iftttwall

After Tuesday’s round of COVID-19 tests confirmed four more infections, the Miami Marlins, who have cancelled 4 games against the Orioles as players remain quarantined in Philadelphia, have decided to “temporarily pause” their season as the shortened 2020 MLB season gets off to a rocky start.

Despite the league’s insistence that it will double-down on health and safety practices and that there were “no plans” to cancel the season, speculation as intensified as more games have been cancelled because of the situation with the Marlins.

According to the Miami Herald, the Marlins’ two games scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday against the Orioles in Baltimore have been postponed. The entire 4-game series between the two teams has now been cancelled. The league is expected to make an announcement with more details later in the day.

Despite the league’s insistence, the numbers are simply becoming too difficult to work with. With roughly half the team’s roster now testing positive, it’s unlikely the team will be playing games in the immediate future. They’re not even sure when they will be returning to South Florida, or when games will be played. Those who test positive must remain in quarantine in Pennsylvania until they get two negative tests 24 hours apart.

The situation is making players increasing uncomfortable, particularly since if they get seriously ill, the league can’t be held liable. A majority of Washington Nationals players voted against traveling to Miami for a three-game series at Marlins Park that was supposed to begin Friday.

If the team is forced to miss the rest of the series against the Nationals, that will be 7 out of 60 games already cancelled due to this latest outbreak.

Right now, the best case scenario for the Marlins would involve promoting prospects and low-level veterans to fill in for the sick players.

According to the league’s operations manual for the season, sick players and staff members are not allowed to travel or visit club facilities until after they have had two negative tests with at least 24 hours between them and show no fever for at least 72 hours.

The Marlins schedule isn’t the only schedule that’s being impacted: The Philadelphia Phillies and New York Yankees’ games that were set to take place at Citizens Bank Park on Monday and Tuesday were also postponed as Phillies players underwent extra rounds of precautionary COVID-19 testing.

The Phillies haven’t seen any new players test positive since playing the Marlins (though the team suffered some infections during spring training) but out of caution, the team potentially won’t be playing again until Friday. They were supposed to travel to New York to play the Yankees on Wednesday and Thursday.

And that’s hardly the end of the ripple effect. The next week or so will be critical for the league. And if more teams start seeing cases, the season could be aborted before it truly begins.

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

With the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse under nightly siege from violent radicals, and Portland’s police hard-pressed to protect it, President Trump sent in federal agents to secure the building.

The reaction from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

“The use of stormtroopers under the guise of law and order is a tactic that is not appropriate to our country in any way.”

Majority Whip James Clyburn endorsed the speaker’s equating of the U.S. law enforcement officers to Ernst Rohm’s SA thugs being deployed to do the dirty work of Adolph Hitler.

“Nobody asked the federal government to come into Portland. Nobody asked them to come to Seattle,” ranted Clyburn.

“This is something that’s made up of whole cloth by this administration as an excuse for sending in stormtroopers to incite the people.”

Clyburn had earlier compared the U.S. officers sent to Portland to Heinrich Himmler’s Nazi secret police: “This president and this attorney general seem to be doing everything they possibly can to impose Gestapo activities on local communities, and this is what I’ve been warning about for a long time.”

His Gestapo comparison recalls Sen. Abe Ribicoff’s denunciation of the Chicago police of Mayor Richard J. Daley during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, after police clashed with radicals in Grant Park: “With George McGovern, we wouldn’t have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago!”

What do the men and women of the FBI, DEA, ICE, DHS, CBP and the U.S. Marshals Service think of congressional leaders who equate them with Nazi stormtroopers and the Gestapo?

Outraged that Trump sent in federal agents to protect a building they had under siege for weeks, the Portland mob came out in even greater numbers and rioted through the weekend. Saturday night, there were solidarity riots with Portland in Seattle, Oakland, Austin, Richmond, and other cities.

Consider the depth of hatred of Trump that would cause leaders of the Democratic Party to compare U.S. law enforcement to Nazis.

Still, to date, no apologies have been heard.

Yet, as police are again being cursed and showered with debris, it is hard to see how this country reunites, and around what, no matter which party prevails in November.

In addition to the reigniting of protests and riots in urban centers there has come, in tandem with demands to “defund the police,” a surge in violent crime. Last week, Trump offered some staggering statistics:

“In New York City, over 300 people were shot in the last month alone, a 277 … percent increase over the same period of a year ago. Murders this year have spiked 27 percent in Philadelphia and 94 percent in Minneapolis compared to the same period in 2019.

