How COVID-19 Is Forcing Americans Into Early Retirement

How COVID-19 Is Forcing Americans Into Early Retirement

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 18:50

Via Birch Gold Group,

It goes without saying, the economy has been severely damaged as a result of various “stay-at-home” orders in response to COVID-19 (coronavirus).

One of the emerging ripple effects is that more Americans close to retirement are now considering whether or not to retire early.

In fact, due to prolonged business shutdowns, some may feel as though the decision is being made for them.

According to Forbes, even before COVID-19, “More than half of workers will be forced out of the workforce earlier than expected and for reasons out of their control.”

In light of current economic circumstances, “Will I be forced into early retirement?”may be a good question to ponder.

The Forbes article also noted that, with more than 22 million people filing for unemployment in just the last few weeks, we may see a large portion of those folks leave the workforce for good.

Once someone gets to retirement age, the desire to work longer to maintain income and lifestyle seems to dwindle a bit, according to the Forbes piece:

Only 23% of retirees said they would rather work longer when asked to choose between retiring at age 55, with money just for basic expenses, or working to 75 and having an extravagant lifestyle.

But even if a retirement saver doesn’t want to work longer, they may not enjoy a forced retirement if they aren’t prepared for it.

study from Allianz found, “Six in 10 non-retirees said running out of money before they die is one of their biggest worries.” This is an even bigger worry in the aftermath of coronavirus.

Most Americans are Still Unprepared to “Make the Leap”

“When retirement starts” is a big concern for most people, according to the Allianz report. In fact, it may impact a retirement saver’s income during retirement, leaving them unprepared for what happens next:

Lack of clarity about when retirement may start and how time will be spent could have a significant effect on retirement income and whether or not retirees’ money will last as long as they do. This is a concern shared by both pre- and near-retirees as more than half (55%) of non-retirees said they are worried they won’t have enough saved for retirement.

In other words, more than half of people who are approaching retirement are not actually prepared to make the leap, even if a situation arose where they would be forced into making that decision.

More disturbing, two-thirds of the study respondents were not saving enough for retirement, while almost 9 out of 10 didn’t have a financial plan:

“When asked about the top financial choices they are making or planning to make, less than a third (32%) said saving enough in a retirement account, 12% said setting long-term financial goals and only 6% said making a formal financial plan[…]”

Finally, since the coronavirus has taken hold, equity investments have become an increasingly risky choice. Kelly O’Donnell from Edelman Financial offered a suggestion in a piece on CNBC, focusing on the long-term and diversification:

What investors need to do is make sure their actual allocations match their long-term goals, she said. “A long-term diversified portfolio has proven to be a great form of retirement savings for most Americans.”

Certainly, times have changed and there is much to consider, especially if an accelerated retirement is in your future.

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

“Selling American”: Buffett Dumps Most Of His Goldman Stake, Trims JPMorgan In Turbulent First Quarter

“Selling American”: Buffett Dumps Most Of His Goldman Stake, Trims JPMorgan In Turbulent First Quarter

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 18:39

Airlines aren’t the only sector that Warren Buffett notoriously dumped in April, ahead of the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting.

According to the just filed Berkshire 13F, in the first quarter when the conglomerate’s equity holdings took a record hit of $66.5 billion, as the value of Berkshire’s disclosed equity positions tumbled from $242BN as of Dec 31, to $175.5BN on March 31, Buffett also sold the bulk, or 84%, of his Goldman Sachs stake – formerly a top 20 position for Berkshire – selling 10 million shares of what at Dec 31 was a 12 million position, while trimming 3% of his stake in JPMorgan (from 59.5MM to 57.7MM shares).

Buffett’s sale of Goldman, which at one point plunged as much as 33% in the first quarter, was uncharacteristic for an investor who not only has been a big investor in banks in the past (selling, if anything, to keep the stakes below the 10% “active investor” level scrutinized by regulators), but also represents a U-turn from a company that Berkshire bailed out during the financial crisis with a costly $5 billion investment in the form of perpetual preferred stock that carried a 10% dividend.

This time, however, instead of “Buying American”, as Buffett famously declared in his Oct 16, 2008 NYT Op-ed, Buffett has been quietly selling.

