Month: February 2016

Donald Trump Is #NoLabels On Mushrooms

“Analyzing Trump in the ideological terms that are now the only political language we have, journalists have seen Trump as an inconsistent conservative,” Mark Schmitt writes at Polyarchy. But perhaps, he suggests, “it makes more sense to see Trump as simply unmoored from any strong ideological commitments.” Not in the sense that Trump flip-flops a lot and tells his audience what it wants to hear—we all know that already—but in terms of his core appeal:

The technocrat in his boardroomRunning through all his riffs is really a rejection of ideology and an assertion of simple competence. Even on immigration, Trump has been insistent that his Muslim freeze is not based on any deep conviction, but just a pause to “figure out what’s going on.” (Trump is quite insistent on this point when criticized.)

The nerve Trump has struck may not be one of ideological extremism, but rather a raw desire for managerial competence and an exhaustion with ideological battle. To those of us who know a little bit about Trump’s business history, this seems risible. If we recognize the limits of presidential power and the complexity of the veto points in the US political system, Trump seems dangerously ignorant. But if you don’t pay much attention to legislative politics, didn’t read Spy magazine in the early ’90s, and assume that Trump is the unfailing managerial genius that he presents himself to be, it makes perfect sense.

Your very own No Labels label

The underlying belief here—the idea that what the country really needs is a good, strong manager—is itself ideologically loaded. But the people who embrace this idea see themselves as anti-ideological, in that familiar #NoLabels manner. As my colleague Matt Welch wrote a few years ago, “the single most powerful ideological strain in today’s body politic” may be the one that “sells itself as being beyond ideology—hence, more attractive to those who nurture a rational disgust for politicians—and then so readily adheres to the program of whoever is wielding power.” Or in Trump’s case, the man who wants to wield power.

This is one of the ways Trump resembles Ross Perot, who used to say he’d handle one issue or another by getting the “best experts” in a room together, having them figure out a solution, and enacting their plan with no nonsense. Trump may be under the impression that he’s the best expert on everything himself, but he’s offering the same dream of a manager-hero who saves the country by overcoming politics. Given his history, he’s a weird vessel for that fantasy. But it’s still going to be a fantasy no matter who stars in it.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/23EKfzh
via IFTTT

Are Liberals Winning the Culture Wars?

Culture wars are a steadfast part of the American identitiy, and with so many being waged, it’s hard to keep score and determine which side—social liberals or conservatives—is winning.

However, religious historian religious historian Stephen Prothero insists that liberals are the winners. ”The liberal side on cultural questions does have the Constitution largely on its side. It has the Bill of Rights on its side in terms of liberty.”

Prothero, whose new book is titled Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars (Even When They Lose Elections), recently sat down with Reason TV’s Todd Krainin to discuss America’s long history of cultural wars, religious liberty, and why he thinks liberals are the cultural war winners.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/23EKfiV
via IFTTT

The Iowa Caucuses Are Insane

As you watch the election returns roll in from Iowa tonight, and listen to the TV pundits argue and analyze and explain What It All Means, and then check back in at Reason—make sure to check back in!—to find out we think it means, remember: The caucus process itself is kind of bonkers, and it is at least a little bit crazy that it’s such a big deal in the nation’s political process.

The first problem with the Iowa caucuses is Iowa itself. To say the demographics do not exactly match the demographics of the nation is an understatement: It is a fairly small, very white (94 percent!), heavily evangelical state. Even amongst residents, not everyone can participate, because the caucuses are held in the evening, and, with a few exceptions, you have to show up, and in some cases stay for quite a while, often in fairly bad weather (a blizzard warning is in effect in some parts of the state tonight).

The result is that this quadrennial kickoff event for the presidential election reflects a fairly small number of people. As Jeff Greenfield recently pointed out in a Politico Magazine essay on how Iowa hijacks the nation’s democracy, a turnout of 350,000 is enough to break records—and even that is just 1 in 6 of eligible adults. It’s practically an Iowa focus group. 

