A Record Fleet Of 117 Tankers Is Bringing Super Cheap Crude To China

A Record Fleet Of 117 Tankers Is Bringing Super Cheap Crude To China

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 06:00

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

While the rest of the world is tentatively coming out of lockdowns, China is taking advantage of the cheapest crude oil in years to stock up as demand is starting to return in the world’s largest oil importer, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing tanker-tracking data it has compiled. 

At present, a total of 117 very large crude carriers (VLCCs) – each capable of shipping 2 million barrels of oil – are traveling to China for unloading at its ports between the middle of May and the middle of August. If those supertankers transport standard-size crude oil cargoes, it could mean that China expects at least 230 million barrels of oil over the next three months, according to Bloomberg. The fleet en route to China could be the largest number of supertankers traveling to the world’s top oil importer at one time, ever, Bloomberg News’ Firat Kayakiran says.

Many of the crude oil cargoes are likely to have been bought in April, when prices were lower than the current price and when WTI Crude futures even dipped into negative territory for a day.

Last month, emerging from the coronavirus lockdown, China’s oil refiners were already buying ultra-cheap spot cargoes from Alaska, Canada, and Brazil, taking advantage of the deep discounts at which many crude grades were being offered to China with non-existent demand elsewhere.

China was also estimated to have doubled the fill rate at its strategic and commercial inventories in Q1 2020, taking advantage of the low oil prices and somewhat supporting the oil market amid crashing demand by diverting more imports to storage, rather than outright slashing crude imports.

China’s crude oil imports jumped in April to about 9.84 million bpd as demand for fuels began to rebound and local refiners started to ramp up crude processing, according to Chinese customs data cited by Reuters.   

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X5pjUZ Tyler Durden

Anti-Lockdown Protests Accelerate Across Europe As Second COVID-19 Wave Threat Emerges

Anti-Lockdown Protests Accelerate Across Europe As Second COVID-19 Wave Threat Emerges

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 05:30

Anti-lockdown protests were seen in several European cities on Saturday in defiance of social distancing restrictions. From gatherings in London’s Hyde Park to Poland to Germany — people were furious about government-enforced lockdowns. Warmer weather trends, such as a heatwave across parts of Europe, could quickly affect mood negatively and lead to more social instabilities. 

These protests have been increasing over the last several weeks. Read: 

Police in several German cities had their hands full on Saturday as thousands of people lined the streets. Officials in Stuttgart said the permitted number of 5,000 demonstrators was quickly exceeded, and mask-wearing was required, or people risked a 300 euro ($325) fine.

About 1,000 protesters were seen in Munich, around the Theresienwiese event grounds, which is the site of the now-canceled  Oktoberfest. We explained last month, the canceling of the event has severely impacted the local economy and could devastate local brewers to hop farmers. 

Protesters in both Stuttgart and Munich were angry about lockdown measures enforced via Chancellor Angela Merkel. Other demonstrators were mad about rumors of a vaccine plan by Bill Gates

Stuttgart protest 

An anti-vaccine protester in Stuttgart

German protests were led by several groups, including Resistance 2020 and COMPACT. The first group questions official government data on confirmed cases and deaths, and alleges the government is overinflating the data to seize more control over the population. The second group describes itself as a “sharp sword against imperial propaganda.” 

“Why aren’t you telling us the truth, Mrs Merkel? How we are losing our freedom, jobs and health?” says COMPACT.

Folks on social media described the German protesters as “covidiots” who risk triggering a second wave of infections that could lead to extensions or stricter lockdowns. We noted last week that this would undoubtedly continue to crash Germany’s economy. 

The economic effects of the countrywide lockdown have been devastating. Several weeks ago, we showed how the labor market had been obliterated. 

Germany and other member states have begun to relax some lockdown restrictions, a move to restart the economy. Germany’s professional soccer league resumed games over the weekend without fans — as it appears reverting to pre-corona times will be a challenging and drawn-out process. 

And for more color on reopening Europe, a border spat has erupted between Spain and France last week, suggesting a V-shaped recovery of the EU will not be seen this year. 

Elsewhere, dozens of people in Poland were arrested for violating social distancing restrictions during protests. Police used tear gas to suppress demonstrators as the city of Warsaw said the gathering was illegal because there was no permit. 

Britain saw anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine protesters assemble in Hyde Park in central London and were met with police. Many chanted freedom songs and held signs blasting lockdowns. London Metropolitan Police Service arrested about a dozen people as police dispersed the crowd. 

Across the Atlantic in the US, demonstrators held rallies requesting state governments to reopen economies so people can get back to work. 

If a second COVID wave triggers additional lockdowns in the Western world — people will likely become more infuriated with government and result in larger social demonstrations. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X7YcZf Tyler Durden

The US Is Dramatically Overcounting COVID-19 Deaths

The US Is Dramatically Overcounting COVID-19 Deaths

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 05:00

Authored by John Lott and Dr. Timothy Craig Allen, op-ed via Townhall.com,

Over 86,500 people have reportedly died in the United States from the Coronavirus, and the fear generated by those deaths is driving the public policy debate. But that number is a dramatic overcount. Our metrics include deaths that have nothing to do with the virus. The problem is even worse as the Centers for Disease Control over counts even some of these cases and the government has created financial incentives for this misreporting. Relying on these flawed numbers is destroying businesses and jobs and costing lives.

“The case definition is very simplistic,” Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health, explains.

“It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.”

Medical examiners in Michigan use the same definition. In Macomb and Oakland Counties, where most of the deaths occurred, medical examiners classify any deaths as Coronavirus deaths when the postmortem test is positive. Even people who died in suicides and automobile accidents meet that definition.

Still, these broad definitions are not due to a few rogue public health officials. The rules direct them to do this.

Unlike other countries, “if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” as Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, recently noted.