Besides cutting his position in Goldman and JPMorgan, Buffett also liquidated his stakes in Travelers and Phillips 66, a tiny stub of a holding that had been valued at more than $25 million at the end of the year.

Separately, Buffett also trimmed his positions in Davita (1%), Verisign (1%), Amazon (0.7%), GM (0.7%) and several other companies as shown in the table below. The only position increases in the quarter were in Delta airlines, where he added 1.3% to 71.9 million shares only to dump it all a few weeks later, and PNC Financial, just week before the bank decided to liquidate its entire 20% stake in Blackrock.

As a reminder, on May 3, Buffett announced that Berkshire had fully exited its stake in the 4 major US airlines, admitting he had made a mistake.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fSzZ1N Tyler Durden

NYC’s Rat Population Hit With Hunger Crisis During Lockdowns 

NYC’s Rat Population Hit With Hunger Crisis During Lockdowns 

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 18:30

There’s a silver lining to virus-related lockdowns in New York City. That is, the rat population is now starving. Just last year, New Yorkers were complaining about rats taking over the city — now it seems these rodents have food security issues. 

An urban rodentologist has told The Wall Street Journal that rats have become hostile and are resorting to cannibalism as food becomes scarce with restaurants closed. 

Strict social distancing has confined millions of people to their homes as economic activity has ground to a halt in the city. Businesses have shuttered operations, resulting in cleaner streets and less trash. 

“All of a sudden New York City to some degree is cleaner than ever before,” said urban rodentologist Bobby Corrigan. “You end up with this group of disoriented, stressed rats foraging about.”

Food security has become a significant issue for these rodents, forcing some to migrate to new areas. Corrigan said these scavengers are causing a ruckus among themselves, becoming hangry and causing fights, while some have resorted to cannibalism. 

Gil Bloom, president of Standard Pest Management, said rats have been staking out opened restaurants as food choices have become limited during the lockdowns. He said restaurant operators had needed his extermination services as an “influx” of rodents at certain eateries has been seen during the pandemic. 

“They have now realized who is serving the midnight buffet,” Bloom said. “Those places that are putting out garbage that was secondary targets that are now primary targets.”

New York City has had a rat problem for decades. One look, down Manhattan Avenue, in pre-corona times, and the streets were lined with bustling restaurants. In post-corona times, some of those restaurants remain closed, and others may never reopen again, a significant problem for rats.

Plunging economic activity because of virus-related shutdowns poses a significant food security problem for the rat population. 

On the brighter side, for everyone complaining about rats in 2019 — is rat starvation such a bad thing? 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2T9cKql Tyler Durden

Another Week, Another Governor With A God-Complex

Another Week, Another Governor With A God-Complex

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 18:10

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Are you ready for this week’s absurdity?

Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.

Police arrest surfers for standing still on the beach

Like most of the world, Cape Town, South Africa is on lockdown to stop the spread of the virus.

The city does allow residents to walk along the beach during an “exercise window” every morning from 6am to 9am, as if everyone is an incarcerated felon.

But you aren’t allowed to go in the ocean to surf, or to paddleboard.

Surfers have pointed out that while the walkways get crowded, the open ocean has practically limitless space… so it’s clearly a lot easier to maintain social distancing while in the ocean, rather than being packed together on the boardwalk.

Unfortunately government orders are not known for being logical.

To push back, surfers went to the beach and simply stood there with their surfboards and protest signs.

Police came along and told them to keep moving. After all, this was an “exercise window,” not a “stand at the beach window.”

Those who ignored the orders were arrested for standing still when they should have been exercising.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Barber has license revoked for re-opening

Karl Manke, a 77 year old barber, had his license suspended because he opened his shop in defiance of Michigan’s lockdown order.

The state suspended the license without due process– they simply revoked his right to earn a living.

But Karl Manke kept on cutting hair.

There has been no shortage of customers for the week he’s been open. Some waited for two hours for a haircut, just to support a man who is standing up for himself.

“I’m not trying to be a scofflaw. I’m trying to make a living,” said Manke.

