swordfish

From a friend: (Tell me he's wrong if you can) PBS news last night: "Scotus needs a black woman appointed because black people and women are 'underrepresented' on the court.” The statement is a lie. 1) The court is not a “representative" body. Congress is the representative body. The court is intended to be a meritocracy where “representative make-up” is immaterial. To think the members of the court must be representative is illogical, zero sum thinking, assuming the impossibility of human “color blindness”. Tell that to the “white" congress that passed the civil rights acts of 1965. 2) Congress is to be a representative body where elected “representatives” of various minorities have a voice, and sometimes a veto: filibuster. 3) The first SCOTUS limitation is that all appointees must be lawyers. 25% of all lawyers are female. 5% are black and 5% are hispanic. 4)One justice represents 11% of the court. Therefore, women (33%), black (11%) and Hispanic (11%) justices are overrepresented on the court compared to peers in the legal profession, not underrepresented. 5) Population is immaterial, but what about it? Is the court a “cross section” of the population or a cesspool of underrepresentation? Hispanics are about 18% of the US population and 11% of the court. Blacks are about 13% of the population and 11% of the court. Women are about 50.5% of the population and 33% of the court.. Since the court has 1 black, 3 females and one for sure Hispanic, and since one must have a whole justice and not a fractional justice: Blacks are “represented", Hispanics are less but still “represented" and women, seemingly “underrepresented". There are lots of reasons why the numbers do not support the underrepresentation of women claim. Apart from childbirth, the single most significant factor is that the percentage of women who choose to seek law as a career, although growing, is relatively much smaller that the number of men.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/blms-millions-go-unaccounted-for-after-leaders-quietly-jump-ship BLM's millions unaccounted for after leaders quietly jumped ship by Andrew Kerr, Investigative Reporter | | January 27, 2022 03:56 PM No one appears to have been in charge at Black Lives Matter for months. The address it lists on tax forms is wrong, and the charity's two board members won't say who controls its $60 million bankroll, a Washington Examiner investigation has found. BLM's shocking lack of transparency surrounding its finances and operations raises major legal and ethical red flags, multiple charity experts told the Washington Examiner. BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors appointed two activists to serve as the group's senior directors following her resignation in May amid scrutiny over her personal finances. But both quietly announced in September that they never took the jobs due to disagreements with BLM. They told the Washington Examiner they don't know who now leads the nation's most influential social justice organization. Paul Kamenar, counsel for conservative watchdog group the National Legal and Policy Center, said a full audit and investigation into Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the legal entity that represents the national BLM movement, is warranted. "This is grossly irregular and improper for a nonprofit with $60 million in its coffers," Kamenar said. BLM previously came under fire from local black activists after the New York Post reported in April that Cullors, then its executive director, had spent $3.2 million on real estate across the United States. The reports followed BLM's disclosure in February 2021 that it closed out 2020 with $60 million in its bank accounts. BLM denied allegations that Cullors spent BLM funds on her personal properties. However, BLM and other activist organizations under Cullors's control offered contracts to an art company led by the father of her only child, the Daily Caller reported. Cullors announced in May she was stepping down and that activists Makani Themba and Monifa Bandele would lead the organization as senior executives. But Themba and Bandele revealed in September that they never actually took the job because of disagreements with BLM's "acting Leadership Council." Both Themba and Bandele told the Washington Examiner they do not know who took over as BLM's top executive after their departure. And neither would say who served on the council. "We never actually started in the position, so we never received any detailed information," Themba said. While a charity's finances are ultimately the responsibility of its board of directors, BLM's bylaws explicitly state that its executive director "shall have charge of all funds and securities of the Corporation." The two remaining BLM board members, Shalomyah Bowers and Raymond Howard, did not return numerous requests for comment asking who has been in charge of BLM and its money since Cullors left the charity in May. Bowers served as the treasurer for multiple activist organizations run by Cullors, including BLM PAC and a Los Angeles-based jail reform group that paid Cullors $20,000 a month and dropped nearly $26,000 for "meetings" at a luxury Malibu beach resort in 2019. Bowers declined to comment when reached by phone on Monday. Howard has spoken openly on Facebook about his work with BLM and his close relationship with Cullors, but he appears to have recently taken steps to conceal his role with the charity. As recently as last Friday, Howard's LinkedIn profile stated that he is the director of operations for "An International Social Justice Organization." His page was modified after the Washington Examiner contacted Howard for comment and now states he serves as the director of operations for a "Non Profit." A reference to Howard's position as the finance and operations manager of New Impact Partners, a Dayton, Ohio-based consulting firm owned by his sister, was also removed from his LinkedIn profile. Also as recently as last Friday, a website for New Impact Partners attributed a quote to "Raymond" from "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation," thanking the consulting firm for its help solving BLM's organizational challenges. The attribution was removed from the website after the Washington Examiner asked Howard how much BLM has paid his sister's firm. Despite New Impact Partners's apparent efforts to conceal its affiliation with BLM, the consulting firm continues to solicit applications for its "Talent Network," which it says will connect job applicants directly to BLM and other activist organizations. Longtime charity expert Doug White said it's a red flag that BLM won't answer basic questions about its finances or leadership structure. "Sixty million dollars is not chump change," White said. "What BLM does is of tremendous social importance. That they won't give an honest or complete or straightforward answer in regards to its leadership is a concern. Not only do they not have an executive director right now, we think, but they also don't want to tell you how the organization is being run." BLM was not a charity in its own right for much of 2020, a year in which it received a windfall of cash from big corporations and individual donors spurred by the police killing of George Floyd and the nationwide riots that followed. Rather, BLM spent most of the year essentially borrowing the charitable status of two other California-based charities, Thousand Currents and the Tides Foundation, which served as BLM's fiscal sponsors. But the IRS granted BLM tax-exempt status in December 2020, enabling the group to operate as a charity independent of its former fiscal sponsors. And Thousand Currents reported in its most recent audited financial statements that it transferred $66.5 million directly into BLM's coffers in October 2020. Cullors signed the asset transfer on behalf of BLM on Sept. 16, 2020, according to a copy of the agreement provided to the Washington Examiner by the California Office of the Attorney General. BLM published a report last February saying it incurred $8.4 million in operating expenses in 2020 and that it closed out the year with $60 million under its control. But BLM reported to the IRS in August 2020 that it expected to incur precisely $12,706,366 in "Professional Fees" expenditures during the same calendar year, a figure $4.3 million higher than the top-line annual spending figure it later reported to the public in February. Kamenar said his watchdog group believes there should be a "full audit" of BLM to clear up the spending discrepancy. "Bottom line: Lot of questionable financial activity, organizational structure, location of the books, etc. that call for a full investigation," Kamenar said. Data that should be contained within BLM's Form 990 tax return for 2020, which was due to the IRS in November, would help clear up the organization's $4.3 million spending discrepancy. On Tuesday, a Washington Examiner reporter attempted to request BLM's 2020 Form 990 in person at the charity's office in Los Angeles, which the group disclosed as the location its books are stored in previous filings submitted to the IRS, only to be told by a security guard that there has never been a BLM office at the location. An unidentified BLM spokesperson informed the Washington Examiner on Thursday that the group does not currently maintain a "permanent office" and offered to mail a copy of its 990 within two weeks. Alan Dye, a partner at Webster, Chamberlain & Bean who specializes in nonprofit law, told the Washington Examiner that charities that don't submit their Form 990s on time could face fines from the IRS and some state-level charity oversight agencies. Styron, the CharityWatch executive director, said Form 990s are matters of public record and that BLM should have completed its 2020 form by now. "Irrespective of where any person falls on the political spectrum or what their position is on any social justice issue, hopefully, we can all agree that tax-subsidized public charities have an ethical responsibility to be transparent with the public about how they are operating and how the donations they receive are being used," Styron said. "The amount of money involved here is not insignificant." SF thought they may have been a little more organized than this.........?

