BREAKING: An astonishing guest is terrified!


Elsewhere, the daily fail:
Along the way, we've come to admire Nicholas Kristof's devotion to human values.

Along the way, we sometimes thought he had a tendency toward a few types of mistakes. To cite one example, we thought he tended to accept, no questions asked, the standard presentations of "educational experts" in ways which didn't help.

We've come to admire his devotion. That said, we were balled by this passage from this Thursday's column:
KRISTOF (4/2/20): It’s baffling that the richest country in the history of the world fails so abysmally at protecting its health workers, especially when it had two months’ lead time. And for hospitals now to retaliate against health workers who try to protect themselves—ousting them just when they are most needed—is both unconscionable and idiotic.
We're not sure why that's baffling.

Why are we failing to protect our health workers? For starters, we'd offer the most obvious reason:

We have a deeply disordered person in the Oval Office. There's every chance that, at the end of the psychiatric day, he doesn't actually care.

We also have a widely disordered intellectual and journalistic culture. Anthropologically speaking, this may simply be part of "the human condition." But the way our journalistic culture is working hasn't helped.

As part of our journalistic culture, our major news orgs have agreed--we mustn't discuss the possibility that President Trump is severely disordered.

By the fall of 2017, Yale's Bandy X. Lee was trying to launch that discussion. With this editorial, the New York Times shut her effort down.

It's true that any attempt to conduct that discussion would have been beyond the upper-end press corps' extremely modest skill level. But this is part of our journalistic and intellectual culture. It helps explain the remarkable segment we saw Don Lemon conduct last night.

Lemon introduced two guests. Here's how he described them:
LEMON (4/3/20): New York City has become ground zero for the outbreak in this country. Residents reporting almost constant sirens. In just the last day, more than 6,500 new cases were reported, along with over 300 deaths. Just the past day.

So, joining me now, two New York heroes, Dr. Laura Ucik, and also Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez. She is an E.R. nurse and the president of the New York State Nurses association.

I'm so grateful to have both of you on this evening. Let me just thank you right off for what you're doing. And don't tell me that you're not heroes, because you indeed are.
We'll admit it. Our failure to protect such people is so extreme that we find it cloying to see them introduced as heroes. In our view, their devotion to duty takes them beyond the realm for which the rest of us have developed words.

We don't mean that as a criticism of Lemon, who skillfully conducted a remarkable segment about an ongoing state of disgrace.

We'll start with the exchange shown below. Sheridan-Gonzalez had just finished reporting that some nurses at her hospital have already died as a result of their work with coronavirus patients:
LEMON: You've been experiencing coronavirus symptoms yourself. How are you feeling?

SHERIDAN-GONZALEZ: I'm OK now. I just want to see if I have antibodies. My test was negative. There is a lot of false negatives. But we're hoping to get the antibodies test to see if we have some kind of resistance. I think that would be helpful.

It doesn't necessarily protect us completely, but it seems to perhaps give us a little bit of immunity, because our colleagues are exhausted. You know, we started off being concerned. The concern turned to worry. The worry turned to fear and then to abject terror. And now we're just almost numb. Many of us are ill. We're still trying to work. But the need for protective equipment is essential.
Moments later, Lemon asked an excellent question:
LEMON: Why do you continue to go put your own life in danger? I know you're speaking on behalf of nurses throughout the New York area.

SHERIDAN-GONZALEZ: Correct. Yes. We go in. Nurses do what they do because that's what we have to do. This—we're like the Normandy of this viral invasion. We are on the front lines. We have had casualties. We hope we'll win.
In our view, this kind of devotion lies somewhere beyond the reach of our language and our common conceptions. When Lemon turned to Dr, Ucik, this point became even more clear:
LEMON (continuing directly): Dr. Ucik, you are 28 years old. You're writing your last will and testament. How concerned are you about your health?