Classifications go beyond even these broad categories. New York is classifying cases as Coronavirus deaths even when postmortem tests have been negative. Despite negative tests, classifications are based on symptoms, even though the symptoms are often very similar to those of the seasonal flu. The Centers for Disease Control guidance explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty that doctors can face. When Coronavirus cases are “suspected,” they advise doctors that “it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate.”

That isn’t just a theoretical issue. On April 21st, when New York City’s death toll rose above 10,000, the New York Times reported that the city included “3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive” – a more than 50 percent increase in the number of cases.

But the problem is worse than this broad definition implies. Birx and others believe that the CDC is over counting cases. The Washington Post reports they are concerned that the CDC’s “antiquated” accounting system is double counting cases and inflating mortality and case counts “by as much as 25 percent.” 

There are additional reasons for concern. Some doctors feel pressure from hospitals to list deaths as due to the Coronavirus, even when they don’t believe that is the case, “to make it look a little bit worse than it is.” There are financial incentives that might make a difference for hospitals and doctors. The CARES Act adds a 20 percent premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients. 

Incentives matter. When the government increased the disability compensation for air traffic controllers, a lot more controllers suddenly started claiming to be disabled. When unemployment insurance payments increase, more people become unemployed and stay unemployed for longer periods. When the government offers flood insurance that charges everyone the same insurance premium regardless of the risk level in their area, more people build homes in frequently flooded areas.

The Washington Post and others claim that we are undercounting the true number of deaths. They reach that conclusion by showing the total number of deaths from all causes is greater than we would normally expect from March through early May, and that this excess is actually due to deaths not being accurately labeled as due to the Coronavirus. But these are simply not normal times. Lots of people with heart and other problems aren’t going to the hospital for fear of the virus. Surgeries for many serious conditions are being put off. The stress of the situation is increasing suicides and other illnesses.

Deaths that have absolutely nothing to do with the Coronavirus count as virus deaths. Add to that claims that the CDC is double counting some of these improperly identified cases and the perverse financial incentives created by the government, and you have a real mess when crucial decisions are being made based in large part on this data.

Erroneous data unduly scare people about the risks of the disease. It keeps the country locked down longer than necessary, which destroys peoples’ lives and livelihoods in many other ways. Exaggerated fears of the virus endanger lives by keeping people from obtaining treatment for other medical problems.  It also makes it impossible to accurately compare policies across countries. 

It is hard to believe that we are basing such crucial decisions on such flawed data.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WHk2Eg Tyler Durden

Facebook Removes Record Number Of ‘Hate Speech’ Posts

Facebook Removes Record Number Of ‘Hate Speech’ Posts

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 04:15

Facebook has released its biannual Community Standards Enforcement Report which shows the number of controversial posts the company has removed from the platform. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy shows below, the social media giant deleted a record number of hate speech posts with 9.6 million pieces of content taken down between January and March 2020 compared to 5.7 million in the prior period. 4.7 million posts were removed that originated from organized hate groups in the first quarter of this year which is an increase of more than 3 million on Q4, 2019.

Infographic: Facebook Removes Record Number Of Hate Speech Posts | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Facebook attributed the increase in hate speech removals to technology improvements for automatically identifying images and text.

In a statement, the company said that “we’re now able to detect text embedded in images and videos in order to understand its full context, and we’ve built media matching technology to find content that’s identical or near-identical to photos, videos, text and even audio that we’ve already removed.”

The report shows that 88.3 percent of all hate speech content was removed before users reported it in Q1.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WF8Esa Tyler Durden

Another Pandemic? Two Trailblazing COVID-19 Researchers Dead In A Month

Another Pandemic? Two Trailblazing COVID-19 Researchers Dead In A Month

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 03:30

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Academia does not really have a reputation for being riddled with violence and sudden unexplained deaths. Yet at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, two young pioneering researchers from the same obscure field of study met with mysterious ends.

Outside of academic circles, Dr. James Taylor and Dr. Bing Liu were relative unknowns. Inside of the scientific community, however, the two had achieved something like rock-star status. And now, within a period of 30 days, both young men are dead at a time when their talents are needed most.

James Taylor, 1979-2020

Let’s first consider the life and work of James Taylor, who passed away on April 2 at the age of 40. Anyone hoping to learn details about the cause of death of this remarkable man will be disappointed; to date, no information has been made available to the public.

“The cause of James’ death is not yet known, and given how overwhelmed the medical profession is in Baltimore, we may never know,” stated the website of Galaxy Project, using the coronavirus as an excuse for not being able to dig deeper into the death of a colleague. “Given how quickly this overtook him it is very unlikely to have been COVID-19.”

Until any additional information is forthcoming with regards to the cause of death, it seems reasonable to ask whether Taylor was involved in any projects or activities that may have made him a potential target of foul play. A cursory look at his Twitter page indicates there were some impassioned discussions just prior to his premature passing that warrant consideration. Before jumping into those discussions, however, a few words about his professional background are necessary.

According to his obituary on the Johns Hopkins University website, Taylor was “a trailblazer in computational biology and genomics research,” who made a significant contribution as a “scientist, teacher, and colleague.”

Taylor’s breakout moment in the scientific community, however, came with the creation of Galaxy, a cloud-based system that has been described as “the first comprehensive data analysis resource in Life Sciences.” According to its website, Galaxy provides an open platform that aims to make computational biology accessible to scientists, mostly those who are involved in genomics research, a major field of study when it comes to the development of drugs and vaccines.

And it is on this particular point that Taylor became engaged in debate just days before his death. On March 19, the researcher asked a seemingly innocuous question on his Twitter page: “Can we talk about genomic data sharing for #covid19 #SARSCoV2 research?”