The winners, then, are ultimately selected by a very small number of people who represent a very small percentage of possible voters. In 2008, for example, Barack Obama’s win in Iowa helped solidify his image as a plausible contender for the Democratic nomination and the presidency; yet as Greenfield notes, just 4 percent of eligible voters in the state voted for him.

So just 4 percent of eligible voters in a state that is totally unrepresentative of the nation demographically helped set out current president on his way to the White House. 

And the voting process they used was nuts. Iowa Democrats use a rowdy, drawn-out process that involves groups of people standing around yelling at each other, sometimes for hours, and requires people to physically move themselves to stand with other supporters of their candidate. The idea is to form a pack for your candidate, and then get others to join your group. As Drake University political scientist Dennis Goldford recently told Vox’s Andrew Prokop, “It’s kind of like a carnival, where the candidates’ supporters say, ‘Come over to us, to our group!'” There’s no secret ballot—which surely depresses turnout and complicates voting for many—and the event can last for hours. Convention delegates are then divided up based on the results; candidates who fail to secure the support of 15 percent in a precinct get nothing. (Here’s an explanation of how it works using Legos.)

The Republican caucus process is less raucous—there’s no yelling involved, or at least not officially—but it’s still more time-intensive than a traditional primary. Basically, they just listen to a half an hour’s worth of speeches, and then cast a secret ballot. But they still have to show up at the predetermined time, and they still have to sit through the preamble before voting. It’s a commitment.

(The time-intensive nature of the process, and the requirement to show up at a set time in the evening, is one of the big reasons why a lot of people are questioning Donald Trump’s ability to turn out voters in Iowa, despite his consistent lead in the polls there.)

It’s true, as Reason’s Stephanie Slade pointed out earlier today, that Iowa Republicans don’t have a very strong recent record of picking future presidents or nominees. Rick Santorum—Rick Santorum!—won in 2012, which gives you a pretty good sense of what kind of candidate Iowa Republicans are into. (Thanks to YouTube, you can relive the glory of his victory speech over and over again.)  Santorum obviously didn’t go on to be the GOP nominee. But his win in Iowa elevated his shoestring-budget campaign, and helped shift the Republican race around him.

Even when it doesn’t pick winners, it helps set the priorities for the parties, orienting them more toward government-backed ethanol handouts and social conservatism than they would be were Iowa not so central to the nominating process.

It’s a process to which politicians aggressively and shamelessly pander. Here’s Santorum in 2012: “You — you, by standing up and not compromising, by standing up and being bold and leading, leading with that burden and responsibility you have to be first, you have taken the first step of taking back this country.” Oh Iowa, great Iowa! How great you are! 

All of which is to say that it’s a system that provides clear benefits to Iowa and its voters and issues, but not so much everywhere else. Instead of celebrating this handout, it’s worth recognizing this for what it is—effectively, it’s a subsidy to Iowans at the nation’s expense. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1UDPYiQ
via IFTTT

U.S. Falls Back Down the Economic Freedom Ranking

HeritageEconFreedom2016Every year, the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation issues its Index of Economic Freedom in which it ranks countries based on how well they respect property rights, levels of government spending, regulatory efficiency, and trade freedom. In the latest report the U.S. falls into the category of “mostly free. The Heritage Foundation researchers note in the supplement on Economic Freedom in the United States:

Global economic freedom has reached record levels, but America is moving in the opposite direction. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. in 2016 has tied its worst score ever in the Index of Economic Freedom, wiping out a decade of progress that had seen the U.S. rise as high as fourth place in the annual rankings for 2007.

In 2016, U.S. ratings for labor freedom, business freedom, and fiscal free- dom have flagged notably, and the regulatory burden is increasingly costly. Worse, government favoritism toward entrenched interests has hurt innova- tion and contributed to a lackluster recovery and sub-par income growth.