“Perhaps no citizens have suffered more from the menace of violent crime than the wonderful people of Chicago … At least 414 people have been murdered in the city this year, a roughly 50 percent increase over last year. More than 1,900 people have been shot. These are numbers that aren’t even to be believed.”

As Black Lives Matter protests revive, ostensibly for greater justice for black folks, a vastly disproportionate number of victims of these urban shootings and killings are black, as are a disproportionate number of the criminals doing the shooting and killing.

The New York Times suggests that a new “Silent Majority” of 2020, unlike Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority of 1969, backs the protesters and their causes.

A dissent: While the country was disgusted and outraged at George Floyd’s death from that cop kneeling on his neck, and supported the protests and the calls for police reform, two months of leftist rampages have taken their toll.

When the protests turned into riots, when the looting and arson began, when the statues began to be pulled down, when the rampages went on and on for weeks and months after Floyd’s death, support began to wane. And it is dissipating quickly.

The country is not going to sit still for three more months of this. At some point soon, America is going to say: Enough is enough.

Moreover, Trump has turned a permanent presidential spotlight on a real outrage: The shootings and killings that go on year in and year out, and are now escalating, especially in poor black neighborhoods of major cities, and are accepted as normal by the same liberal Democrats who have misruled those cities for decades.

Trump has put this issue on the table for the indefinite future. And the ferocity of the liberal reaction testifies to the validity of the issue and the terror of the left that a consistent stand for law and order — and with the cops who guarantee it against the mobs that threaten it — might turn the tide in Middle America back to where it naturally resides.

The majority of Americans believe, and rightly so, that this is a good country. And they will eventually tune out radicals who visibly hate its heroes and history and have on offer nothing but their own inchoate rage.

Ever since Dennis Gartman quit the newsletter business on Dec 31, 2019, there has been a distinct void in the markets, with algos, daytraders and institutions alike unsure how to trade and what to do now that there is no “sure thing” to fade (in fact, some have speculated whether the dismal volumes and lack of institutional participation in the market outside of the March crash have something to do with the lack of the contrarianism spawned by the Gartman Letter).

Well, good news!

Perhaps missing the media spotlight that having a daily newsletter afforded him, Dennis Gartman finally made a long-anticipated appearance this morning, discussing the one topic that is on everyone’s lips: precious metals.

And goldbugs take heart: after last night’s sudden, sharp drop in the price of gold moments after the Dec future hit a record high $2,000/oz, there has been some speculation that this could be it for gold’s run. Maybe… although if Gartman’s infamous “contrarianism” is any indication, what happens next is nothing short of a historic surge even higher in gold (in line with what even Goldman, which this morning hiked its price target from $2000 to $2300, now expects). Speaking to Fox Business News, Gartman – who apparently is now the University of Akron Endowment Committee Chair – said that he is “getting out of gold”…

This is the best buy signal for #gold yet. pic.twitter.com/rFtSNc64es

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) July 28, 2020

… which coming from the man who famously once said that oil would never rise above $44/barrel in his lifetime, is all gold bulls needed to hear, and may explain why after slumping early on Tuesday, the precious metals complex has been on a tear again, with gold trading at $1,950 and silver above $24.

To be fair to Gartman, he is not the only one getting out of gold. Lombard Odier Chief Economist Samy Chaar told CNBC on Monday that his team had sold half of their position in gold. Chaar said that while holding some gold was important in a world where a lot of debt is negative-yielding, the deep negativity of U.S. real interest rates creates some “vulnerability” for gold at the current price levels, since such low rates are not sustainable given the economic outlook.

Another strategist, whose work we have come to appreciate quite a bit in recent months, and who also decided to take profits on gold, is Nordea’s Andreas Steno Larsen, who this morning tweeted that he is also “out of my long Gold position”

I am also out of my long Gold position, fwiw. pic.twitter.com/fXjTOuYdVj

— AndreasStenoLarsen (@AndreasSteno) July 28, 2020

Which begs the possibility that perhaps Gartman will be right this time: after all, as Bloomberg noted this morning, with spot gold’s RSI hitting a massive 85 yesterday, “only the fifth time that the bullion was so overbought since 2000” gold may be in for a brief retreat in the next few days before resuming its rally, if history is any guide.