Here's a scary thought (far-fetched as it may be) 1) Biden nominates Harris to SCOTUS (assuming she passes the hearing process) 2) Biden picks Hillary for VP (and gets his pick through a simple majority of both houses of Congress) 3) Biden retires (or his presidency ends in any manner after January 20, 2022) 4) Hillary becomes the next President........ Boom.......

https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/spotify-sides-with-joe-rogan-removes-neil-youngs-music/ Spotify has sided with its podcast superstar over Neil Young. The legendary folk singer gave the streaming behemoth an ultimatum earlier this week, saying he refused to allow his music on the same platform as Joe Rogan. The “Heart of Gold” singer accused Rogan and his podcast of spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccines. Spotify reportedly paid more than $100 million to be the exclusive home of Rogan’s show. Young, meanwhile, stands to lose 60% of his streaming income from his defiant stance, he said in a statement on his website. “We want all the world’s music and audio content to be available to Spotify users,” a spokesperson for the company told the Wall Street Journal. “With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators.” Since the start of the pandemic, the spokesman noted, Spotify has removed more than 20,000 COVID-related podcast episodes. Still, Young’s protests were not sufficient for it to drop its lucrative star talker. “We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon,” the spokesperson added. Rogan’s podcast has attracted an estimated 11 million listeners. Young’s letter — which is now deleted from his website — did not mince words in accusing the streaming giant of giving an undeserved platform to Rogan and his COVID-19 vaccine “misinformation.” “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” wrote the 76-year-old rock icon. “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines — potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.”YouTube scraps Joe Rogan podcast episode over Nazi Germany comparison The note even included a formal ultimatum: “They can have Neil Young or Rogan. Not Both.” In a statement posted on his website, Young thanked his publisher Hipgnosis and his label Warner Records/Reprise for supporting his ultimatum. “Losing 60% of worldwide streaming income by leaving SPOTIFY is a very big deal, a costly move, but worth it for our integrity and beliefs. Misinformation about COVID is over the line.” He went on to nudge other artists to take a similar stance. “I sincerely hope that other artists can make a move, but I can’t really expect that to happen,” Young said. “I did this because I had no choice in my heart. It is who I am. I am not censoring anyone. I am speaking my own truth.” Although Young did not specifically note which episodes he took issue with, Rogan did recently host Dr. Robert Malone, the “anti-vaxxer epidemiologist” who was recently booted from Twitter for alleged dissemination of vaccine misinformation, The Post previously reported. YouTube removed the episode, in which Malone compared the climate surrounding US public health to 1920s and 1930s Germany. Representatives for neither Joe Rogan nor Spotify immediately returned The Post’s request for comment. SF is not surprised, but Is SF the only one who sees Neil's hypocrisy here? The activist singer who once stood for anti-government, free-speech and most other liberal causes, decides to take this stand against free speech with the government over a vaccine? FTR - SF loves a lot of NY's music, and hasn't listened to Joe Rogan or even uses Spotify, but just found this interesting.

Sure is nice to know this President isn't going to be racist OR sexist with HIS pick for the SCOTUS.......🤣 https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/heres-who-biden-might-tap-to-replace-stephen-breyer-on-the-supreme-court/ President Biden pledged to pick a black woman as his first nominee to the US Supreme Court