EconFreedomDecline

As a result, the United States is only the 11th freest economy in the 2016 Index, trailing comparable advanced economies such as Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, and even the United Kingdom. The U.S. remains mired in the ranks of the “mostly free,” the second-tier economic freedom status into which it dropped in 2010.

USEconFreedomRankingThe U.S. is the only country to have recorded such a sustained loss of eco- nomic freedom in recent years, and the causes of the decline are clear. The overall U.S. score decline over the past decade is 5.8 points on the Index’s 100- point scale.

Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government under the Obama Administration, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance, health care, and the environment, has hit wide swaths of the econ- omy, affecting almost every American in some way and reducing opportunities for non-governmental production and investment. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness.

Here’s hoping (faintly) that Election 2016 might improve the scores in the future.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1P143Fw
via IFTTT

Last Minute Encouragement for Rand Paul: He Does Seem to Do Way Better with Generally Unpolled Cell Phone Users

Corie W. Stephens at Rare sums up some interestingly encouraging last minute polling news via Real Clear Politics. Paul and his campaign have long insisted that the majority of polls were missing their people.

On Sunday, Real Clear Politics added a poll to their election average conducted by Opinion Savvy, which includes voters contacted on their cell phones….

In this poll, the data provided by likely Republican caucus-goers is broken into voters contacted by landline versus those reached on their mobile devices.

Of voters polled on cell phones, Paul is tied for first place with 26.5 percent of the vote. Paul wins outright among voters between the ages of 18-29, capturing 22.5 percent of their vote.

Overall, this poll gives Paul 8.6 percent of the vote, placing him in a tie for 4th (within the poll’s margin of error).

My reporting on Rand’s campaign and its chances from this morning.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1PQpGMh
via IFTTT

Ron Insana Kindly Requests The Fed Lower Rates To Negative To Help His Virtual Portfolio

Over the weekend, in response to Japan’s stunning NIRP announcement, we predicted that two things would emerge: calls for the banning of cash, along the lines of previous invocations by “serious economists” such as these:

… and comparable calls urging NIRP in the US, because as is by now well-known, a global NIRP regime effectively implies the prohibition of cash as it provides an immediate loophole to the punitive nature of negative interest rates.

Sure enough, just hours after we made these forecasts, Bloomberg’s editors released an Op-Ed urging an end to cash and an invocation to “Bring on the Cashless Future.” And, just as expected, less than 24 hours later, the first call begging for the Fed to “go negative on interest rates” hit earlier today when none other than everyone’s favorite “virtual portfolio manager”, Ron Insana (recall “I Only Manage A Virtual Portfolio Which I Took To Cash Last Thursday“) wrote a CNBC op-ed laying out why, at least one “manager” of virtual money  believes that “the Fed must go negative on interest rates.”

Here are the amusing highlights:

This has been, throughout monetary history, an extremely rare phenomenon, but it is becoming increasingly commonplace, as the world fights both recession and deflation simultaneously.

 

* * *

 

Fed policy, for many reasons, some justifiable, some not, is now grossly out of step with the monetary policies of the world’s other major central banks. Put more simply, the Fed is tightening (or normalizing), while the rest of the world is easing.

 

That sets up a scenario in which there are but a few potential outcomes, none very promising.

 

First, the Fed continues to raise rates, weakening an already decelerating a U.S. and global economy. That pushes the dollar higher, commodity prices lower, weakens U.S. exports, and cuts into the profits of U.S. multi-national corporations, exacerbating a profit recession in corporate America. Such continued intransigence on the part of the Fed, ignoring the accelerating weakness of nearly all of our major trading partners, would materially raise the risk of recession here at home, and exacerbate the one abroad.

 

Virtually all of the world’s major countries except China and Mexico are in recession, whether led by a contraction in manufacturing, or by the bust in commodities.

 

Second, the Fed may simply choose to hold off on raising rates until there is more clarity on the outlook for the global economy.