In all four previous occasions, gold declined over the next 10 days, with an average loss of 0.83%, according to Bloomberg’s trading signal function. So the pullback this morning after seven straight days of gains is in line with the historical norm.

That said, as Bloomberg’s Ye Xie points out, this indicator does not spell the end of gold’s rally as in the past, the precious metal eventually resumed the rally after brief periods of consolidation in the previous four occasions: “The most recent one when RSI hit above 85 occurred on Jan. 6, with gold at $1566 per ounce. Bullion has since climbed 24%.” Meanwhile, as Goldman explained earlier, in the current environment where both real yields and the dollar are likely to drop more, “it’s likely that gold will continue to shine in the months to come.”

And what better way to ensure that this prediction comes to light than having Dave Portnoy, who is enjoying a bit of a personal vendetta with Gartman, to tell his retail daytrading army to go all in gold.

On Wednesday, the CEOs of Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook will testify before House lawmakers over allegations of anticompetitive practices. For members of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, it will be their sixth hearing in their investigation into Silicon Valley antitrust accusations.

As Politico notes, “The session also arrives as scrutiny of the behemoths is surging across the globe, including an expected Justice Department antitrust case against Google and the recent launch of two European probes of potential anticompetitive behavior by Apple.”

It will also mark the first time Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, has offered testimony before Congress – albeit via videoconference, while House Judiciary lawmakers will attend both virtually and in-person in a hybrid format, according to the report.

That said, tomorrow’s ‘showdown’ could go one of two ways; fireworks, or snoozefest. If House Democrats jump off script from antitrust issues and press the CEOs over online hate speech, or if GOP members drill them on anti-conservative bias, things could get interesting.

Even the format of the questioning — four elite CEOs, all appearing by videoconference because of the coronavirus pandemic — could make it harder for the members to land a glove on the companies’ varied issues, ranging from Google’s and Facebook’s command of digital ad revenue to Apple’s control of its App Store and questions about whether Amazon misled Congress. –Politico

“The discussion will go well beyond antitrust,” said Carl Szabo, VP and General Counsel of NetChoice, a tech trade group which counts Google, Amazon and Facebook as members. “It will go into issues of election interference, or conservative bias, or any of the other issues de jour on which we like to saddle tech.”

Here’s what to expect assuming things go according to plan:

Lawmakers will likely question Bezos about whether an Amazon lawyer misled the Judiciary Committee last summer by claiming the company doesn’t use data collected from third-party vendors to launch competing products of its own.

In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon employees did just that – which prompted Judiciary leaders to question whether a criminal referral was appropriate for perjury charges. The company disputed WSJ‘s report, and said it did not ‘intentionally mislead’ the Committee – while also promising to conduct an internal investigation.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg will likely face questions over acquisitions of former rivals WhatsApp and Instagram, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and others have called for regulators to break up the social media giant.

Other items of inquiry will include how Facebook handles its trove of data collected from more than 2 billion users, including whether it is for anticompetitive purposes.

“There’s a real fear that no other competitor could ever successfully launch a social media platform because it could never match Facebook’s troves of data, which, given their record, it’s a serious threat to users,” Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) told Politico.

Google’s Sundar Pichai will have to answer for whether the company amplifies its own search services to the detriment of competitors and consumers seeking maps, videos or other services.

Separately, questions will be asked over whether their domination of online advertising has harmed smaller businesses as well as news outlets.

The committee has also accused the company of being less than forthright in its past testimony, including on questions such as what percentage of searches on the company’s engine lead to website referrals not on Google.

Google has separately been a frequent target of Republican allegations of anti-conservative bias on its video sharing platform YouTube, a topic that is expected to come up again at Monday’s hearing. Google and other major tech platforms deny those charges. Democrats, meanwhile, have taken issue with the company’s handling of hate speech and misinformation on YouTube. –Politico

Lastly, Apple CEO Tim Cook will face questions over how the company has handled its app store.

“Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) told The Verge in June. “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.“

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

What is it that motivates companies to sign up to virtue-signaling ad campaigns that have absolutely nothing to do with their product, and may even damage the bottom line?

This month, two well-known corporate brands made a giant leap of faith, jumping into shark-infested waters to swim against the powerful current of cancel culture. Shockingly, not only did they survive the death-defying plunge, but it appears they are being rewarded for their bravado.