“I tried for the unemployment. I was denied twice on unemployment.”

Manke is facing a $1000 fine and two misdemeanor charges.

But a judge refused to sign an order to stop Manke from operating until he has a hearing on June 23. The local Sheriff also said he will not enforce the Governor’s orders.

It’s unclear if the Governor’s orders even hold legal weight, since the state legislature did not authorize the lockdown extension.

But regardless of the legal consequences, Manke vowed to stand up against violations of his rights. And he has plenty of support.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Colorado restaurant license revoked after opening for Mother’s Day

A Colorado restaurant had its license revoked by the county health board after it opened for Mother’s Day.

The restaurant opened in defiance of the statewide lockdown order, prompting the Governor of Colorado to criticize the restaurant owner at a press conference:

“Customers will return en masse when they feel safe. When people see videos of people packed into a restaurant with no social distancing and no masks, people feel less safe and the widespread economic pain will only be prolonged.”

Wait… doesn’t a packed restaurant mean that people feel safe enough to return en masse? Everyone in that packed restaurant was there voluntarily. They were all willing to be around other people, and hence felt safe enough to do so.

The Governor continued, “I love my mom far too much to put her at risk by visiting a busy restaurant operating illegally just to take a selfie with omelets and a mimosa.”

That’s great, dude. Then you and your mom can stay at home cowering in fear while grown adults who are willing to take a chance go out in the world and live their lives.

It is not about haircuts or mimosas. It is about basic freedoms, and the overreach of a government authority. No one authorized this person to play God with other people’s lives.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Four plans in Congress to forgive varying amounts of student debt

Jubilee is coming! There are now FOUR different plans in Congress to forgive student loan debt.

They all have distinct features and forgive varying amounts of debt for different groups of people.

For example, one plan would forgive up to $25,000 worth of student loans for essential workers, such as healthcare workers, first responders, postal employees, and grocery store workers.

Another proposal would forgive ALL student loan debt for any medical workers caring for Covid-19 patients. Keep in mind that many of these doctors and nurses have six figures of debt.

Another bill would forgive federal student loans for everyone, but only up to a limit of $10,000.

And another version of that same bill would go further, forgiving up to $30,000 worth of government-backed student loans.

There’s actually a fifth plan, put forth by Joe Biden’s team, which would forgive federal student loan debt for anyone who attended either a public university or a historically black college.

We’ve been predicting a debt jubilee for years. It might not be one of these plans, but you can see the writing on the wall. Debt forgiveness is coming… and so are the economic consequences that go with it.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

National debt hits $25 trillion without fanfare

Speaking of debt, total US National Debt surpassed $25 trillion on May 5.

That is a whopping 117% of the USA’s Gross Domestic Product. The debt has only been higher, as a percentage of GDP, just after World War II.

But we’re just at the very beginning of World War Covid-19– or rather, the economic devastation caused by the government response to the pandemic. So just wait, because we’ll see $30 trillion soon.

Click here to see the Treasury’s numbers.

*  *  *

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X6wmwO Tyler Durden

Wuhan Ordered To Test All 11 Million Residents In 10 Days As Beijing Scrambles To Stop COVID ‘Round 2’

Wuhan Ordered To Test All 11 Million Residents In 10 Days As Beijing Scrambles To Stop COVID ‘Round 2’

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 17:50

After reportedly discovering 6 new coronavirus infections in Wuhan following a month of calm, health authorities in the city of 11 million and epicenter of the outbreak, which is still in the process of “normalizing” after a ~70 day lockdown that began back in January, are scrambling to test all of the city’s residents in just 10 days. 

Some local media outlets are calling it “the ten day battle”, while most acknowledge that few expect officials to succeed in running 11 million tests in ten days. Currently, the most tests run per day anywhere in the world is 20k per day in South Korea. At that rate, it would take roughly 18 months to test that many people. The city would need to test nearly 750k people per day to meet this goal.

While that certainly seems impossible, the long lines snaking around street corners as locals line up – sometimes for hours at a time – at designated testing stations where health-care workers administer tests in the open air, according to the New York Times and AFP.

Videos depicting the lines have circulated on US social media after making it through the Great Firewall.