Fauci spreading fear during the start of the AIDS awareness...... https://100percentfedup.com/unearthed-1983-video-shows-dr-fauci-pushing-theory-that-kids-can-get-aids-simply-by-being-in-close-contact-with-infected-individuals/ UNEARTHED 1983 VIDEO Shows Dr. Fauci Pushing Theory That Kids Can Get AIDS Simply By Being in “Close Contact” With Infected Individuals By Patty McMurray | Jan 24, 2022 A stunning clip of Dr. Fauci explaining how AIDS may be transmitted to children through “close contact,” was shared in a tweet by Kennedy W. Roberts. She tweeted the video in response to a Twitter feud that was initiated by the husband of Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg who was attempting to mock Dennis Praeger over comments he made on Newsmax: “During the AIDS crisis, can you imagine if gay men and intravenous drug users…had they been pariahs the way the non-vaccinated are? But it would’ve been inconceivable” Chasten Buttigieg responded: AIDS patients died because people feared simply touching them would lead to infection. Families abandoned their own children to be buried in unmarked graves. Let us know where we can send the books Dennis, God forbid you read one. Kennedy W. Roberts shared this video clip of Dr. Fauci spreading panic porn about the possiblity of children getting the deadly AIDS virus simply by being in “close contact” with infected adults. Although the NCBI (National Center For Biotechnology Information) clearly states – COVID rarely kills children, even compared with influenza, against which many children are already vaccinated. Our data show that for mortality COVID-19 is similar to flu, or less severe, in children. Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, have been pushing to vaccinate our youth against the CCP virus that has a 0.4% death rate in children. Watch Dr. Fauci pushing for the CCP virus jab on ABC This Week: It’s not the first time Fauci used a deadly disease to push panic porn on parents of small children… In 1983, Dr. Fauci caused panic in parents when he suggested in an ABC News interview, the possibility that kids can get AIDS simply by living in close contact with an adult who has tested positive for AIDS. In the 1983 interview, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked about Dr. Aleksy’s work on AIDS, and how the disease can be spread throughout the community? Dr. Fauci explained how the disease has been “evolving” and that they learn a “little bit more” each week about how the disease can “go out of its original epidemiological constraints.” Sounds familiar so far, right? “Early on, as you know, the disease was felt to be limited to the male homosexual community and IV drug users, and then we began to see that groups like Haitians, hemophiliacs and the implications of transmission via blood transfusions,” he explained. Dr. Fauci remarked on the recent study by Dr. Alesky, “When you have a situation that we’re seeing here with this article by Alesky, in which children, household contacts, of either individuals with AIDS or at high risk for AIDS have indeed, at least a significant number of them, have what looks like a syndrome that’s identical to AIDS syndrome.” That tells you that it’s quite possible that just intimate contact outside of the sexual contact, blood transmission route is a possible mechanism whereby this disease can be transmitted. If that’s the case, then indeed, the implications for the spread to even other groups besides infants and children, become something that needs to be reckoned with. So I think it’s going to have a major impact on our thinking about what the real confines of the syndrome will be,” he told the ABC News host. When asked by the host to explain what he means by “other intimate contact?” Dr. Fauci explained that there have been examples of cases of AIDS in heterosexual women or other non-drug-using partners who are getting AIDS by being in close contact, but not necessarily intimate contact with infected individuals. “Now, indeed, if one can have contact that is intimate, but not necessarily sexual, then one’s talking about the possibility of spreading out of groups that you would feel if you stay away from sharing a needle with or having sexual contact that you are safe from the disease. This brings in the implications that there are other ways, just plain close contact,” he said, adding, “And given the long incubation period of this disease, we may be starting to see, as we’re seeing virtually as the months go by, other groups that can be involved. And seeing it in children is really quite disturbing,” Dr. Fauci said. “Give me some examples” of “other close contacts,” the ABC News host asked. “Well for example if the close contact of a child is a household contact, perhaps there will be a certain number of cases of individuals who are just living with and in close contact with someone with AIDS or at risk for AIDS who does not necessarily have to have intimate sexual contact or share a needle, but just the ordinary close contact one sees in normal interpersonal relationships.” Fauci admits, that although his theory may be “far-fetched,” and although “there have been no cases recognized yet in which an individual who has had merely casual contact with an individual who had gotten AIDS from being in close contact,” he continues to push the theory, saying the incubation period is so long, they just don’t know, saying “the jury is still out.” He continued to explain how medical researchers and public health service officials are concerned with is that the confines of transmissibility will be “loosening up,” and “we can’t become complacent.” Watch: MSN explained how prior to receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts to curb the AIDS crisis in Africa, and acclaim for his public-facing role during the coronavirus pandemic, Fauci had been criticized for his approach to addressing the spread of HIV in the United States. His speculation about close contact being infectious, as well as his stubborn focus on producing a vaccine rather than therapeutics, were of particular frustration to activists and other scientists. In 1983, Dr. Fauci caused panic in parents when he suggested in an ABC News interview, the possibility that kids can get AIDS simply by living in close contact with an adult who has tested positive for AIDS. "That tells you that it’s quite possible that just intimate contact outside of the sexual contact, blood transmission route is a possible mechanism whereby this disease can be transmitted. If that’s the case, then indeed, the implications for the spread to even other groups besides infants and children, become something that needs to be reckoned with. So I think it’s going to have a major impact on our thinking about what the real confines of the syndrome will be,” he told the ABC News host. When asked by the host to explain what he means by “other intimate contact?” Dr. Fauci explained that there have been examples of cases of AIDS in heterosexual women or other non-drug-using partners who are getting AIDS by being in close contact, but not necessarily intimate contact with infected individuals. “Now, indeed, if one can have contact that is intimate, but not necessarily sexual, then one’s talking about the possibility of spreading out of groups that you would feel if you stay away from sharing a needle with or having sexual contact that you are safe from the disease. This brings in the implications that there are other ways, just plain close contact,” he said, adding, “And given the long incubation period of this disease, we may be starting to see, as we’re seeing virtually as the months go by, other groups that can be involved. And seeing it in children is really quite disturbing,” Dr. Fauci said. “Give me some examples” of “other close contacts,” the ABC News host asked. “Well for example if the close contact of a child is a household contact, perhaps there will be a certain number of cases of individuals who are just living with and in close contact with someone with AIDS or at risk for AIDS who does not necessarily have to have intimate sexual contact or share a needle, but just the ordinary close contact one sees in normal interpersonal relationships.” Fauci admits, that although his theory may be “far-fetched,” and although “there have been no cases recognized yet in which an individual who has had merely casual contact with an individual who had gotten AIDS from being in close contact,” he continues to push the theory, saying the incubation period is so long, they just don’t know, saying “the jury is still out.” He continued to explain how medical researchers and public health service officials are concerned with is that the confines of transmissibility will be “loosening up,” and “we can’t become complacent.” Sounding familiar yet?