Judging by the feedback, the question proved to be a loaded one. Taylor’s question revealed the frustration being felt by other research groups, like NCBI and Nextstrain, which were attempting to retrieve the genomic characteristics of Covid-19 but were running into hurdles. Taylor’s colleagues, Anton Nekrutenko and Sergei Kosakovsky Pond, expressed similar concerns regarding those roadblocks one month earlier in a paper entitled, ‘No more business as usual: agile and effective responses to emerging pathogen threats require open data and open analytics.’

“The current state of much of the Wuhan pneumonia virus (COVID-19) research shows a regrettable lack of data sharing and considerable analytical obfuscation,” Nekrutenko and Kosakovsky Pond wrote. “This impedes global research cooperation, which is essential for tackling public health emergencies, and requires unimpeded access to data, analysis tools, and computational infrastructure.”

Here is proof of something that many people have long suspected about the world of academia: it is ruthless and self-serving just as much as any profit-seeking corporation. Not only are academics fiercely protective of their work, which is perfectly understandable, they are also not blind to the potential for financial gain that comes from their labors. But I digress.

Judging by his social media activity, it seems that James Taylor’s main beef was with GISAID, a German-based platform that stands for Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data. This private and public organization, which also partners with the governments of Singapore and the United States, has acquired much of the genome data for many diseases, including that of Covid-19, information that would be critical in the development of drugs and vaccines.

In a follow-up tweet, Taylor complained that GISAID “has much more data…but onerous restrictions on data use and sharing, in particular does not allow sharing any sequence data.” This was followed by the comment that GISAID’s restrictions on using its data are “a real impediment to rapid, collaborative data analysis including our efforts to make transparent, reusable and reproducible analysis pipelines for outbreak analysis.”

At the same time Taylor was chastising GISAID for supposedly not sharing its sequence data on Covid-19, GISAID was boasting on its website about its transparency. So where is the truth? Judging by the comments on James Taylor’s Twitter feed, it would seem GISAID was not completely forthcoming with its data.

Dave O’Connor, for example, a virologist at the University of Washington (Madison), remarked on Taylor’s Twitter thread, “I doubt if many people, if any, people who contributed data to GISAID did so with the intention of it being siloed.”

Dr. Melissa A. Wilson, a prominent evolutionary and computational biologist from Arizona State University, also expressed dismay at the failure to share critical genome data that could assist in helping researchers discover a cure for Covid-19.

In her tweet, dated March 23, Wilson directed a question to Taylor, asking: “Where are we storing data so it is accessible?”

At this point the reader may be asking, ‘Ok, so what. What significance is there to a group of researchers having trouble getting access to the genome structure of the coronavirus?’ The problem is that it could mean the difference between being able to develop a vaccine for the disease and not.

Here it should be mentioned that on October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins University, together with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, hosted Event 201, a high-level exercise that imagined how the public and private sector would coordinate in the event of a pandemic. The event so closely mirrored the outbreak of Covid-19 just two months later that Johns Hopkins released a statement denying that it had made a “prediction” about the pandemic.

Moreover, on the question of producing vaccines to fight against Covid-19, Johns Hopkins appears to be an ardent supporter.

“I would imagine we are going to get a massive vaccination program going in place,” revealed Andrew Pekosz, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Professor, in an interview with Bloomberg. “The vaccines that are currently in the lead…are ones that are going to be given by injection.

“It looks like vaccines are going to be the game changer here…”

The question that must be asked is whether James Taylor was somehow working at cross-purposes to other organizations that are, for example, in the race to develop a vaccine against Covid-19. Or, alternatively, did the 40-year-old renowned researcher die a natural death at the very moment the quest for a vaccine against the coronavirus had become the central focus for researchers, pharmaceutical companies and his very alma mater?

Dr. Bing Liu, 1982-2020

On May 2, Liu, a 37-year-old assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (UPSM), was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds at his townhouse in an upscale suburban neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Another victim, identified as Hao Gu, was found dead in his car near Liu’s home with what police say was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

Just four days after the double murder, Ross Township Police said they believe the apparent murder-suicide was the result of a “lengthy dispute regarding an intimate partner.”

“We have found zero evidence that this tragic event has anything to do with employment at the University of Pittsburgh, any work being conducted at the University of Pittsburgh and the current health crisis affecting the United States and the world,” said Detective Sgt. Brian Kohlhepp.

What makes this case particularly compelling is that, according to a homage page on the UPSM website, “Bing was on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular basis of the following complications.”

The other remarkable detail is how closely aligned Bing Liu and James Taylor’s academic resumes were. Both academics were involved in the obscure field of computational systems biology, as well as machine-learning techniques to better predict the behavior of biological species.

The lives of the two academics crossed paths due to their mutual affiliation with the prestigious Carnegie Mellon University, also located in Pittsburgh. There, Liu worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the department of computer science, while Taylor delivered seminars there on his Galaxy program. If by chance Taylor was unfamiliar with Liu’s prolific body of academic work that would probably have changed after Liu’s purportedly breakthrough research on the Covid-19 was released. That magical moment was not to be, of course, due to Liu’s premature and very tragic death.

With regards to the purported murder-suicide, the details are sketchy. First, the mainstream media is portraying the murder as the result of a “lengthy dispute regarding an intimate partner.” Yet local media reported that Liu and his wife had no children and mostly kept to themselves. Of course that doesn’t mean that the two men were not competing for the affections of some other woman. However, with the married Liu on the verge of making a major breakthrough on the coronavirus front, it would seem that he would have very little time for any ‘extracurricular activities.’

In any case, it remains unclear how the two men knew each other, while a possible motive for the murder also remains a mystery, the Post-Gazette reported. Neighbors did not report hearing any gunshots at the time of the killings.

Finally, there are problems with the choice of murder weapon, in this case a firearm. Since both Liu and his alleged killer were not U.S. citizens, this opens up the question as to how Hao Gu was able to acquire a firearm. It is illegal – although certainly not impossible – for non-citizens to purchase firearms in the United States.