Lines showed hundreds lining up at a time…

…raising questions about the current capacity, which appears to be well above the peak reached during the depths of the crisis, according to several western reporters. Under “extreme circumstances” Wuhan has in the past managed to conduct 100k tests in a day, however.

An employee who answered the phone at a hotline set up by Wuhan’s mayor said the tests would be carried out in a staggered manner. Some neighborhoods would start earlier than others, but each would plan to finish testing its residents within 10 days, this person said.

Wuhan, by far the hardest-hit Chinese city, has reported more than 50,000 infections and 3,800 deaths since the outbreak started. One major goal of testing would be to identify infected people with no symptoms, who can still spread the virus.
According to government notices distributed on social media, at least seven neighborhoods in Wuhan said testing would start on Wednesday.

Party officials cranked up the propaganda to urge people to get tested asap.

“A nucleic acid test is your responsibility to yourself, your family and society,” read a post from the Changqing Garden No. 2 Neighborhood District Committee. “Please support and cooperate.”

To be sure, while many locals grumbled, others praised the government, calling the testing drive “a good thing” even if they thought it might be overkill.

“This is a good thing. It’s a way to be responsible towards others and to yourself,” a 40-year-old man told the AFP.

In areas where testing is happening, officials have erected rows of tents and set up folding tables and stools. Social media posts on Wednesday showed dozens of residents lining up to have nasal or throat swabs taken by medical workers wearing safety goggles and protective suits.

District notices shared on social media urged residents to keep a distance from one another and to spread the word about the testing, in order to “leave no one behind.” For all residents, testing is free – part of China’s basic health care coverage for all.

However, some claimed that the testing drive wasn’t just “overkill”, they warned it might actively hurt the public health and make the outbreak worse.

One expert who spoke with the NYT said they feared more people would be infected by standing in long lines while waiting to be tested, rendering the massive effort not only unnecessary, but actively harmful.

One local griped that “the safety measures inside are really bad. [People] are too close and the testing person handled a lot of samples from people but I didn’t see him wash his hands.”

That certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in China’s ability to stave off round 2.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2yPZY9z Tyler Durden

Americans Are Isolating Themselves Less, but That Doesn’t Mean They Are Abandoning COVID-19 Precautions

“Social distancing” in the United States has dropped “significantly” since late March, USA Today reports, citing new Gallup poll results. But what that means is not at all clear once you look at the question Gallup asked, and the picture gets even fuzzier when you consider the findings of another survey that asked Americans about their readiness to resume something approximating normal life.

Gallup’s poll, which was conducted from May 4 to May 10, asked participants to pick one of five descriptions for their behavior during the previous 24 hours:

1) “completely isolated yourself, having no contact with people outside your household”

2) “mostly isolated yourself, having very little contact with people outside your household”

3) “partially isolated yourself, having some contact with people outside your household”

4) “isolated yourself a little, still having a fair amount of contact with people outside your household”

5) “did not make any attempt to isolate yourself from people outside your household”

Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves, down from a peak of 75 percent in a Gallup poll conducted from March 30 to April 5. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states. But since isolate and contact are ambiguous, equating this shift in reported behavior with a medically meaningful decline in “social distancing” is problematic.

If someone who was not leaving his house at all finally ventured out for a walk or a quick trip to the grocery store, for example, he would be “isolating” himself less and might be having more “contact” with other people (passers-by on the street, employees and other shoppers at the store), but that does not necessarily mean he ran a significant risk of catching the COVID-19 virus or passing it on to others. If his contact was limited to waving at a neighbor, or if he wore a mask to the supermarket and maintained an appropriate distance from other similarly masked people, his odds of catching or transmitting the virus would still be infinitesimal.

If “social distancing” means complete isolation, the Gallup results indicate that it is becoming less common. But that is not necessarily the case if “social distancing” means taking reasonable precautions.

A recent Piplsay survey that asked more-specific questions suggests that Americans generally remain quite cautious about COVID-19 risks. While 53 percent of respondents said they were “very comfortable” with “returning to work,” that was conditioned on “adequate precautions.” Even with precautions, 47 percent were “not very comfortable” or “not all comfortable” with resuming work.