UCIK: I'm absolutely terrified. We had people in their 20s die in our hospital this past week. And I realized when that happened that I also might not survive this pandemic. And it's really been a reckoning for me.

I wrote out my wishes. I spoke with my family. I've cried a lot this week.
But, you know, this pandemic is something that is affecting everyone, and nobody is really safe from coronavirus.

I think about what it would be like to be in a prison right now or in a nursing home...
To our eye and ear, Dr. Ucik seemed like a superb young person—almost unimaginably so. In our assessment, the quality of such devotion is almost baffling in itself, given the moral and intellectual squalor which obtains and largely goes unchallenged in so many other precincts.

She's 28, and she's made out her will. To our eye and ear, it seemed plain that she wasn't exaggerating the state of her personal fear. But she keeps going in.

For us, her personal affect as she spoke was striking and instructive. We think her second exchange with Lemon is also worth recording:
LEMON: You know, Doctor, a lot of people are getting restless under these social distancing guidelines and these stay-at-home orders. What is your message to people who say that I don't know anyone with this virus? My community will never be anything like a New York. I don't think we need this stay at home guidelines. What do you say to them?

UCIK: You know, I felt that way too, a few weeks ago, when I had friends over, and I realize now how serious this is, both on a personal level—

I had patients who I saw in the office, you know, a week and a half ago, and they were fine, and now they're dead. And the major financial impact for many of my patients and my community at large.

One of my coworkers who is a doctor recently had to PayPal a patient rent money so that the patient could stay home and not risk her life by going to work. So my patients, they're losing their lives. They're losing their jobs. They're losing their homes, and they need basic supports right now like eviction, rent support, income protections.

Those things are just as important as the kinds of protections that Judy and I are asking for, like masks and gowns, because this is something that we're all in together.
Ucik and Sheridan-Gonzalez are asking for masks and gowns. Dr. Ucik makes this request at age 28, even as she writes her will and makes her wishes known to her family.

And as she keeps going in.

Dr. Ucik is asking for masks and gowns. Is it baffling that a situation like this could be taking place here?

We'd say it isn't baffling. What's striking to us is the contrast—the contrast between this kind of devotion and the sorts of behavior we see in other precincts.

Commander Trump's daily briefings marvels of misdirection and aggressive blame-shifting. Quite routinely, if it weren't for the non-answer answers, there would be no answers at all.

The habitual refusal to answer straightforward questions extends beyond the reach of the president's long-winded campaign monologues. Consider an exchange from Thursday's prime-time event, which started with a reference to the commander's latest (negative) test for coronavirus.

The question was quite straightforward. The non-answer answer was not:
REPORTER 1 (4/2/20): Dr. Birx, with regard to the test, the president’s sample collection took one minute, results reported back in 15 minutes. I realize [he's] the president of the United States, but when will everyone get to take a test that works that quickly and you get results that quickly?

BIRX: So, these are new tests and we have prioritized the groups that we think have the least access to testing now. And who do we mean by that?

We mean the Indian Health Service—they’re often in remote areas; rural areas; the governors of the northwestern states that may not have the advantage of these high-throughput machines that are often across the East Coast and in high metro areas—Colorado—and then across the West Coast.

So we’ve prioritized the presidential 15-minute test to the Indian Health Services and public health labs so that they can support nursing home testing and other areas where we think surveillance is absolutely key. So at this moment they’re prioritized in that way.

TRUMP: It’s thirteen to twelve hundred.

BIRX: Yes, twelve hundred of them are going out that way.
The question was quite straightforward. Can you find an answer in the non-response response?

To her credit, the reporter attempted to follow up. The official White House transcript helps us see the futility in such attempts:
REPORTER 1 (continuing directly): So do more of those tests need to be made in order for more people—

TRUMP: They are being made.

BIRX: Yeah.

REPORTER 1: Okay. So in a matter of—

TRUMP: They’re moving very quickly—it’s happening—in this case.