*  *  *

So what we are left with, at a time when the world is desperately searching for a way to combat Covid-19, is the legacy of two trailblazing researchers who were both working towards ways of better understanding the disease. Although we may never know the true story behind each man’s untimely death, the likelihood of two renowned researchers – with almost identical professional backgrounds – dying a month apart at a time when both were making headway against the pandemic must certainly rank far less than the chances of someone actually succumbing to Covid-19. The deaths of Bing Liu and James Taylor deserve far greater scrutiny by the mainstream media.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TgRmQ3 Tyler Durden

Why The COVID-19 Model That Inspired UK’s Lockdown May Be “The Most Devastating Software Mistake Of All Time”

Why The COVID-19 Model That Inspired UK’s Lockdown May Be “The Most Devastating Software Mistake Of All Time”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 02:45

While Democrats in the US and progressives in the UK continue to push back against efforts to gradually reopen their respective economies, more evidence is emerging that calls into question the models (what the public often refers to as the “science”) which inspired governments across the world to impose crippling lockdowns on their populations.

Case in point: Since Neil Ferguson and the authors of the Imperial published its modeling for non-pharmaceutical intervention for COVID-19, a number of data scientists have taken a close look and found gaping oversights that seriously undermine the model’s credibility. Of course, this isn’t the first time we have written about Ferguson and his exploits.

Neil Ferguson

In this weekend’s Telegraph, two of these critics, David Richards, the founder and CEO of global big data leader WANdisco which is jointly headquartered in Silicon Valley and Sheffield, and Dr. Konstantin Boudnik, a pioneering big-data engineer, WANdisco’s VP of architecture and author of 17 US patents, published an editorial in which they carefully examined the model’s shortcomings. Keep in mind, the Imperial model is what ultimately inspired PM Boris Johnson to make a U-turn and adopt what has been an economically devastating lockdown – was nothing short of a catastrophe. Millions have been plunged into hardship and poverty unnecessarily, they explained. Johnson himself was infected by the virus and the public is furious with the government over its rollout of a plan to reopen.

Given the influence the model had during the early days of the outbreak, the two men argued that the software issues underpinning the model could be ‘the most devastating software mistake of all time’.

Apparently, the model’s problems are rooted in its most fundamental components. The model was written using a coding language called  Fortran which has been in use for decades.

Due to its age and inflexibility, Fortran has many inherent problems. But on top of the language itself, the code in the model was sprawling, sloppily written and extremely inefficient, the two men said, claiming it would never pass muster in the private sector.

Using straightforward, jargon-free language, the two authors explain how the model ran into a problem called “CACE”, or, ‘changing anything changes everything’ – a problem that software engineers and data scientists trying to model, well, anything, really, often encounter.

The approach ignores widely accepted computer science principles known as “separation of concerns”, which date back to the early 70s and are essential to the design and architecture of successful software systems. The principles guard against what developers call CACE: Changing Anything Changes Everything.

Without this separation, it is impossible to carry out rigorous testing of individual parts to ensure full working order of the whole. Testing allows for guarantees. It is what you do on a conveyer belt in a car factory. Each and every component is tested for integrity in order to pass strict quality controls.

It’s just the latest reminder that President Barack Obama’s advice to this year’s graduates rings true: You can’t just blindly accept what the experts and the people in charge tell you.

Read the full editorial below:

* * *

In the history of expensive software mistakes, Mariner 1 was probably the most notorious. The unmanned spacecraft was destroyed seconds after launch from Cape Canaveral in 1962 when it veered dangerously off-course due to a line of dodgy code.

But nobody died and the only hits were to Nasa’s budget and pride. Imperial College’s modelling of non-pharmaceutical interventions for Covid-19 which helped persuade the UK and other countries to bring in draconian lockdowns will supersede the failed Venus space probe and could go down in history as the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost.

Since publication of Imperial’s microsimulation model, those of us with a professional and personal interest in software development have studied the code on which policymakers based their fateful decision to mothball our multi-trillion pound economy and plunge millions of people into poverty and hardship. And we were profoundly disturbed at what we discovered. The model appears to be totally unreliable and you wouldn’t stake your life on it.

First though, a few words on our credentials. I am David Richards, founder and chief executive of WANdisco, a global leader in Big Data software that is jointly headquartered in Silicon Valley and Sheffield. My co-author is Dr Konstantin ‘Cos’ Boudnik, vice-president of architecture at WANdisco, author of 17 US patents in distributed computing and a veteran developer of the Apache Hadoop framework that allows computers to solve problems using vast amounts of data.

Imperial’s model appears to be based on a programming language called Fortran, which was old news 20 years ago and, guess what, was the code used for Mariner 1. This outdated language contains inherent problems with its grammar and the way it assigns values, which can give way to multiple design flaws and numerical inaccuracies. One file alone in the Imperial model contained 15,000 lines of code.

Try unravelling that tangled, buggy mess, which looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming. Industry best practice would have 500 separate files instead. In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust.

The approach ignores widely accepted computer science principles known as “separation of concerns”, which date back to the early 70s and are essential to the design and architecture of successful software systems. The principles guard against what developers call CACE: Changing Anything Changes Everything.

Without this separation, it is impossible to carry out rigorous testing of individual parts to ensure full working order of the whole. Testing allows for guarantees. It is what you do on a conveyer belt in a car factory. Each and every component is tested for integrity in order to pass strict quality controls.

Only then is the car deemed safe to go on the road. As a result, Imperial’s model is vulnerable to producing wildly different and conflicting outputs based on the same initial set of parameters. Run it on different computers and you would likely get different results. In other words, it is non-deterministic.

As such, it is fundamentally unreliable. It screams the question as to why our Government did not get a second opinion before swallowing Imperial’s prescription.