Slowhand has a theory...... https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/eric-clapton-people-vaccinated-against-covid-under-hypnosis/ Eric Clapton claims people vaccinated against COVID-19 are under ‘hypnosis’ By Hannah Sparks January 24, 2022 1:25pm Eric Clapton’s career “had almost gone anyway” until his campaign against conventional medicine took off. The 76-year-old musician went on the Real Music Observer YouTube channel to discuss how his life has changed since reluctantly taking AstraZeneca’s therapy in 2021. Clapton has since become outspoken about his anti-vaccination stance. He claimed that he’d been duped into getting the COVID-19 jab by subliminal messaging in pharmaceutical advertising — and urged others not to fall for it. “Whatever the memo was, it hadn’t reached me,” he said, referring to the “mass formation hypnosis” conspiracy theory, which gained traction in 2021 as part of anti-vaccine propaganda. (In related circles it’s also been called “mass formation psychosis.”) Credited to Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet, the theory essentially points to a sort of mind control that has taken over society, allowing for unscrupulous leaders to easily manipulate populations into, for example, accepting vaccines or wearing face masks. “Then I started to realize there was really a memo, and a guy, Mattias Desmet [professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium], talked about it,” Clapton continued. “And it’s great. The theory of mass formation hypnosis. And I could see it then. Once I kind of started to look for it, I saw it everywhere.” Clapton recalled “seeing little things on YouTube which were like subliminal advertising,” he said.Gareth The former Cream guitarist also talked about his efforts with fellow British songwriter Van Morrison to speak up on behalf of other artists against vaccine requirements. “My career had almost gone anyway. At the point where I spoke out it had been almost 18 months since I’d kind of been forcibly retired,” he said, as pandemic restrictions shut down live events for months. “I joined forces with Van and I got the tip Van was standing up to the measures and I thought, ‘why is nobody else doing this?’ . . . so I contacted him.” He said that Morrison, 76, complained that he wasn’t “allowed” to freely object to vaccine requirements. “I was mystified, I seemed to be the only person that found it exciting or even appropriate. I’m cut from a cloth where if you tell me I can’t do something, I really want to know why,” the “Cocaine” singer said. “My family and friends got scared, and I think they were scared on my behalf,” he added. Clapton also admitted that he’d given up on recent news media, which he described as “one-way traffic about following orders and obedience” — a decision that he said has helped him creatively and professionally. The Rock and Roll Hall of Famer also joked about losing touch with friends and family over his political views: “My family and friends think I am a crackpot anyway.” “Over the last year, there’s been a lot of disappearing — a lot of dust around, with people moving away quite quickly. It has, for me, refined the kind of friendship I have. And it’s dwindled down to the people that I obviously really need and love,” he said. “Inside my family, that became quite pivotal,” he said, speaking of wife Melia McEnery and four daughters, Ruth, 37, Julie, 20, Ella, 19 and Sophie, 16. “I’ve got teenage girls, and an older girl who’s in her thirties — and they’ve all had to kind of give me leeway because I haven’t been able to convince any of them.” Despite making headlines, others in the music community have alienated him, Clapton said. “I would try to reach out to fellow musicians and sometimes I just don’t hear from them,” he said. “My phone doesn’t ring very often. I don’t get that many texts and emails anymore.” Meanwhile, Clapton has been known to throw his support behind other anti-vax activists, including donating more than $1,300 to a British rock group who were slapped with fines for breaching COVID-19 protocol during a show in 2021. Aside from his work with the “Brown Eyed Girl” singer, Clapton also released the song “This Has Gotta Stop” last year, with a similar message: “I can’t take this BS any longer / It’s gone far enough / You want to claim my soul / you’ll have to come and break down this door.”

