, which is the correct political call.

Sadly too many of his numb nut supporters bought into his con, just like the delusional coal miners did yesterday at his dog and pony show.

After Trump's latest load of fake bravado and posturing,  Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, offered the best take:

“No matter what any elected official says, rescinding commonsense climate change regulations and popular public health protections will not revive the coal industry or put thousands of miners back to work. Market forces, including consumer preferences and technological advancement, are the primary reason for the surge in cleaner forms of energy. In fact, even without the clean power plan, we are likely to hit its emissions targets ahead of schedule – because consumers, cities and businesses will continue leading on public health and climate change even when Washington won’t.”

He is correct up to a point. Unfortunately, the CO2 already accumulated in the atmosphere over the past 100 years will continue wreaking its havoc as the rising CO2 concentrations disclose.  The best we can do now  is at least try to ensure the planet is 50 percent livable -while making plans to adapt to what we can in the other 50 percent.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/29/donald-trumps-grotesque-new-grand-bargain-did-he-learn-nothing-from-the-obama-years/