Ultimately, this is a computer science problem and where are the computer scientists in the room? Our leaders did not have the grounding in computer science to challenge the ideas and so were susceptible to the academics. I suspect the Government saw what was happening in Italy with its overwhelmed hospitals and panicked.

It chose a blunt instrument instead of a scalpel and now there is going to be a huge strain on society. Defenders of the Imperial model argue that because the problem – a global pandemic – is dynamic, then the solution should share the same stochastic, non-deterministic quality.

We disagree. Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters. Otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable.

Indeed, many global industries successfully use deterministic models that factor in randomness. No surgeon would put a pacemaker into a cardiac patient knowing it was based on an arguably unpredictable approach for fear of jeopardising the Hippocratic oath. Why on earth would the Government place its trust in the same when the entire wellbeing of our nation is at stake?

* * *

Source: The Telegraph

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fYYomw Tyler Durden

The 2006 Origins Of The ‘Lockdown’ Idea

The 2006 Origins Of The ‘Lockdown’ Idea

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 02:00

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

Now begins the grand effort, on display in thousands of articles and news broadcasts daily, somehow to normalize the lockdown and all its destruction of the last two months. We didn’t lock down almost the entire country in 1968/69, 1957, or 1949-1952, or even during 1918. But in a terrifying few days in March 2020, it happened to all of us, causing an avalanche of social, cultural, and economic destruction that will ring through the ages.

There was nothing normal about it all. We’ll be trying to figure out what happened to us for decades hence. 

How did a temporary plan to preserve hospital capacity turn into two-to-three months of near-universal house arrest that ended up causing worker furloughs at 256 hospitals, a stoppage of international travel, a 40% job loss among people earning less than $40K per year, devastation of every economic sector, mass confusion and demoralization, a complete ignoring of all fundamental rights and liberties, not to mention the mass confiscation of private property with forced closures of millions of businesses?  

Whatever the answer, it’s got to be a bizarre tale. What’s truly surprising is just how recent the theory behind lockdown and forced distancing actually is. So far as anyone can tell, the intellectual machinery that made this mess was invented 14 years ago, and not by epidemiologists but by computer-simulation modelers. It was adopted not by experienced doctors – they warned ferociously against it – but by politicians. 

Let’s start with the phrase social distancing, which has mutated into forced human separation. The first I had heard it was in the 2009 movie Contagion. The first time it appeared in the New York Times was February 12, 2006:

If the avian flu goes pandemic while Tamiflu and vaccines are still in short supply, experts say, the only protection most Americans will have is “social distancing,” which is the new politically correct way of saying “quarantine.”

But distancing also encompasses less drastic measures, like wearing face masks, staying out of elevators — and the [elbow] bump. Such stratagems, those experts say, will rewrite the ways we interact, at least during the weeks when the waves of influenza are washing over us.

Maybe you don’t remember that the avian flu of 2006 didn’t amount to much. It’s true, despite all the extreme warnings about its lethality, H5N1 didn’t turn into much at all. What it did do, however, was send the existing president, George W. Bush, to the library to read about the 1918 flu and its catastrophic results. He asked for some experts to submit some plans to him about what to do when the real thing comes along. 

The New York Times (April 22, 2020) tells the story from there: 

Fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a piñata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic.

When they presented their plan not long after, it was met with skepticism and a degree of ridicule by senior officials, who like others in the United States had grown accustomed to relying on the pharmaceutical industry, with its ever-growing array of new treatments, to confront evolving health challenges.

Drs. Hatchett and Mecher were proposing instead that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages.

How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.

It required the key proponents — Dr. Mecher, a Department of Veterans Affairs physician, and Dr. Hatchett, an oncologist turned White House adviser — to overcome intense initial opposition.

It brought their work together with that of a Defense Department team assigned to a similar task.

And it had some unexpected detours, including a deep dive into the history of the 1918 Spanish flu and an important discovery kicked off by a high school research project pursued by the daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories.

The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.

Notice that in the course of this planning, neither legal nor economic experts were brought in to consult and advise. Instead it fell to Mecher (formerly of Chicago and an intensive care doctor with no previous expertise in pandemics) and the oncologist Hatchett. 

But what is this mention of the high-school daughter of 14? Her name is Laura M. Glass, and she recently declined to be interviewed when the Albuquerque Journal did a deep dive of this history. 

Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed.

Laura’s name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation. That paper is Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006). It set out a model for forced separation and applied it with good results backwards in time to 1957. They conclude with a chilling call for what amounts to a totalitarian lockdown, all stated very matter-of-factly. 

Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted. However, if neighboring communities do not also use these interventions, infected neighbors will continue to introduce influenza and prolong the local epidemic, albeit at a depressed level more easily accommodated by healthcare systems.

In other words, it was a high-school science experiment that eventually became law of the land, and through a circuitous route propelled not by science but politics. 

The primary author of this paper was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology. 

That explains why Dr. D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme. 

Says the NYT:

Dr. Henderson was convinced that it made no sense to force schools to close or public gatherings to stop. Teenagers would escape their homes to hang out at the mall. School lunch programs would close, and impoverished children would not have enough to eat. Hospital staffs would have a hard time going to work if their children were at home.

The measures embraced by Drs. Mecher and Hatchett would “result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems,” Dr. Henderson wrote in his own academic paper responding to their ideas.

The answer, he insisted, was to tough it out: Let the pandemic spread, treat people who get sick and work quickly to develop a vaccine to prevent it from coming back.

AIER’s Phil Magness got to work to find the literature responding to this 2006 and discovered: Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. The authors included D.A. Henderson, along with three professors from Johns Hopkins: infectious disease specialist Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole. 

Their paper is a remarkably readable refutation of the entire lock-down model. 