What about “using public transport during the pandemic”? Only 24 percent were “very comfortable but with adequate precautions,” while 21 percent were “not very comfortable,” 18 percent were “not at all comfortable,” and 37 percent said they “won’t be taking public transport anytime soon.”

The results were similar for “visiting restaurants, malls, gyms, salons, etc.” Forty-six percent of respondents said they would wait “a month or more after they reopen,” 30 percent said they’d wait “a few weeks,” and only 24 percent were ready to patronize such businesses right away.

The respondents also generally planned to continue wearing masks and/or gloves in public. While 24 percent said they’d do so only “when/where it’s mandatory,” the rest said they were prepared to use protective gear voluntarily for periods ranging from “another few weeks” to “another 2–3 months at least.”

Whatever you think about the merits of COVID-19 lockdowns, they cannot last forever—or even until a vaccine is developed and deployed, which could take another year or more—because they impose enormous economic and social costs. Isolating known disease carriers for a couple of weeks is one thing; indefinitely isolating the entire population is quite another. Reopening the economy is largely about deciding what kind of social distancing is both sensible and sustainable.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WAIozi
via IFTTT

Will Congress Bankrupt The Mom-And-Pop Landlord With This Socialist New Bill?

Will Congress Bankrupt The Mom-And-Pop Landlord With This Socialist New Bill?

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 17:30

Authored by Diane Kennedy via The Organic Prepper blog,

Mom and pop landlords, defined as real estate investors who own 10 or fewer properties, own about half of all rental units nationwide. And, according to CoreLogic, a real estate data company, the number of small investors is growing. In 2018, they were responsible for 60% of all purchases, as compared to 48% in 2013.

Let’s get clear on who the target of the latest proposed House bill, “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act” will be, at least as it relates to landlords.

It’s the mom and pop landlord.

It’s the people who have often put their entire life savings into a few properties hoping to build up their assets or creating a retirement income to supplement their lackluster Social Security benefits.

And now, Mom and Pop landlords are under attack.

First, there was the Emergency Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Legislation.

It began with a non-starter, like a shot across the bow called the “Emergency Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Legislation” sponsored by Rep. Ilham Omar. You can read that proposed bill here.

This bill first floated the idea of a Congress mandated payment cancellation for all rent effective April 2020 and lasting the duration of the national emergency. During that time, no one could be evicted for nonpayment of rent. No interest or late payment could accrue.

Landlords could apply for help with the payments since they now bear the brunt of the cost of maintaining a property including mortgage interest, property tax, insurance, HOA dues, repairs, and the like.

But there’s a catch.

Under the “Emergency Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Legislation”, if the landlord gets help, then he has to agree to some terms:

Requirements – Landlords who receive relief funds through the HUD program must agree to the following fair renting terms for a period of 5 years:

i. a rent freeze;

ii. just-cause evictions;

iii. mandatory documentation with any just-cause eviction;

iv. no source of income discrimination;

v. coordination with local housing authorities to make new vacancies eligible to voucher holders;

vi. provision of 10 percent equity to tenants; and,

vii. no admissions restrictions on the basis of:

  1. sexual identity or orientation,

  2. gender identity or expression,

  3. conviction or arrest record,

  4. credit history, or

  5. immigration status.

If you’re a mom and pop landlord, congratulations! You just got a new partner! It’s your tenant who hasn’t put a dime into the property and has lived there for free for months.

That bill didn’t get much further, but unfortunately, some of the ideas are back again.

Now there’s the “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act”

There’s a new Bill introduced on 5/12/2020, the “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act”  You can read that bill here.

There are over 1400 pages in the Act and it would take much longer than this article to carefully analyze each piece. So, let’s focus just on the part that impacts the Mom and Pop landlord.

It starts with rent. If you own subsidized housing, the tenants aren’t required to pay but there appears to be some help you as the landlord can get with the payments.

There are also some smaller amounts set aside for areas that have the worst unemployment rate. But it’s not a lot of money and the rules aren’t very clear. Without clear-cut guidelines, it seems like the money never ends up where it’s planned.