COVID CASES USA 199.744 JAN 23 2022 167,917 JAN 23 2021 DEATHS 571 JAN 23 2022 3,322 JAN 23 2021

Oh come on - we have to laugh at something today!!

SF truly loved both of these entertainers. Bill O'reilly says it best about Meatloaf's passing and the left's infatuation with his anti-mandate opinion. https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Goodbye-Meat-Loaf/-609953651867973177.html?fbclid=IwAR1Hvp67Tsc8bvtKJEldTJi8dR6pLWdpo3Y4EFUHvRMVovBySVV2V1rIRyA This morning, singer and actor Meat Loaf became the latest addition to the sad list of iconic celebrities lost in 2022. Many media outlets are highlighting his accomplishments, noting his milestones in music and film. But some media outlets have decided to use Meat Loaf's passing as a Covid lesson as it's speculated that the virus was the cause of the 74-year-old singer's death. Last year Meat Loaf voiced his frustrations with mandates, expressed pandemic fatigue, and vowed to live his life despite the risks of the virus. In other words, Meat Loaf was a human trying to deal with the current state of the world. The fact is no one knows the "Bat Out of Hell" singer's vaccination status, not yet. So it's a shame that some questionable media would take his life's accomplishments and try to paint him as only a cautionary tale when he accomplished so much. R.I.P Meat Loaf

You are assuming he is going to still be the President after January 20, 2023?

A Starbucks Boycott? 🤣 So, do Democrats think Starbucks suddenly became conservative? SF is Pretty sure it's because they can't find employees. https://www.wavy.com/covid-19-vaccine/calls-for-starbucks-boycott-after-vaccine-rule-axed/ (NEXSTAR) – Coffee giant Starbucks is facing some venti-sized criticism Wednesday after the company announced it no longer requires U.S. workers to receive COVID-19 vaccines or test negative each week, with the java juggernaut citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling as its reasoning. Last week, SCOTUS voted 6-3 against the Biden administration’s federal mandate requiring employees of companies with more than 100 workers to be vaccinated. Starbucks currently has around 9,000 stores employing about 200,000 workers, the New York Times reports. In a statement to employees, Starbucks Chief Operating Officer John Culver wrote: “We respect the court’s ruling and will comply.” The announcement came just weeks after Starbucks said all employees would be required to be vaccinated by Feb. 9 or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing. Many consumers online condemned the decision, with #BoycottStarbucks trending on Twitter Wednesday afternoon. “I will not go to Starbucks or anywhere that does not require workers to be vaxxed,” tweeted @SoCalSusan. “Our health is worth self-advocating for.” Meanwhile, @Charles_791 writes: “Vaccines prevent serious illness and death. All steps have been taken to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective for people ages 5 years and older. It’s such a shame that a brand as big as Starbucks will make such a ridiculous decision.” Starbucks has previously faced boycott calls for a variety of decisions, including backlash in 2020 after the company said employees weren’t allowed to wear items supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, saying it could “amplify divisiveness.” Starbucks reversed the decision last year. The company’s decision wasn’t without supporters, however. Some conservative users tweeted their approval, with some vowing to continue or even begin frequenting Starbucks. Meanwhile, Culver says while the requirement is now gone, “… we continue to believe strongly in the spirit and intent of the mandate.