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. … It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration

Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members. Practices to reduce the chance of transmission (hand-washing, maintaining a distance of 3 feet from infected people, etc.) could be recommended, but a policy imposing home quarantine would preclude, for example, sending healthy children to stay with relatives when a family member becomes ill. Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened…. 

Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that “screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics . . . and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.”… It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme. …

During seasonal influenza epidemics, public events with an expected large attendance have sometimes been cancelled or postponed, the rationale being to decrease the number of contacts with those who might be contagious. There are, however, no certain indications that these actions have had any definitive effect on the severity or duration of an epidemic. Were consideration to be given to doing this on a more extensive scale and for an extended period, questions immediately arise as to how many such events would be affected. There are many social gatherings that involve close contacts among people, and this prohibition might include church services, athletic events, perhaps all meetings of more than 100 people. It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars. Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences

Schools are often closed for 1–2 weeks early in the development of seasonal community outbreaks of influenza primarily because of high absentee rates, especially in elementary schools, and because of illness among teachers. This would seem reasonable on practical grounds. However, to close schools for longer periods is not only impracticable but carries the possibility of a serious adverse outcome….

Thus, cancelling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic. While local concerns may result in the closure of particular events for logical reasons, a policy directing communitywide closure of public events seems inadvisable. Quarantine. As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable….

Finally, the remarkable conclusion:

Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

Confronting a manageable epidemic and turning it into a catastrophe: that seems like a good description of everything that has happened in the COVID-19 crisis of 2020. 

Thus did some of the most highly trained and experienced experts on epidemics warn with biting rhetoric against everything that the advocates of lockdown proposed. It was not even a real-world idea in the first place and showed no actual knowledge of viruses and disease mitigation. Again, the idea was born of a high-school science experiment using agent-based modelling techniques having nothing at all to do with real life, real science, or real medicine. 

So the question becomes: how did the extreme view prevail?

The New York Times has the answer:

The [Bush] administration ultimately sided with the proponents of social distancing and shutdowns — though their victory was little noticed outside of public health circles. Their policy would become the basis for government planning and would be used extensively in simulations used to prepare for pandemics, and in a limited way in 2009 during an outbreak of the influenza called H1N1. Then the coronavirus came, and the plan was put to work across the country for the first time.

The Times called one of the pro-lockdown researchers, Dr. Howard Markel, and asked what he thought of the lockdowns. His answer: he is glad that his work was used to “save lives” but added, “It is also horrifying.” “We always knew this would be applied in worst-case scenarios,” he said. “Even when you are working on dystopian concepts, you always hope it will never be used.”

Ideas have consequences, as they say. Dream up an idea for a virus-controlling totalitarian society, one without an endgame and eschewing any experienced-based evidence that it would achieve the goal, and you might see it implemented someday. Lockdown might be the new orthodoxy but that doesn’t make it medically sound or morally correct. At least now we know that many great doctors and scholars in 2006 did their best to stop this nightmare from unfolding. Their mighty paper should serve as a blueprint for dealing with the next pandemic. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TegmYr Tyler Durden

Chinese NEV Sales Plunge 43%, Falling For The Tenth Straight Month

Chinese NEV Sales Plunge 43%, Falling For The Tenth Straight Month

Tyler Durden

Mon, 05/18/2020 – 01:00

The auto industry has been under pressure from all angles as a result of the global coronavirus lockdowns. And it looks as though while Elon Musk has been busy melting down, faux-libertarian style, about the re-opening of his California factory, things may have taken a turn for the worse for the EV market overseas. 

In addition to the pandemic crippling demand, there seem to be far too many players in China’s NEV market, and that has caused sales to come under pressure, according to Automotive News. China’s market now has about 50 established EV startups competing with larger companies like Geely and Tesla.

In fact, new energy vehicle sales fell for a tenth straight month in April, plunging 43%. 

Brian Gu, president of Alibaba-backed Xpeng Motors said: “The difficulties that EV start-ups have encountered, such as the auto sales decline, harsh fundraising environment and subsidies reduction, all started last year. The outbreak will aggravate these issues that already had existed.”

He continued: “Only the top-tier EV makers will be able to attract attention from investors in this environment.” 

Experts believe the hit to the EV market could get even worse with the plunging price of oil, even despite subsidies and tax breaks.

One anonymous investor said: “Those who had not launched mass production of their car models by 2019 would probably die. The outbreak is going to accelerate their death.” 

The headwinds could make it difficult for China to reach its goal of having EVs account for 25% of all auto sales by 2025, according to the report. Currently, the number stands at about 5%.

We’ve previously noted that auto dealers in the U.S. are losing billions of dollars in fleet sales, which we documented just last week.

The lack of fleet sales, combined with a massive demand drop off, has led to a massive inventory glut for auto dealers, who are being forced to consider major incentives across the board to try and sell vehicles when the consumer makes their way back to the showroom.

The inventory glut has gotten so bad that we reported on ships of SUVs coming from Japan being turned away at California ports several weeks ago.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3g048fG Tyler Durden

China’s Disappeared Heroes & The Silence Of The West

China’s Disappeared Heroes & The Silence Of The West

Tyler Durden

Sun, 05/17/2020 – 23:55

Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

Three Chinese internet activists have disappeared and are believed to have been detained by police. They have reportedly been charged with preserving articles that were removed by China’s online censors. Chen Mei, Cai Wei and Cai’s girlfriend went missing on April 19.

A few days earlier, Beijing police formally arrested retired professor Chen Zhaozhi for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” in a speech about the pandemic. The former Beijing University of Science and Technology professor had posted comments online, including that “Wuhan pneumonia is not a Chinese virus but Chinese Communist Party virus”. In addition, Wang Quanzhang, a Chinese human rights lawyer, who ended his prison sentence after more than four years for “subversion against the state”, immediately after leaving the penitentiary, was placed in “quarantine“, meaning under arrest.