If you own regular rentals, be prepared to subsidize your tenants.

Unfortunately, there is a whole lot less help if you own regular rentals. The following applies for all property, referred to as “covered dwellings” in the Act:

“The term ‘‘covered dwelling’’ means a dwelling that is occupied by a tenant— (A) pursuant to a residential lease; or  (B) without a lease or with a lease terminable at will under State law.” (see page 531)

Basically, all residential rental property falls into this category.

Here is what is said,

The lessor of a covered dwelling may not make, or cause to be made, any filing with the court of jurisdiction to initiate  a legal action to recover possession of the covered dwelling from the tenant regardless of cause, except when a tenant perpetrates a serious criminal act that threatens the health, life, or safety of other tenants, owners, or staff  of the property in which the covered dwelling is located. (see page 531)

The period to be covered is from the date of enactment of the bill until 6 months after the end of the emergency declared on March 13, 2020 (page 526).

That means that the landlord can’t evict a tenant who doesn’t pay. It also means that the landlord can’t evict a tenant who vandalizes a property, rips out all the appliances, equipment, furnishings and floor coverings or who is threatening to other tenants. It also means you can’t evict for petty crimes. You can only evict if there is a serious criminal act that threatens your life or that of other tenants.

That’s a pretty broad window.

Here’s what this means for the landlord.

But let’s consider what that means for the Mom and Pop landlord. Not only have he or she saved for the down payment, forgoing luxuries they would have wanted but also weekends and evenings caring for the property.

According to data from the National Apartment Association, Real Capital Analytics, and the Institute of Real Estate Management, for every dollar of rent that is received, the following is allocated:

  • 39 cents goes to the mortgage payment

  • 14 cents goes to property tax,

  • 27 cents goes to ongoing maintenance,

  • 10 cents goes to major improvements, and

  • Just 9 cents goes to the owner.

There is a promise of forbearance in the bill. However, it’s not quite as all-encompassing as you might hope. It’s only for single-family homes (defined as 1-4-unit properties) and mobile homes. The forbearance period would be basically the same as the rental stay period. However, the amount of the forbearance will need to be repaid. There are some guidelines to either extend the loan period or reduce the rent.

So, while the tenant can avoid paying and actually cause physical damage to the property, the owner will need to keep paying for property tax, insurance, HOA dues, repairs, and the like. And he will need to catch up on the payments one way or the other at the end. There is no requirement for the tenant to ever pay for the missed payments, unpaid utilities, or damages.

If you have a multi-family unit (defined as 5 or more units), your tenants have the same rights to not pay you and to not be evicted, but you have an even shorter period to pay back the missed mortgage payments.

Then there’s this issue for investors.

There is one more warning in the real estate section. It has to do with investors in the real estate secondary market. They really make the market work. When you, as a real estate buyer, purchase a home with a loan from your Local Bank, Local Bank needs to package and sell that loan as soon as possible. Local Bank makes money giving out loans, not holding loans. The market works by securitizing mortgages.

Congress warns us that real estate lending might not be a good investment. From page 565, “Investors in mortgage securitizations are or should be aware of servicers’ thin capitalization, liquidity expectation that the terms of servicing contracts will be enforceable at times of national financial crisis.”

Since the small Mom and Pop real estate investors often rely on mortgages for their small investments, this could be another blow as investors are warned away from the investment by an Act of Congress, no less.

As of today, this is still just a proposed bill. Some or none of it may pass into law. This is something to watch, though, as things are rapidly changing.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z47kRv Tyler Durden

Peer-Reviewed Study Rejects Pangolins As Intermediary Species For COVID-19

Peer-Reviewed Study Rejects Pangolins As Intermediary Species For COVID-19

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/15/2020 – 17:10

A prime suspect in the ‘wet market’ coronavirus origin theory was just given a pass, after a peer-reviewed study found that the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, could not have jumped from pangolins to humans.