The first act of ‘heresy’ came from the CEO of Goya Foods, Robert Unanue, who accepted an invitation to the White House by Donald Trump to promote a program aimed at assisting the Hispanic American community. All things considered, just accepting the invitation was risky enough. But Unanue went one step further and actually heaped words of praise on the US leader.

“We are all truly blessed … to have a leader like President Trump who is a builder,” Unanue remarked alongside Trump at the Rose Garden.

“That is what my grandfather did. He came to this country to build, to grow, to prosper. We have an incredible builder … and we pray.”

Needless to say, the recriminations against the CEO came fast and furious, with celebrities and politicians promoting an actual boycott of Goya Foods, potentially putting at risk thousands of jobs. The social justice mob swept into action, demanding some sort of declaration of guilt from the CEO.

.@GoyaFoods has been a staple of so many Latino households for generations.

Now their CEO, Bob Unanue, is praising a president who villainizes and maliciously attacks Latinos for political gain. Americans should think twice before buying their products. #Goyaway https://t.co/lZDQlK6TcU

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) July 9, 2020

Unanue, who once lent assistance to former First Lady Michele Obama and her ‘Let’s Move!’ nutritional initiative, refused to perform an act of penance, calling the backlash a “suppression of speech.”

Indeed, whatever one may think of Donald Trump, the idea of cancelling a brand because the company’s CEO expressed his political sentiments is not only politically immature, it mocks the very notion of the First Amendment. And it seems that many Americans feel the same way. In fact, calls to make Goya products disappear from store shelves actually worked, but not in the way the radical left had been anticipating. Instead of caving to the mob, conservatives initiated a nationwide ‘buy-cott’ as Goya products began flying off the shelves, thus demonstrating that ‘cancel culture’ can cut both ways.

The Goya boycott looks like it’s working well. pic.twitter.com/fOamynAjei

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) July 13, 2020

Coincidence or not, the trend to shun Leftist group-think continued days later as Red Bull, the popular energy drink, made redundant Stefan Kozak, its North America chief executive, and Amy Taylor, its North America president and chief marketing officer. According to insiders quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Kozak and Taylor had “met opposition” while pushing for the Austrian–based company “to be more overt in its support of racial justice” following on the heels of Black Lives Matter protests in the United States.

Red Bull’s decision to swim against the cultural current, as it were, largely comes down to the personal predilections of its CEO and founder, Dietrich Mateschitz, 76, who has expressed in the past his strong distaste for political correctness and woke culture.

Although the Austrian billionaire may enjoy some wiggle room for avoiding America’s social justice mob, it may be just a matter of time before the powerful influence of the global-spanning movement makes him change his orthodoxy, much the same way it converted Chick-fil-A.

Last year, conservatives experienced a collective conniption fit as the fast food chain, famous for remaining closed on Sundays due to the religious beliefs of its founders, said it would stop making donations to the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes due to those groups opposition to gay marriage and LGBTQ lifestyles.

.@ChickfilA had invaluable brand loyalty because of their beliefs and convictions.

Their customers were brand ambassadors who appreciated that they stood their ground while the rest of corp. America caved to leftist radicals.

Now they’re just another fast food chicken place.

— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) November 19, 2019

That volte-face by Chick-fil-A underscores the revolution that is occurring inside the halls of Corporate America, which appears to be less a mere reflection of social justice ideology than an actual hand-in-glove component of it. In other words, this is a top-down agenda being enforced by the elite, as opposed to anything remotely connected to a grassroots movement. How else can it be explained that the corporate world has never taken the time to ask if their cultural crusading on behalf of a minuscule percentage of the population makes any sense from a business perspective? It certainly doesn’t from a consumer perspective.

From Sprite hawking transgender lifestyles instead of carbonated sugar water, to Gillette proffering screeds against ‘toxic masculinity’ instead of selling razor blades, to Pepsi attempting to cash-in on the illusory ‘racial divide’ in the United States, the people – the target audience that has been conspicuously left out of the discussion – are growing weary of it. This much was confirmed in a recent poll by Politico, for example, that shows 46% of Americans think that political correctness and the ‘cancel culture’ it spawned has “gone too far.”