 

But even the simple act of doing nothing, as other central banks ease further, would strain foreign exchange values, accelerate capital outflows from countries whose currencies are plunging against the dollar, and rapidly increase the debt servicing costs of those countries – like Russia, China and other emerging markets, which have heavy dollar-denominated debt loads.

 

In other words, if global monetary policies continue to diverge dramatically, there will likely be unintended consequences that lead to a rupture in world markets, strained by wildly fluctuating currency values, a further crash in commodity prices and a rush of capital out of the world’s weakest economies.

Unintended central planning consequences leading to a rupture in world markets? That is unacceptable.

As for Insana’s conclusion:

“The Fed should, given recent events, simply admit its error of pre-emptively raising rates before both its employment and inflation mandates had been met, and reduce the Federal Funds rate back to zero, pending further improvements in the economy. Certainly, the Federal Reserve risks its credibility by admitting an error, but that is a far better outcome than risking recession by not doing so. While I am hopeful the Fed will halt the rate hikes for the foreseeable future, I am less optimistic the Fed will fully reverse course.”

We doubt we are the only ones who find it amusing when Ron Insana discusses “credibility.” That said, of course the Fed will not only halt its rate hike, but ultimately go NIRP as we have said all along. However, it will take far more serious “established economists”, those whose credibility will also be tarnished by admission that the so-called recovery of the past 7 years never actually was, demanding for Yellen to do that than merey CNBC op-ed columnists who are simply worried about the virtual value of their virtual investments. 

In the meantime, we can’t help but be amused by the “arguments” laid out by the same army of groupthink penguins who for years were jumping at the opportunity to explain who the world is recovering and how the global economy is growing while mocking those who told the truth, only to do a dramatic U-Turn, and now urgently explain to anyone who cares to listen that they were actually wrong all along.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1UDOm8N Tyler Durden

Puerto Rico “Generously” Offers To Repay 54 Cents On The Dollar To Creditors Owed $70 Billion

Height Securities’ Daniel Hanson is “deeply skeptical” about the viability of Puerto Rico’s proposal for restructuring the island’s $70 billion in debt.

Hanson, in a note out late last week, said Governor Alejandro Padilla was “significantly unlikely” to present a “credible” plan and that the commonwealth’s offer to creditors may be “laughably low.”

As a reminder, Puerto Rico defaulted on some of its non-GO debt last month, presaging more missed payments this year as creditors come calling in May and July.

So far, the island has been able to avoid a messy default on its GO debt by utilizing a revenue “clawback” mechanism that effectively allows the commonwealth to divert money earmarked for non-GO debt, a move decried by the monolines.

In December, the market thought there might be a light at the end of the tunnel when creditors and the island’s power utility managed to get the bond insurers to go along with a $8 billion restructuring for PREPA, but that fell apart a week ago when lawmakers failed to vote on a new tax. Ultimately, the deadline to pass the bill was extended to February 16, but the fraugh negotiations underscore how precarious the situation has become. 

On Monday, we got our first look at Puerto Rico’s opening salvo in what’s likely to be protracted battle to tackle the entire debt burden.

“Puerto Rico on Monday announced a major exchange offer to creditors that could reduce its debt by about $23 billion, the opening salvo in efforts to resolve the island’s crippling $70 billion debt crisis,” Reuters reports, adding that “the new plan would reduce a $49.2 billion chunk of Puerto Rico’s debt by about 46 percent, to $26.5 billion, by offering creditors payout reductions under a new, so-called “base bond” with better legal protections.”

GO bond holders would take a 28% hit, COFINA holders would lose 51%, and everyone else would take a 61% haircut. Here’s how the scheme will work:

On the bright side, creditors would receive “growth bonds” designed to make up for the losses. The payout on those securities will be tied to the island’s economy and as you might recall, things aren’t going so well. Here’s a table from Moody’s Analytics would should give you an idea about how valuable these “growth bonds” are likey to be:

“Interest payment on the base bond would begin in 2018 (so that’s a two year moratorium), reaching 5 percent a year by 2021, while payouts on the growth bond would begin 10 years after the close of the offer,” Reuters continues. The base would give creditors the rights to tax receipts as a security measure.