As a refresher, SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19 in humans, is 96% identical to a coronavirus strain found in bats known as RaTG13 – which was incidentally collected in a cave in Yunnan, China by scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

On its own, RaTG13 cannot infect humans, however SARS-CoV-2 has a ‘receptor binding motif’ (RBM) which is identical to a pangolin strain of coronavirus – stoking speculation that pangolins were an intermediary species, or ‘reservoir’ between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 (despite the fact that pangolins weren’t sold at the wet market).

That theory has just been disproven by a team of researchers in Guangdong, China.

Via PLOS:

The outbreak of a novel corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the city of Wuhan, China has resulted in more than 1.7 million laboratory confirmed cases all over the world. Recent studies showed that SARS-CoV-2 was likely originated from bats, but its intermediate hosts are still largely unknown. In this study, we assembled the complete genome of a coronavirus identified in 3 sick Malayan pangolins. The molecular and phylogenetic analyses showed that this pangolin coronavirus (pangolin-CoV-2020) is genetically related to the SARS-CoV-2 as well as a group of bat coronaviruses but do not support the SARS-CoV-2 emerged directly from the pangolin-CoV-2020.

Which leaves us with the following leading theories as to the origins of SARS-CoV-2:

  1. A bat coronavirus with a never before seen pangolin-like RBM came from a wet market that didn’t sell bats or pangolins, and now some other species is the intermediary – unless a pangolin is eventually found with SARS-CoV-2.
  2. It was engineered at Fort Detrick, Maryland’s USAMRIID and spread by the US army in a clandestine mission last October during a sporting event in Wuhan, China (a theory promoted by the CCP).
  3. Scientists working with bat coronavirus, in the exact town it emerged from – who made headlines in 2015 for modifying bat coronaviruses specifically to infect humans (and were internationally admonished for it) – either created SARS-CoV-2 by splicing pangolin receptors onto RaTG13, or captured it in nature, and an employee accidentally infected herself before going shopping at the wet market during the virus’s long asymptomatic period (and hasn’t been heard from since).

Read the peer-reviewed study below:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fN7aUx Tyler Durden

Americans Are Isolating Themselves Less, but That Doesn’t Mean They Are Abandoning COVID-19 Precautions

“Social distancing” in the United States has dropped “significantly” since late March, USA Today reports, citing new Gallup poll results. But what that means is not at all clear once you look at the question Gallup asked, and the picture gets even fuzzier when you consider the findings of another survey that asked Americans about their readiness to resume something approximating normal life.

Gallup’s poll, which was conducted from May 4 to May 10, asked participants to pick one of five descriptions for their behavior during the previous 24 hours:

1) “completely isolated yourself, having no contact with people outside your household”

2) “mostly isolated yourself, having very little contact with people outside your household”

3) “partially isolated yourself, having some contact with people outside your household”

4) “isolated yourself a little, still having a fair amount of contact with people outside your household”

5) “did not make any attempt to isolate yourself from people outside your household”

Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves, down from a peak of 75 percent in a Gallup poll conducted from March 30 to April 5. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states. But since isolate and contact are ambiguous, equating this shift in reported behavior with a decline in medically meaningful “social distancing” is problematic.

If someone who was not leaving his house at all finally ventured out for a walk or a quick trip to the grocery store, for example, he would be “isolating” himself less and might be having more “contact” with other people (passers-by on the street, employees and other shoppers at the store), but that does not necessarily mean he ran a significant risk of catching the COVID-19 virus or passing it on to others. If his contact was limited to waving at a neighbor, or if he wore a mask to the supermarket and maintained an appropriate distance from other similarly masked people, his odds of catching or transmitting the virus would still be infinitesimal.

If “social distancing” means complete isolation, the Gallup results indicate that it is becoming less common. But that is not necessarily the case if “social distancing” means taking reasonable precautions.

A recent Piplsay survey that asked more-specific questions suggests that Americans generally remain quite cautious about COVID-19 risks. While 53 percent of respondents said they were “very comfortable” with “returning to work,” that was conditioned on “adequate precautions.” Even with precautions, 47 percent were “not very comfortable” or “not all comfortable” with resuming work.

What about “using public transport during the pandemic”? Only 24 percent were “very comfortable but with adequate precautions,” while 21 percent were “not very comfortable,” 18 percent were “not at all comfortable,” and 37 percent said they “won’t be taking public transport anytime soon.”