These are just the latest Chinese dissidents who were concerned about the virus that began in Wuhan, the ground zero of the Covid-19 pandemic, who have vanished. They were evidently “disappeared” because they were searching for, and telling the truth about, what happened, as well as the Chinese regime’s attempt to bury it.

Frances Eve, deputy director of research at the Hong Kong-based watchdog group, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, said:

Everyone who has disappeared is at very high risk of torture – most likely to try to force them to confess that their activities were criminal or harmful to society. Then, as we’ve seen in previous cases, people who have been disappeared will be brought out and forced to confess on Chinese state television”.

A Chinese citizen journalist, Li Zehua, recently reappeared after having vanished two months previous, while investigating the Wuhan coronavirus cover-up. The Chinese regime made him tame and silenced him. In contrast to the tone of his reporting from Wuhan, Zehua’s new video shows him heaping praise on the regime that detained him:

“Throughout the whole process, police officers acted civil and legally, making sure that I was resting and eating well, they really cared for me, I had three meals a day, felt safe with guards, and got to watch the news every day.”

His video shows the tragic consequence of China’s repression.

In his pre-arrest reports from Wuhan, Zehua had a far more aggressive tone against the authorities:

“I don’t want to remain silent, or shut my eyes and ears. It’s not that I can’t have a nice life, with a wife and kids. I can. I’m doing this because I hope more young people can, like me, stand up.”

These Chinese journalists know that the price will be terrible. Beijing just sentenced a journalist, Chen Jieren, to a 15-year prison term for “vilifying the Chinese Communist Party” after state media released his “confession”. China, the world’s largest prison for journalists, has been accused of now having entered a “total censorship era“.

The “patient zero” of this Chinese repression was Dr. Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist, who was the whistleblower for Covid-19, and who died, purportedly of the virus, at the age of 34. First, was detained by police in Wuhan for “spreading false rumors” and, for telling the truth, forced to sign a document that he had “told untruthful information online.” Hours after state media reported Dr. Li’s death,” noted Physicians for Human Rights, “official censors scrubbed the Chinese Internet of any mention of his passing without explanation.”

Another doctor from Wuhan, Ai Fen, head of the emergency room at Wuhan Central Hospital, was apparently also one of the whistleblowers, who had “sounded the alarm” about the virus on December 30, 2019. Ai Fen was “disappeared” after criticizing the censorship concerning the epidemic. “If I had known what was to happen, I would not have cared about the reprimand. I would have fucking talked about it to whoever, where ever I could”, she said. She has not been seen or heard from since early April.

Chen Qiushi, a citizen journalist who reported from Wuhan, has also been missing since February. “I’m scared, I have the virus in front of me and behind me China’s law enforcement”, Chen said in a video dated January 30. “But I will keep my spirits up, as long as I’m alive and in this city I will continue my reports. I’m not afraid of dying. Why should I be afraid of you, Communist Party?”

A Wuhan clothing salesman, Fang Bin, apparently committed the crime of counting “too many” body bags. “This is too many, so many dead”, Bin said in a 40-minute video about the virus outbreak. He then disappeared as well. Bin filmed bodies piling up at a crematorium. Two months later, the world discovered that China had lied about the number of victims in Wuhan. Bin was right and Beijing had to raise its coronavirus official death toll in Wuhan by 50 percent.

A university student in Shandong, Zhang Wenbin, called on President Xi to step down. “When I look at the courage with which Hong Kong and Taiwan stand up to the Communist Party, I want my own voice to be heard”, he said. “I call on you all to look upon the true colors of the Communist Party, and stand together to bring down this wall”. Then Zhang Wenbin disappeared.

A property tycoon in Beijing, Ren Zhiqiang, also disappeared after writing an essay in which he described Chinese President Xi Jinping as a “clown,” and suggested that the Communist Party’s attack on freedom of speech had exacerbated the epidemic.

Wang Fang, a native of Wuhan, who won China’s prestigious Lu Xun Literary Prize, faces harassment and death threats after publishing a diary in the West about what happened in her native city. “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith”, Fang wrote, quoting the Bible. She explained that today’s China reminds her of the Cultural Revolution, when Mao Zedong imposed fanaticism and obedience in the country and when dissidents were humiliated in public, killed by mobs or forced to commit suicide on streets.

A Chinese law professor at Tsinghua University, Professor Xu Zhangrun, was also placed under investigation after publishing an essay that railed against repression under President Xi. “I don’t know what they’ll do next,” Professor Xu said. “I’ve been mentally preparing for this for a long time. At the worst, I could end up in prison”. He also published a long essay in which he denounced Xi Jinping and the Communist Party. “The coronavirus epidemic has revealed the rotten core of Chinese governance”, Professor Xu wrote. He added that the Chinese system now “values the mediocre, the dilatory and the timid” and that the mess caused by officials in Wuhan who covered up early signs of the virus “has infected every province and the rot goes right up to Beijing”.

Friends say that since those remarks were published, Professor Xu’s social account was suspended, his name scrubbed from Weibo, a Chinese blogging platform, and that now only articles from official websites show up on the country’s largest search engine, Baidu.

A prominent Chinese legal activist, Xu Zhiyong, who urged Xi Jinping to resign — “You’re just not smart enough,” he said — was also arrested.

A pro-democracy activist, Ren Ziyuan, was sent to administrative detention for criticizing the government’s management of the epidemic, Freedom House reported. Additionally, Tan Zuoren, an online activist and former political prisoner, has received multiple visits by police and had his account on the WeChat social media platform frozen. Former professor Guo Quan , after publishing articles about the outbreak, was also arrested for “inciting subversion of state power”.