Obviously, this isn’t likely to go over well with creditors, but then again, bond holders probably knew the proposal would be, to quote Height Securities’ Daniel Hanson again, “laughable.” 

Of course no one will be laughing if the deal doesn’t get done and the island crashes into a messy GO default triggering a nightmarish deluge of costly litigation.

We’ll close the way we began – with a quote from Daniel Hanson:

“Puerto Rico debt restructuring proposal isn’t credible. The targets are “wholly unrealistic,” and require creditors to trust Puerto Rico will make good faith effort to repay them.”

*  *  *

Full proposal

16 02 01FinalProposal-Revised


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PueOl8 Tyler Durden

Good things require a little bit of effort. So does freedom.

It’s been nearly a dozen years now that I’ve been living abroad as an expat.

In that period I’ve lived in at least half a dozen countries and traveled to more than 100 on all seven continents.

People often ask me questions like when am I going ‘back home’, as if my leaving the mother ship was the result of some temporary insanity.

But when I look back on that decision, it really feels like one of the best I’ve ever made in my life.

Being an expat can really be an exceptional adventure (though certainly one with its ups and downs).

As I explain to people who find the lifestyle unusual, foreigners almost always get better treatment wherever they go.

Governments treat their own citizens like medieval serfs… dairy cows to be milked dry and taxed into the grave.

But with foreigners it can be the exact opposite as governments often need to attract new investment capital or skilled labor.

They roll out the red carpet with special incentives; here in Chile, for example, the government has a lengthy tax-free regime on worldwide income for foreigners, as well as a brand new foreign investor incentive.

In Panama they created the famous ‘pensionado’ incentive program to attract foreign retirees many years ago.

Plus as a foreigner, you’re pretty disconnected from the local system.

When you’re born and raised in a country, the government talons dig deeper into your flesh every year.

But when you move to a new country, they don’t have decades of records on you.

It’s like starting over with a blank slate where you can actually live below the radar quite easily.

Foreigners can even have an easier time in the US, especially non-resident aliens.

Bloomberg recently demonstrated how the US is the #1 tax haven in the world, something that we have been saying for years here at Sovereign Man.

Foreigners can register an anonymous Delaware LLC and stash ill-gotten gains in the US banking system with total privacy. US citizens would go to jail for this.

Foreigners can also invest in US stock markets and pay absolutely zero capital gains tax. Citizens, on the other hand, can pay 23.4% up to 39% or more.

Taxation is actually a major benefit of being overseas.

Most nationalities don’t tax their non-resident citizens.

A French couple, for example, can completely (and legally) escape France’s tax insanity simply by moving to Panama.

US citizens are nearly alone in the world in being taxed on their worldwide income, even if they don’t live in the US.

But there are plenty of exceptions.

My tax bill last year was $0.00. And I expect to pay zero tax this year, all because I’ve taken advantage of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion which allows you to earn over $100,000 tax-free subject to basic foreign residency requirements.

Your spouse can take advantage of it as well, doubling the benefit. Plus you can receive a housing deduction as well, boosting your tax savings to $80,000 or more.

Imagine having an extra $80,000 in your pocket each year.

Better yet, imagine the feeling of no longer providing financial support to a government that murders children by remote control drone strikes.

With the tax savings alone, you may achieve a huge bump in your lifestyle, especially as the cost of living abroad can be lower than back home.

Even here in Chile, which is nowhere near the top of the list of cheapest places in the world, you can buy a small organic farm for about $250,000.

That price gets you about 10 acres of mature, productive fruit trees that generate a healthy profit, plus 15 acres more for a private garden, plus a well-constructed home, plus multiple sources of water.

All of that in a lovely valley with expansive views of the Andes and 300+ days of sunshine annually, about 3 hours from the capital.