The results were similar for “visiting restaurants, malls, gyms, salons, etc.” Forty-six percent of respondents said they would wait “a month or more after they reopen,” 30 percent said they’d wait “a few weeks,” and only 24 percent were ready to patronize such businesses right away.

The respondents also generally planned to continue wearing masks and/or gloves in public. While 24 percent said they’d do so only “when/where it’s mandatory,” the rest said they were prepared to use protective gear voluntarily for periods ranging from “another few weeks” to “another 2–3 months at least.”

Whatever you think about the merits of COVID-19 lockdowns, they cannot last forever—or even until a vaccine is developed and deployed, which could take another year or more—because they impose enormous economic and social costs. Isolating known disease carriers for a couple of weeks is one thing; indefinitely isolating the entire population is quite another. Reopening the economy is largely about deciding what kind of social distancing is both sensible and sustainable.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WAIozi
via IFTTT

As COVID-19 Approached, CDC Asked Congress for More Money To Fight the Drug War

Just two weeks after he’d tweeted that there was “no confirmed person-to-person spread” of the new coronavirus emerging from China, Centers for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield submitted to Congress a 512-page budget request asking for more than $7 billion in taxpayer money.

That document shines some light on the CDC’s decadeslong problem with mission creep,  which may have critically undermined the agency’s ability to respond effectively to the pandemic.

Among other things, the CDC sought $100 million for its Drug Free Communities program and another $100 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a federal agency that has repeatedly been on the budgetary chopping block because even its defenders don’t seem to know exactly what value it provides.

As part of that funding proposal, the CDC told Congress that it planned to build on previous successes like “expanded efforts to partner with public safety (e.g., law enforcement, first responders) by collaborating with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to fund 25 pilot projects” aimed at reducing opioid overdoses. Another CDC project claimed to target “the stigma associated with opioid use disorder within the Native American culture.”

Opioid abuse is a serious public health problem, of course, but it’s worth asking whether the CDC is the appropriate agency for addressing it. After all, the CDC’s mission statement says it seeks to “prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to disease outbreaks at their source,” not that it serves as a clearinghouse for government spending on public health.

The same questions can be asked of many other aspects of the CDC’s most recent budget request. In touting its recent successes, for example, the CDC highlighted how it raised awareness about neonatal dental care by advertising in Times Square. The effort generated “more than 6 million impressions,” according to the budget request document, but did it help stop an viral outbreak? Similarly, the CDC’s development of “a web‐​based data visualization dashboard to explore 1.4 million workers’ compensation claims in Ohio, creating a causation‐​specific injury surveillance system using existing claims databases” might have been useful in some ways, but it hardly seems to qualify as preventing or detecting deadly diseases.

“In general, less is more with federal agencies,” writes Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institue. “Federal mission‐​sprawl often results in overlaps with state, local, and private activities, and it distracts federal leaders from their core responsibilities.”

As I wrote earlier this week, the CDC’s budget was roughly 14 times larger in 2019 than it was in 1987—even though overall government spending has increased only about 4.5 times in the same period. After looking through previous CDC budget requests, Edwards concludes that the agency’s workforce has increased by 12 percent between 2010 and 2019.

Americans should be wondering if they are getting what they are paying for. The CDC fumbled the response to the coronavirus outbreak in several key ways—first by downplaying the seriousness of the disease, then by delaying the development of testing kits, and perhaps most crucially by developing tests that didn’t work.

It’s impossible to know if those mistakes could have been avoided if the agency had stuck to its original mission of combatting deadly diseases rather than straying into a wide field of public health issues, including everything from vaping to gun violence. If nothing else, trimming the CDC’s budget would have kept it from duplicating similar research at the National Institutes of Health or elsewhere within the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Congress needs to go in and start directing where and how CDC can and cannot use its money,” suggests Michelle Minton, a senior fellow at the free market Competitive Enterprise Institue, and the author of a recent report on the CDC’s mission creep. “The CDC should be made to focus—since it is not going to do it on its own—on infectious and contagious diseases.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LzhZf4
via IFTTT