In an effort not to seem alienated from a raft of social movements, many of which have negligible meaning to average people, corporations are signing up to a number of initiatives, like the ‘Unstereotype Alliance,’ endorsed by none other than the United Nations. This program, which acknowledges that advertising is a “particularly powerful driver to change perceptions and impact social norms,” pushes to encourage advertisers to show “realistic, non-biased portrayals of women and men.” You know, where every shaving boy is actually a girl, for example, and every male is an overly aggressive animal who needs psychological treatment.

It certainly doesn’t stop there. Taking it as a given that America is plagued with institutional racism, which it is not, hundreds of companies are now throwing their support behind Black Lives Matter and others to the tune of millions of dollars. Facebook, for example, donated $10 million to “groups fighting racism,” while Bank of America pledged $1 billion over the next four years to focus on communities with “many people of color.”

Although companies have long made it part of their business plan to put on a face that they are showing compassion for the world’s least fortunate, what we have today is a radically different animal. Corporations, taking a cue from high up the food chain, are now in the business of, to quote the Unstereotype Alliance, “impacting social norms.” In fact, as befitting to this Cultural Marxist agenda, profits are not the most important thing anymore to these latter-day capitalists. The priority is to replace the economic and social system with something that bears no resemblance whatsoever to free market capitalism, perhaps some kind of twisted hybrid of socialism. Clearly, if the current system is to survive, together with our freedoms, the world needs more corporate leaders like Robert Unanue and Dietrich Mateschitz who aren’t afraid of standing up to the mob.

The eviction moratorium expired last Friday nearly four months after the US economy effectively shutdown due to the covid pandemic, and more than 12 million renters – all behind on rent payments because of the virus-induced recession – are now at imminent risk of getting booted to the curb. 

This Friday, some 25 million Americans will no longer receive their weekly $600 federal unemployment checks, and the next round of government handouts, currently discussed by Republicans and Democrats, could see benefits slashed from $600 to $200 (or be nothing at all if no deal is reached in Congress). This would crush household finances across middle-class America, resulting in an even higher number of households unable to pay their rent bill in the months ahead. 

That said, Trump’s top economic advisor Larry Kudlow, who has religiously pumped stocks with meaningless headlines any time the S&P is even barely in the red, recently said an extension for the eviction moratorium program could be seen. But what if there isn’t one?

In late July, more than 31 million Americans collected unemployment benefits of some form. The economic recovery reversed in late June, as the next crisis among households looms. 

“It’s like nothing we’ve ever seen,”  said John Pollock, coordinator of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. 

In 2016, there were 2.3 million evictions, Pollock said.

“There could be that many evictions in August,” he said. 

On Sunday, food bank lines reemerged as people’s benefits ran out. The number of jobless Americans is staggering and downright, depressionary, suggesting no labor market recovery this year or next. 

With a fiscal cliff unfolding, benefits set to run out, and a rebound in the economy reversing, Household Pulse Data from mid-July outlines an even gloomier rent crisis unfolding.

The analysis is based on Household Pulse Data from mid-July and it found that some states will be hit harder than others. For example, West Virginia is estimated to have the highest share of renter households facing eviction at close to 60%. Tennessee, Minnesota, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana are all among the states set to be worst impacted with shares at 50% or higher. Elsewhere, Vermont is the state where renters will be at the lowest risk of eviction, though 22% of them will potentially lose their homes over the course of the crisis. – Forbes 

Shown below (charted by Statista), here are the states where renters will be pressured the most. 

The Trump administration doesn’t have the tools to solve the crisis – fiscal and monetary policy can only delay round two of the economic crash until after the elections. Meanwhile chaos and disagreement on Capitol Hill means that there is still no deal on a rent moratorium extension, which means that the coming weeks could see the largest ever US rent crisis, one which would make 2008 look like child’s play.  

Authored by Chris Calton via The Mises Institute,

As the “fifteen days to slow the spread” continues to extend indefinitely, the issue of mask mandates has become increasingly contentious.

The debate has been exacerbated by the inconsistency of the recommendations of authorities (political, scientific, and imaginary). Early in the pandemic, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) advised against the use of masks, except by those who are particularly vulnerable (the elderly and immunocompromised) and their caretakers.