One of the things that I value most as an expat is being left alone– especially being left alone to do what I want with my own property.

I’ve had three different houses built in this country alone.

And despite all those projects, I have applied for a grand total of zero permits, licenses, and other nonsense. I just sent in crews and started working.

Granted, there were probably some regulations that I violated. But no one seems to care.

That’s been my experience in many countries around the world as a foreigner– there’s a general feeling of being totally disconnected from the state.

You may be thinking right now, “Sounds great. I’d love to escape this madness and live a better, cheaper, more profitable, more free lifestyle abroad. But I have too many constraints.”

I get it. Family. Work. Not everyone can just pick up and go.

But even if you’re not able to walk away right now, it still makes sense to have a plan.

What are the key triggers that would make you ready to walk away? What resources would you need to make that happen? Where would you go? What steps can you take in the meantime to increase your freedom?

If you start educating yourself now, you can learn enough to set goals and make a plan to achieve them.

It’s just like anything else. You’re not going to double the size of your savings without first understanding the markets and planning your investment strategy.

You’re not going to get in shape without first learning about diet and nutrition, and then planning out your meals and workouts.

Good things require a little bit of effort and investment. So does freedom. But you can get there.

If you’d like help, I’m going to be holding a webinar soon, designed to teach you about tools and tactics that are necessary in creating your own Plan B.

For now, I’m not planning to charge anything for the session, so you can sign up here for more information on how to attend absolutely free.

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/1UDIaO5
via IFTTT

A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth, because when it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting the difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1nIS3Qb
via IFTTT

Zika Virus Threatens “Disaster In Rio” Olympics As WHO Declares Global Emergency

From the initial discovery in the heart of Ugandan forest darkness to mysterious genetically-modified Mosquitoes in Brazil, the newest threat to human health (most notably pregnant women) is the ominous-sounding Zika virus. The epidemic is spreading from its epicenter in Brazil – threatening disaster at the Olympics with "female athletes to consider participation "very carefully"", to Colombia (with 2100 pregant women infected), and further north in America with CDC confirming 6 cases in Texas.

As we previously introduced, The World Health Organization is convening an Emergency Committee under International Health Regulations today, concerning the Zika virus ‘explosive’ spread throughout the Americas. The virus reportedly has the potential to reach pandemic proportions — possibly around the globe. But understandingwhy this outbreak happened is vital to curbing it. As the WHO statement said:

“A causal relationship between Zika virus infection and birth malformations and neurological syndromes … is strongly suspected. [These links] have rapidly changed the risk profile of Zika, from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions.

 

“WHO is deeply concerned about this rapidly evolving situation for 4 main reasons: the possible association of infection with birth malformations and neurological syndromes; the potential for further international spread given the wide geographical distribution of the mosquito vector; the lack of population immunity in newly affected areas; and the absence of vaccines, specific treatments, and rapid diagnostic tests […]

 

“The level of concern is high, as is the level of uncertainty.”

Zika seemingly exploded out of nowhere. Though it was first discovered in 1947, cases only sporadically occurred throughout Africa and southern Asia.

 

In 2007, the first case was reported in the Pacific. In 2013, a smattering of small outbreaks and individual cases were officially documented in Africa and the western Pacific. They also began showing up in the Americas. In May 2015, Brazil reported its first case of Zika virus — and the situation changed dramatically.

And now, as The BBC reports, an alarming mixture of confusion and fear is blighting the pregnancies of thousands of women across this teeming tropical city in the northeast of Brazil, and wherever else the Zika virus has infected people.

Every day the emergency clinic at one of Recife's largest hospitals sees queues of nervous women so long that they reach into the car park, and the medical staff, already stretched, are now overwhelmed.

 

The enemy is uncertainty because the symptoms of Zika infection are worryingly vague: aches, a rash, itching and conjunctivitis are all typical and the slightest sign of them naturally leads the women to rush for help.