BIRX: So I’m glad you asked that because, today, there’s 18,000 of these machines already out there. We’re trying to find out exactly where everyone is because you can see that gives you amazing flexibility. Because if people would allow it to be loaned to a state that’s in a hotspot or a state where you want to do additional surveillance, 18,000 tests, 18,000 machines, is a huge amount. And it really gets to your very question about how we can prioritize what we have at the same time we’re moving out what is new.

And so really figuring out who should those go to, how—who can we ask communities—because these will be in the community—to share those machines into the community who need the testing now. And I think that’s really an incredible question that really needs to be answered over the next 24 hours.
Reporter 1 was interrupted twice as she tried to restate her question. That said:

Even as Dr. Birx expressed her pleasure with the reporter's very question, can you find an answer to that question? When will everyone get such tests? Can you find an answer?

Reporter 1's simple question had been met with a string on non-answers. And sure enough! At this point, the press corps' greatest gods, Scattershot and Look Over Here, imposed their will on this reporter's effort:
REPORTER 2 (continuing directly): Dr. Birx, a point of clarity about the face-covering guidance. You said it’s still a point of debate. You said—you used the phrase, “the guidance, if it comes out.” Is the guidance coming out? And when?
Instead of insisting on an answer to Reporter 1's question, Reporter 2 returned to the topic of masks.

The press corps has loved the topic of masks because it's so simple-minded and easy to picture that even they can grasp it. So it has gone, down through the years, with so many other topics:

Who would you like to have a beer with? What's up with that clothing and hair?

Scattershot and Look Over Here control large swaths of our non-discourse discourse. We think of scattershot congressional hearings, in which each member has to get on TV. We think of press "briefings" like this.

Given our species' state of evolution, we live with this familiar behavior as if it makes sense. Meanwhile, walking among us are Don Lemon's guests.

Is it baffling that we aren't protecting Sheridan-Gonzalez and Ucik? Major anthropologists keep telling us that it's actually par for the course.

It's bred in the bone, these despondent future experts say. Our species contains quite a few Trumps, then ever so slowly works its way up to the level of Lemon's astonishing guests.

We saw Lemon's segment in rerun in the 3 AM hour. We're glad we happened to catch it.


  1. "As part of our journalistic culture, our major news orgs have agreed--we mustn't discuss the possibility that President Trump is severely disordered."

    We don't call someone severely disordered or mentally ill unless they have been diagnosed by a professional. Otherwise it is just name-calling and that is unproductive.

    This is part of journalistic ethics but it is also part of psychiatric ethics and part of the ethics and training of all mental health professionals.

    It would be better for Somerby to stick to describing the behaviors of our president and avoid attributing his bad behavior to a psychiatric condition.

    1. When experts call out abnormal "signs" it is not a diagnosis but important information. Just like when Dr. Li Wenliang saw a "SARS-like" virus in China, his observations were important and should have been heeded. The "psychiatric ethics" you are referring to is not ethics but etiquette when it involves a public figure (and it applies to only one voluntary association). Ethics involves protection of the public, and this guideline is universal.

    2. No, it is unethical to diagnose someone you have not assessed. Ethics are codified and you can lose your license to practice if you violate those ethical standards.

      Saying that Trump's behavior is abnormal is permitted, but saying that he has a specific disorder or mental illness is not because that constitutes a diagnosis which cannot be made without examination. That is why other mental health professionals are upset with Dr. Bandy Lee.

      This is not a matter of "etiquette in the US. It is a matter of licensing, which is a prerequisite to practicing as a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in most states in the US. Even public figures have rights. Journalists can call Trump mentally ill, because they are not mental health practitioners restricted by state law, capable of losing their license if they violate their ethics, codified in law in most states.

  2. "Even as Dr. Birx expressed her pleasure with the reporter's very question, can you find an answer to that question? When will everyone get such tests? Can you find an answer?"

    The answer is clearly, "We don't know."