Many of us with some understanding of economics made such arguments at the outset of the debate, not necessarily because of any epidemiological expertise. When you understand the principle of scarcity, policies mandating that healthy teenagers vie for medical products with their more vulnerable grandparents is a formula for exacerbating the most severe outcome of any viral infection. In fairness, many medical experts raised exactly these concerns, even if they did not enjoy the media attention of their more demagogic counterparts.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the masks-for-all policy, it is heartening to see how well entrepreneurs adapted to the spiked demand, making masks cheaply available in various designs, sizes, and materials, solving the problem of fear-driven people trying to steal masks from emergency rooms. Of course, the dazzling speed of the market response obscures the fact that the adaptation to new conditions and an ostensible emergency would have been even more immediate had private businesses not been forced to wait on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to sell masks to healthcare workers.

Of course, profit-motivated entrepreneurs in market societies seek to fulfill demand irrespective of whether said demand is based on rational science, delusional belief, or anything in between. The refrain I’ve heard many times is that “the science has proven” the effectiveness of masks. Of course, the claim that science has “proven” anything is a red flag for what F.A. Hayek called “Scientism”—the “slavish imitation of the method and language of Science.”1

While scientists never “prove” any theory, conventionally understood, there is abundant literature on the efficacy of face masks, and it certainly supports skepticism of the mask mandate. A number of the leading researchers on respiratory protection and infectious disease published editorials early in the pandemic denying the efficacy of masks-for-all policies, arguing that they may lead to more harm than good (see also this editorial, though it is worth noting that some of the concern was that such policies would make people more comfortable with easing lockdown restrictions, a separate issue beyond the focus of this article). One editorial took a different approach, actually defending universal masking despite the evident ineffectiveness of the policy, arguing that “masks serve symbolic roles” in helping to “increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.” In other words, masks are beneficial as long as we believe they are, even if they’re actually pointless.

The literature on masks broadly looks at the efficacy of different types of masks and their efficacy at preventing particle penetration (controlled studies) and the likelihood of infectious spread (case studies of healthcare workers). Other studies question the detrimental effects of masks, particularly with prolonged use. Cloth masks, which have become the norm for public use, have been shown to have penetration rates as high as 97% according to a BMJ study (which used to stand for the British Medical Journal, but is now titled by its acronym). A study of the use of cloth masks during the far more serious 1918 influenza pandemic showed no beneficial results, and another study demonstrates that cloth masks are particularly ineffective compared with medical masks. Surgical and cotton medical masks fared better, but still with discouraging results overall (see here, here, here, here, and here).

As masks-for-all advocates are quick to point out, N95 respirators do show beneficial results in containing viral infections, but these are virtually unworn by the public (and they have only recently become available to those outside of the healthcare profession).

However, their effectiveness appears to be dependent upon whether they are properly fitted, which suggests that even the widespread public use of N95 masks would have a marginal to nonexistent effect, as evident from another study that looked at the layperson’s ability to properly secure N95 respirators.

The potential harm of mask wearing is especially relevant, as the logic of many people is that wearing a mask can do no harm even if it is ineffective. These studies are revealing as well. A number of studies show that mask wearers actually have an increased likelihood of viral infection (an increase that corresponds to the length of use). These studies point to several potential contributing factors for these results. Several studies measured the bacteria found on masks themselves, suggesting that even if short-term masking (such as visiting an immunocompromised patient in the hospital) may be beneficial, prolonged use may compromise the usefulness of the mask (see here, here, here, here, and here). Other theories explaining why masks sometimes appear to produce increased rates of infection point to the compromised immune function caused by oxygen deprivation, which can also produce harmful effects, particularly for pregnant and asthmatic wearers (see here, here, here, here, here, and here).

The point here is not to say that masks are entirely useless in all circumstances. The literature, rather, strongly suggests that the usefulness of masks depends on a significant number of factors—type, fit, length of use, purpose, and circumstances—which are effectively impossible to account for in public universal-masking policies. The science, contrary to the ignorant platitudes we are bombarded with, has not proven that universal masking is effective in viral containment, and has instead provided substantial grounds for skepticism of such a policy.

It is also worth noting that even when looking at the literature, presentation can be misleading. One study demonstrating the efficacy of surgical masks on the public, in contradiction to similar studies, concludes that they can prevent viral spread. However, the explanation of method (a section academic readers typically skip unless they are conducting similar research) states that, “To mimic the real-life situation, under the observation by the study staff participants were asked to attach the surgical mask themselves, but instruction on how to wear the mask properly was given when the participant wore the mask incorrectly” (emphasis added).

These problems may be innocent, but research motivations are not irrelevant. While a number of studies call into question the benefits of surgical masks during procedures, a 2015 study from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine admitted a revealing motivation behind the research.