Thinking about this thread during the debate over the so-called "Voting Rights" legislation in the Senate today.......And actually agreeing with Biden's "Malarkey" statement.....

As we begin to make the turn and head into the THIRD YEAR of "2 Weeks to flatten the curve" (March 2020 - ICYF) here is the reason for the current hysteria: COVID CASES USA 712,051 JAN 17 2022 170,094 JAN 17 2021 DEATHS 774 JAN 17 2022 1,730 JAN 17 2021 Case numbers are almost 5 times last year's number, but deaths are about 40% of last year's number. But let's keep the hype going anyway. At least it's an election year, so look for the focus to shift around March (SF prediction)....... I heard yesterday that 80% of adults have been vaccinated to date - BTW - according to the news in March last year, we needed to hit 60%, then the virus was beat......So I guess it's over?

Get ready for the shift away from Covid (as the next election cycle starts) https://bangordailynews.com/2022/01/15/news/nation/a-shift-away-from-daily-covid-case-counts-has-begun-joam40zk0w/ The most familiar indicator of COVID-19’s inexorable nationwide spread—daily state and local case counts—may be on the way out. Instead, public health officials are considering a shift from increasingly inaccurate case data to numbers they say better represent the effect of the disease on the community and the health care system: COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. Omicron case counts are shattering all previous COVID-19 records. But the numbers don’t carry the same weight they used to. State and local health departments are preparing to explain that to the public and start reporting more meaningful data on the virus. “The goal of public health data is to provide information to people so they can take actions to keep themselves safer and healthier,” said Meredith Allen, vice president for health security at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “We’re getting to a point where a daily case count isn’t giving people that information.” So far, Tennessee is the only state to scale back its COVID-19 case reporting since omicron hit. But experts expect other states to follow once the omicron surge subsides. In addition, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul last week asked hospitals to start providing more meaningful COVID-19 data by specifying whether patients were admitted because of COVID-19 or entered the hospital for unrelated reasons and incidentally tested positive for the virus. For now, daily case counts remain the primary gauge of omicron’s nationwide spread. But epidemiologists caution that the numbers should be relied on only as broad indicators of the velocity and direction of the disease’s transmission. Because of testing shortages, unreported home tests and a high percentage of asymptomatic infections going undetected, daily case counts are vastly underreported, said Janet Hamilton, executive director at the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. The true number of infections is some multiple of the reported cases, she said. This week, the average daily reported case count was 781,000, more than three times the daily count of 250,000 at the peak of the delta surge a year ago. On Jan. 3, more than a million omicron cases were recorded. But that doesn’t mean hospitalizations and deaths, which lag new cases by several weeks, will rise in equal proportion. Early data indicates that omicron infections are producing milder symptoms and fewer deaths than previous COVID-19 variants. “We don’t want to keep telling people there’s X number of new infections out there without giving them an idea of how many of those cases will have serious outcomes,” Hamilton said. Despite its lower hospitalization and death rate, omicron’s soaring infections are resulting in a surge in hospital visits, almost entirely among unvaccinated people, straining health care systems nationwide. And even though it’s proving less virulent than previous COVID-19 strains, omicron is expected to result in more deaths because of the sheer number of people infected. Better barometers Months into the pandemic, epidemiologists said COVID-19 ultimately would become endemic, infecting nearly everyone and remaining in the population indefinitely. That endemic era may have started. As a result, many state health officials say they’re preparing to scale back the frequency of case count updates, possibly as soon as the current surge subsides, Allen said. “That would allow public health agencies to focus on prevention efforts in high-risk populations such as long-term care facilities and work more closely with schools and vaccination clinics,” she said, “rather than put the time and energy into producing that daily number.” Tennessee shifted from daily to weekly reporting of new COVID-19 cases Jan. 1, citing a need to focus on other public health priorities, including the expanding opioid overdose crisis. Florida, Iowa and Nebraska moved to weekly counts last summer, as COVID-19 cases waned nationwide. Alaska, Kansas and Michigan publish case data three times a week. For now, though, state and local COVID-19 policies, including school and business closures, travel restrictions, mask requirements and quarantine rules, largely hinge on daily numbers. Since