    Everyone with half a clue can see that. Why must Dr. Birx state it explicitly? The only reason is that it would embarrass the President, because the followup question is always, "why didn't you start this sooner?" and "why weren't we prepared for this?"

    We all know the answer to that too. It is because the president is a fool. But it doesn't get anyone anywhere to make that point repeatedly while people are struggling with trying to cope. That's why you set aside what everyone already knows (or will never accept) and deal with specifics.

    I have seen briefings by Gavin Newsom and Eric Garcetti in CA. They do say "I don't know." They are not fools and they have the support of large majorities in their state. They have been making competent, defensible decisions and doing a good job. People are dying and there are still many unknowns, but when they say "I don't know", they do not have any fear about an upcoming election or loss of political support. Nor do they have concerns about panic among citizens, since they are doing the best anyone can do to pull together and address everyone's needs, including the large homeless population that flocks to warm-weather states with good social support.

    Trump is defensive because his doesn't know what to do, is in charge of a divided country half of which wants him out of office, is caught between losing his support (which only wants financial gain) and losing voters (who want help with the virus), and desperately wants to assuage the public with good news. Positive public perception is the only thing he can control, so he is trying to manage it. He could be mitigating the effects of the virus, but he doesn't know how to do that and he doesn't trust his experts because they are the people best able to see through his facade.

    That's why he cannot say "I don't know" and cannot allow his minions to say it either. Everyone understands this except Somerby, who suggests that reporters should hold Trump's feet to the fire, as if that would do anyone any good.

    1. This comment is perplexing. Someday does understand this; that seems clear. But many who watch the briefings do not, in all probability. Especially those inclined to believe Trump and his minions. The whole point of TDH is to examine failures by (liberal) media to help such people understand what's really going on.

    2. There is no evidence that “such people” pay attention to “(liberal)” media (whatever that is) or are persuaded by facts.

    3. That changes nothing. Good discourse is good discourse. And in that regard, "such" referred simply to "those inclined to believe" Dr. Bird and others, and was not intended as snark.

    4. How you expect good discourse with Trump or his minions is a mystery. Discourse involves more than one person. When one of the parties involved refuses to engage in good discourse, there’s not much the other party can do.

    5. Can you really mean that? Doesn't the free press serve as a check on lying by those in power? If someone lies to you about something you need, do you just throw up your hands? Would you teach that to children?

  3. "The press corps has loved the topic of masks because it's so simple-minded and easy to picture that even they can grasp it."

    No, the reporters like the question of masks because it involves something concrete that the public can do to protect itself. But there is no point in asking people to do it, if it will not do any good.

    There is no definitive answer yet about whether wearing a mask outdoors is a good idea or not, partly because the N95 masks are not available to the general public, so cloth masks would need to be used. We don't know whether they filter enough to be protective. Why don't we know that? Because finding a definitive answer would mean subjecting human subjects to tests in which they might die. It is better to suggest there might be a benefit and permit people to engage in a perhaps useless activity, than to subject volunteers to a test that would result in illness and death if the masks don't work.

    So, the answer remains "we don't know" and reporters keep asking because they want to be able to give people guidance about what to do to stay safe.

    Why is Somerby insisting that reporters behave in ways that are ultimately unhelpful to anyone?

  4. "Our species contains quite a few Trumps, then ever so slowly works its way up to the level of Lemon's astonishing guests."

    Psychopaths are 3-5% of the population. That isn't "quite a few" unless you gather them from across the country and put them all in the same room.

    The vast majority of people are good and decent. Perhaps Somerby cannot imagine what it is like to have a service orientation. It may be why he didn't stay in teaching. Many jobs are intermittently dangerous. You do them anyway because your patients need you and the job must be done. Most people will rise to that occasion, especially if they feel empathy for those they are helping.

    Somerby is unhelpful when he suggests that such people are few and far between when they are more the rule than the exception. He is unhelpful when he suggests that psychopaths (sociopaths) are more prevalent than they are.