“In light of NHS budget constraints and cost-cutting strategy,” the article explains, referencing Britain’s socialized healthcare system, “we examined the evidence base behind the use of surgical facemasks,” concluding that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

In fairness to the researchers, other studies corroborate their findings, but the fact that it took a broke socialized healthcare system to open the question is not unimportant. It not only demonstrates the relationship between motivations and research assumptions, but also reminds us of the problems of letting a central planner allocate healthcare resources in the first place (Who would have thought surgical masks would be included in debates over healthcare budgeting?).

They have also long been pointing out detrimental and counterproductive effects of mask wearing, again varying according to the particular situation, which brings up the most important question of mask mandates. Most objections are not to the masks themselves, but to the mandate, and well-documented consequences such as oxygen deprivation should give anybody pause when considering a legal requirement of wearing masks in public. We already see that most people (not just Democrats) wear masks in public regardless of mandates (some, undoubtedly, only so mask warriors leave them alone), but it is entirely irresponsible and unethical to impose such a practice on anybody.

After two ugly auctions to start the abbreviated Treasury week on Monday (due to the FOMC on Thursday), moments ago the Treasury sold another record-sized batch of paper, this time in the form of $44 billion of 7 Year notes, and unlike yesterday’s 2Y and 5Y sles, this one went without a glitch.

As has been the case recently, the auction priced at a record low yield of just 0.446%, which was not only well below last month’s 0.511%, but also stopped through the 0.452% When Issued by 0.6bps. 

The bid to cover was a slight drop from last month’s 2.489 to 2.449, which was below the 2.54 six-auction average, but the internals were solid, with Indirects taking down 63.9%, the highest since April and above the 62.7% recent average, while Directs took down 16.8%, above the 13.3% average leaving Dealers with 19.3% of the take down.

Overall, another stellar auction at the belly of the curve, which comes just before the FOMC, suggesting that any fears prompted by yesterday’s ugly auctions were session specific and nothing has fundamentally changed with investor demand for US debt… of which a record amount will be sold in the coming years.

It appears Goldman Sachs’ CEO David Solomon isn’t too worried about the economic impacts of Covid on his bank.

That’s because instead of working overtime and being parked behind a desk in a suit, like a normal middle aged Wall Street CEO, Solomon recently took to the Hamptons and appeared to be complicit in spreading Covid-19 – all so he could apparently act like a 20-something year old and DJ a party in the Hamptons with friends.

That party is now under investigation by New York Health Authorities, according to Bloomberg.

Solomon, who DJs under the name “D Sol”, appeared at a Hamptons charity concert Saturday night which is now being investigated for what Governor Andrew Cuomo has called “egregious social distancing violations”. 

“We have no tolerance for the illegal & reckless endangerment of public health,” Cuomo said after seeing video of the event, which had been billed as the “Safe & Sound drive-in concert”. The event was supposed to allow attendees to enjoy music from their cars and in designated social distancing areas. 

2,000 people showed up for the performance that included Solomon and the Chainsmokers. Southampton’s Town Supervisor and Mayor were both performers and emcees at the event, as well. Video of the event shows groups of people gathering near the stage and some concert goers without masks. 

The concert’s organizers said: “The criticism based on a two-second video does not accurately depict the entire event. The Safe & Sound drive-in concert fundraiser followed the guidelines created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and made best efforts to ensure New York’s social-distancing guidelines were properly maintained throughout the event.”

The organizers had set up temperature checks, cleaning of portable toilets every 10 minutes and had pledged to abide by local health standards. The concert drew in about 500 cars to spots that cost as much as $25,000. Masks were not required near vehicles, though they were “encouraged”. 

Solomon had said on Monday, prior to Cuomo’s criticism of the event: “Standing up there and watching the sunset, looking out over this huge field of cars and people on their cars, it was absolutely beautiful. The group that put this together did an incredible job in a difficult environment. If we work together and are thoughtful, we can do things that feel more normal and allow us to live with this

But Southampton’s own Town Supervisor, Jay Schneiderman, said it appeared the concert broke its own rules: “I am upset. It puts me in an awkward situation,” he said.

Goldman Sachs declined to comment for Bloomberg’s story, so instead here’s our comment: maybe it’s time the mega-bank’s board of directors considers asking its CEO to grow up.