These intrepid dissidents showed how fragile, vacuous and dangerous is the edifice of the Chinese regime. The Chinese Communist Party “is the biggest and most serious virus of all”, said the blind activist and dissident Chen Guangcheng, now a refugee in the US. “It is time”, he said, “to recognize the threat the Chinese Communist Party poses to all humanity. The CCP represses and manipulates information to strengthen its hold on power, regardless of the toll on human lives”. Also apparently regardless of the number of victims in the world.

An open letter from parliamentarians, academics, advocates and policy leaders states:

“As an international group of public figures, security policy analysts and China watchers, we stand in solidarity with courageous and conscientious Chinese citizens including Xu Zhangrun, Ai Fen, Li Wenliang, Ren Zhiqiang, Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin, Li Zehua, Xu Zhiyong, and Zhang Wenbin, just to name a few of the real heroes and martyrs who risk their life and liberty for a free and open China”.

The letter was signed by, among others, Judith Abitan, Executive Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights; Lord Alton of the British House of Lords; the French historian Jean-Pierre Cabestan of the Hong Kong Baptist University; Irwin Cotler, Emeritus Professor of Law at McGill University and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; and Giulio Terzi di Sant’Agata, Italy’s former minister of Foreign Affairs.

While many in the West thought that the Soviet Union was a heaven, it only took a handful of heroes beyond the Iron Curtain to let us know about the gulags, the secret police, the hunger, the repression — in short, they showed us that the heaven was a hell. These heroes included, the Czech writer Václav Havel, the nuclear scientist Andrei Sakharov and the author Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet Union; and the physicist Robert Havemann in East Germany, to name just a few. They paid with arrest, exile, prison and even their lives, such as Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, who died after being interrogated.

Today, similarly, if we know something about China, we owe it to China’s vanished heroes. We have, horribly, chosen to abandon them. Very few in the very free West call out the Chinese authorities and ask these great men and women to be released. For its acquiescence, the West will pay dearly.

The University of Queensland, Australia, which has close links to China, is actually trying to take disciplinary action, including the possible expulsion, against a student, Drew Pavlou, for his criticism of Beijing. Are we already playing Beijing’s game of repressing dissent?

Bloomberg News is said to censor articles that might anger China and expose Xi’s personal wealth. And the European Union recently softened criticism of China in a report on disinformation about the pandemic. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, admitted that China had “pressured” Brussels.

“We’re almost extinct,” said Liu Hu, a journalist detained for nearly a year after investigating corrupt politicians. “No one is left to reveal the truth”.

It looks as though free thought is more valued among China’s daring dissidents than in many corners of the West.

To paraphrase Leon Trotsky: You may not be interested in China, but China is interested in you.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dTyJcN Tyler Durden

Portland To Vote On $2.5 Billion Homeless Aid Tax Amid COVID Economy

Portland To Vote On $2.5 Billion Homeless Aid Tax Amid COVID Economy

Tyler Durden

Sun, 05/17/2020 – 23:30

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to bring the economy to a screeching halt, progressive cities dealing with a large and growing homeless populations face increased pressure to provide assistance amid budget shortfalls and dwindling or delayed tax revenues.

“Businesses and households are racking up huge amounts of debt. You have people who aren’t paying their rent and who are delaying their mortgages,” according to Eric Fruits, a research director at the Cascade Policy Institute.

Given this backdrop, voters in Portland, Oregon will decide on Tuesday to approve taxes on personal income and business profits which would raise $2.5 billion over a decade for the city’s homelessness initiatives, according to KATU.

The ballot measure was planned before the pandemic reduced the U.S. economy to tatters. Proponents, including many business leaders and major institutions, argue the taxes are needed now more than ever in a region that has long been overwhelmed by its homeless problem.

How voters in the liberal city react amid the pandemic will be instructive for other West Coast cities struggling to address burgeoning homeless populations as other sources of revenue dry up. The measure is believed to be one of the first nationwide to ask voters to open their wallets in a post-COVID-19 world. –KATU

Instead of housing, the money would be spent on so-called “wrap around services” to help with rent assistance, job training, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and case management and outreach.

“I think it’s really going to give you a sense about how concerned are people, still, about homelessness as an issue — and what are they willing to pay in to solve that issue,” said Marisa Zapata, head of the Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative (HRAC) at Portland State University. 

“We know government budgets are going to be eviscerated, so what does this mean for additional revenue-raising opportunities?” she added. “Who could we turn to to bear some of that responsibility and how will voters react?”

According to HRAC, there are approximately 40,000 people in the greater Portland area who have experienced at least one period of homelessness, and 105,000 households which face housing insecurity.

Those who oppose the $2.5 billion bill are shocked that organizers continue to push the effort while the economy is stalled and much of Oregon’s population remains under lockdown.

“People are frustrated. They’re out of work, they’re angry and the last thing they’re thinking about right now is raising taxes,” according to Amanda Dalton, legislative director of the Northwest Grocery Association.

Voters in the three counties that make up the greater Portland metro region will be asked to consider a 1% marginal income tax on the wealthiest residents and a 1% tax on gross profits for the region’s biggest businesses.

The measure would apply to individual filers with a taxable income of more than $125,000 or joint filers with taxable income of more than $200,000. Joint filers making $215,000 a year, for example, would be taxed 1% on $15,000, or $150 a year. –KATU

Approximately 90% of Portland residents and 94% of businesses will be exempt from the tax, says Angela Martin, campaign director for HereTogether – the organization which created the measure.

Supporting the bill is the Portland Business Alliance, whose members have repeatedly cited homelessness as a ‘critical factor affecting its ability to expand and recruit,’ according to the report. Also backing the measure are the Portland Trail Blazers and other major sports franchises, as well as several local government leaders.

Last week Gov. Kate Brown asked all state agencies to find a way to cut nearly 20% of their budgets, while the city of Portland is expecting a $75 million drop in revenue.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fT7pgR Tyler Durden