    The mistake was ever letting someone without a service orientation into the presidency. We all knew what Trump was before the election. The problem is that those whose main goal is to make money believed that Trump would help them become richer. He did that, but look what else he has done.

  5. “To her credit, the reporter attempted to follow up. The official White House transcript helps us see the futility in such attempts:”

    The futility stems more from the people being asked the questions and being unwilling or unable to answer than from the reporters.

    “Reporter 1” tried to elicit a clear response from Birx. There’s only so much a questioner can do to elicit the “right” or “desired” response. At some point, it becomes clear that the person is simply not going to answer the question.

    That Somerby equates a question about face masks with “Who would you like to have a beer with? What's up with that clothing and hair?” is ridiculous. The wearing of face masks is not a trivial or simple-minded question. And “Reporter 2” isn’t obligated to continue trying to get Birx to answer Reporter 1’s question.

  6. “We have a deeply disordered person in the Oval Office. There's every chance that, at the end of the psychiatric day, he doesn't actually care.”

    The press shouldn’t call Trump a liar, Somerby has said on multiple occasions. He may be too mentally ill (or disordered) to know that he’s lying.

    And yet, he “peddles disinformation”, said Somerby the other day. How that is substantially different from “lying” isn’t clear.

    How anyone can expect good discourse with a severely disordered or mentally ill man who shouldn’t be accused of lying but who peddles disinformation and may not care seems itself disordered.

    Ultimately, the hair-splitting over why Trump behaves as he does is pointless. It may actually be harmful, because it places an already maligned media in the position of making unprovable assertions about Trump’s mental state.

    It seems to me the focus should be, as it has been, on Trump’s lies, his abuses, and the precise documenting of examples of how he doesn’t care. That is ongoing, every day, in the media.

    Why does Somerby insist on this psychoanalysis? Does he think there is something to be gained?

    1. The President is Crazy

      Let’s start with his very first public assessment of the most-deadly worldwide pandemic in a century. Asked at Davos by a CNBC reporter, “Are there worries about a pandemic at this point?”

      Jan. 22 – “No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control.”

      Jan. 24 – “It will all work out well.”

      Jan. 30 – “We have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at the moment – five. And those people are all recuperating successfully.”

      Feb. 10 – “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

      Feb. 19 – “I think the numbers are getting progressively better as we go.”

      Feb. 20 – “…within a couple of days, is going to be down to close to zero.”

      Feb. 22 – “We have it very much under control in this country.”

      Feb. 25 – “…the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus… They tried the impeachment hoax … and this is their new hoax.” (to Sean Hannity)

      Feb. 26 – “We’re going down, not up.”

      Feb. 27 – “It’s going to disappear. One day like a miracle – it will disappear.”

      Feb. 29 – “Everything is really under control.” (The vaccine will be available) “very rapidly.”

      March 2 – “It’s very mild.”

      March 4 – “…we’re talking about very small numbers in the United States.”

      March 6 – (visiting the CDC) “I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.’ Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.” Maybe.

      March 6: (same availability) “Anybody who wants a test can get a test. That’s the bottom line.”

      March 7: “I’m not concerned at all. No, we’ve done a great job with it.”

      March 10 – “It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”

      March 16 – (asked to rate his own performance) “I’d rate it a ten.”

      March 17 – “I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

      One striking aspect of Trump’s mental illness* is that he expends no energy trying to disguise it. Most successful sociopaths* put a lot of effort into hiding their illness. Not Donald Trump. It’s all right there for all of us to see, all the time.

    2. What a devastating compilation. Thank you.

    3. Yeah, thanks mm. I can only read about Trump, never actually watch him. The cognitive dissonance would explode my head. Trump? President?

      Glad to see Al is still kickin'. I'd like to see him back in the arena. He's a mensch.



      For our Leader. Just trying to share the love.