the pandemic began, the rise and fall of case counts has proven a reliable indicator of whether the virus is gaining ground, leveling out or retreating, said Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We all know that the data is less precise than it was,” he said. “But we do get a good sense of the trends over time and geographically, particularly in a state that is long and thin like Tennessee. It allows us to look at what’s happening in Nashville versus Chattanooga, for example.” The CDC official guidelines continue to recommend that state and local health departments publish daily COVID-19 case counts, he said. But in discussions with health officials, the agency is “giving states leeway to put more emphasis on hospitalizations and other data.” Schaffner and other experts say the number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 may be a better indicator of the severity of the disease and its impact on communities and the health care system. Others argue that the number of patients in intensive care units would be a more meaningful measure. Gray areas As cases of omicron mushroom, it’s becoming increasingly likely that hospital patients will test positive for the virus upon admission or become infected while in the hospital, said Eili Klein, an epidemiologist and associate professor of emergency medicine at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Even before omicron became dominant, studies showed that roughly half of patients admitted to hospitals with COVID-19 were there for other reasons. Still, their COVID-19 infections likely affected their health outcomes and the length of time they stayed in the hospital, Klein said, and it certainly meant the hospital had to expend additional resources to treat them. It’s not easy to unspool COVID-19 hospitalization data, he said. “There’s a large gray area that’s difficult to determine in real time.” Klein and other experts argue that use of intensive care is a better measure of the virus’ health burden. “In Maryland, for example, hospitalizations are at an all-time high right now,” Klein said, “but use of intensive care is not.” Last year during the delta surge, hospitalizations in the state were much lower than they are now, but almost every patient was very sick. “As we move forward, there needs to be some decisions about how we adjust our reporting,” Klein said. “Do we go to weekly reports, separate people admitted for COVID as opposed to those with COVID? It depends on how we plan to treat people who test positive but aren’t sick. “Do we quarantine them? Maybe we stop doing that. We don’t quarantine people who have the flu.” Testing shortages From the beginning, testing shortages, inaccuracies and delays have plagued the nation’s response to COVID-19. As a result, many county and city health departments have never been able to publish daily case counts, said Adriane Casalotti, chief of public and government affairs at the National Association of County and City Health Officials. In this omicron surge, she said, long lines at testing centers continue to stress city and county health departments, particularly as they field an avalanche of questions from the public about the CDC’s recent about-face on COVID-19 quarantines. In December, the CDC announced that it was reducing its quarantine recommendations from 10 to five days. The American Medical Association and other experts called the weaker recommendations risky, suggesting that people get tested before ending quarantine. With home tests still in short supply and people waiting hours to get tested at a public site, it’s a hard call for local health departments to suggest people get tested before they end quarantine, Casalotti said. On top of that, local health departments typically experience major public backlash when they try to implement stiffer COVID-19 restrictions than the CDC. When will the testing shortage ease? President Joe Biden announced this week that insurance companies will be required to cover the cost of up to eight tests per person per month starting Jan. 15. But drugstores are still short of tests. Mara Aspinall, a professor of biomedical diagnostics at Arizona State University, projects the nationwide supply of COVID-19 home tests will jump from 631 million tests this month to 732 million in February and 907 million in March. Since many consumers buy tests to have them on hand when needed, not all tests are used in the same month they’re purchased, she explained. Since omicron hit the United States in December, Aspinall estimates Americans have been using an average of 4 million home tests per day, rising to 5 million per day last week as corporations distributed tests to employees coming back to in-person work. Whether that number stays the same, rises or falls depends on the spread of the virus, she said. As it should be - with more testing availability obviously the case numbers are going to rise. FYI - Anyone (Vaxed or not) can and WILL carry the virus, additionally - The tests will pick up any Cornonavirus. (Not just the man-made one that can potentially be Covid-19 SARS)

It's finally happening......

Like the FBI answering Senator Cruz's questions regarding the FBI agent's involvement on January 6 yesterday - "I can't answer that"........