 

And for women thinking of pregnancy, there is a warning from one young mother.

 

Micaela da Souza's daughter Anica Vitoria has severe microcephaly and needs to be continually rocked to prevent her from becoming agitated, and her advice reflects the uncertainties of the science.

 

"I'd say it's not the moment to get pregnant because so far nobody knows where does this virus come from, how can this happen?"

This has further worried female athletes and attendees of the forthcoming Olympics. As The Daily Mail reports,

Rio's Olympics are on the verge of disaster as fear grows over the Zika virus, which has left more than 4,000 newborns with shrunken heads.

 

Female spectators and even athletes of childbearing age are being warned by countries and medical professionals around the world to reconsider their plans to travel to Brazil for fear of what could happen to their unborn children after the country was overrun by the mosquito-borne disease.

 

Russia and Australian officials have both raised fears for those women preparing to compete in August's Games, while numerous airlines around the world are offering pregnant women the chance to swap or refund their tickets to avoid travelling to affected areas – of which Brazil is the worst.

The combination of factors led Marcelo Castro, Brazil's health minister, to admit this week: 'We are losing the battle in a big way.'

But organisers are keen to stress the 2016 Games will go ahead – because they remain convinced Brazil will get the outbreak under control by the time the Games begin.

 

The country is now throwing everything it has at combating the problem. Ahead of this week's Carnival, more than 3,000 municipal health agents have been out on the city's streets, trying desperately to rid the city of its mosquito hotbeds.

 

They will be paying particular attention to Carnival and Olympic venues, which will be inspected daily during the big events.

 

But it seems the government's main hope for gaining control of the virus ahead of the Opening Ceremony in six months lies in something they have no control over whatsoever: the weather.

While Brazil is the country hit hardest by the disease – it has reported around 3,700 cases of microcephaly strongly suspected to be related to Zika – the virus is spreading  dramatically.

To Colombia (as Reuters reports)

More than 2,100 pregnant Colombian women are infected with the mosquito-borne Zika virus, the country's national health institute said on Saturday, as the disease continues its spread across the Americas.

 

The virus has been linked to the devastating birth defect microcephaly, which prevents fetus' brains from developing properly. There is no vaccine or treatment.

 

There are 20,297 confirmed cases of the disease in Colombia, the national health institute said in a epidemiology bulletin, among them 2,116 pregnant women.

To USA

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms six cases of Zika virus in Texas.

All of the cases are associated with travel to areas where Zika is currently being transmitted and all among residents of the southeast Texas region.

3rd confirmed case of Zika virus in greater Houston area; 2nd in city of Houston

Information about the patients is not being released.

And to Jamaica

Four-year-old child started showing symptoms Jan. 17 after returning to Jamaica from Texas, has now recovered, Health Ministry says in statement on website.

 

Case confirmed in tests by Caribbean Public Health Agency

 

Govt has adequate medication for treatment in event of additional cases being identified

Panic-mongering? None other than The CDC's Director himself said this virus is "spreading explosively," with travel notices posted for at least 22 countries…

 

And finally, following their convention today: It is official:

  • *WHO SAYS ZIKA, MICROCEPHALY `PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY'
  • *WHO:CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ZIKA IN PREGNANCY, MICROCEPHALY

The Zika virus is a global emergency, the World Health Organization said, citing possible links to infant brain damage…

The World Health Organization on Monday designated the Zika virus a public health emergency of international concern, an action it has taken only three times before, which paves the way for the mobilization of more funding and manpower to fight the mosquito-born pathogen spreading "explosively" through the Americas.

 

The declaration represents the WHO's highest level of alert and is only invoked in response to the most dire threats. The first time was in 2009 during the H1N1 influenza epidemic that is believed to have infected up to 200 million worldwide; the second in May 2014 when a paralyzing form of polio re-emerged in Pakistan and Syria; and the third in August 2014 with Ebola in West Africa.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1m8ElEs Tyler Durden