  7. "Why are we failing to protect our health workers? For starters, we'd offer the most obvious reason:

    We have a deeply disordered person in the Oval Office. There's every chance that, at the end of the psychiatric day, he doesn't actually care."

    Lol. You, dear Bob, are now competing for the title of the most deranged dembot out there.

    For this level of dumb dembottery, we could as well watch CNN or MSNBC, or read WaPo or some such.

    Oh well...

    1. There is a deeply disordered person right here amongst us.
      Mao, I'm looking at you.

    2. Trump's even lost Somerby, Mao.

      There will be no re-election for President Fuck-up Everything He Touches.
      The grift will be even heavier for the next 7 months. I hope the White House staff is counting the silverware.

    3. Trump will be easily re-elected because he doesn't have an opponent that people can take seriously

    4. Trump, on the other hand, you have to take seriously.
      Anyone not taking a guy that killed a quarter of a million Americans seriously, needs to get with the program.

    5. Sorry, it doesn't make me happy either but it's still true. Biden has no chance against Trump. It's sad and VERY WEIRD they would nominate a debilitated has been. Very weird.

    6. How WEIRD?
      Didn't the people vote for a racist, grifting, failed businessman, who's horny for his own daughter, in 2016 because they were scared?
      This can't be weirder than that.

    7. I don't know. But it is what it is. They nominated Biden and he has no chance. To me that is very strange on its own. That's all they could find? Maybe they don't want to be Trump.

    8. Well, since their whole creed is Orange Man Bad, it doesn't matter whom to nominate, as long as his name is not Donald Trump.

      And having a brain-dead figurehead is beneficial for the cult. Of course the corps can be programmed to scream 'hope', 'change', and 'yes we can' by pushing buttons on the remote. It's a win-win.

    9. Mao is correct that the people will vote for anyone but Trump.

  8. America has a cultural history that runs deeper than the president and his mental condition.

    Our economic system rewards and punishes based on wealth.

    A few years ago the private sector stopped the production of masks because it wasn't profitable. With brutal honesty, the NY Times argued "maximizing profits is not always consistent with the government’s goal of preparing for a future crisis."

    We can go even further back and look at early experiments with capitalist industrialization such as the workhouses in London.

    St Matthew's Bethnal Green Workhouse was first recorded in 1777 as a small, square-shaped building with an enclosed work-yard just across from St Matthew’s Church. Higginbotham records an event from December 1816 when inmate Robert Pope was "dragged from his ward into the oakum cellar by two fellow inmates, Thomas Kendall and James Saint, who then bound him by the wrists and beat him with a stave from a butter tub […] and died shortly afterwards". Pope’s beating came about after he had reported his fellow inmates for breaking workhouse rules.

    How did we get here? Good question.

  9. Reporter asked, "When will everyone get to take a test that works that quickly and you get results that quickly?"

    That's an unfair way of asking a question. It implies that the person being asked ought to know the answer.
    But, there's no way to know. It depends on

    -- how many of these marvelous Abbott tests get distributed.
    -- how quickly thousands of various sites are able to get geared up to use these test.
    -- how many people need to be tested.
    -- a site by site comparison of available tests and backlog and testing needs

    P.S. Excellent news today. The number of tests jumped to 216,000 -- almost double what it was yesterday.

    1. I don't think you can talk about "excellent news" when the number of deaths is increasing so rapidly. We need tests to prevent more deaths. Please don't lose track of that fact and think that testing, by itself, is any kind of victory.

    2. Reported number or test today (Sunday) up to 238,000.

    3. So one test for every thousand Americans?

  10. My wife votes in every general election but is far from political, and usually votes for local Republicans and national Democrats. She blurted out I'M VOTING FOR HIM during Trump's press conference yesterday. She never even liked him. We've agreed he is handling the situation very well and we are most concerned with recovering losses when this is over and don't see that as a job for a Democrat.

    1. 12:52 is a troll, and doesn't even have a wife.

    2. "Cunt" eh? It doesn't take much to get Democrats to reveal themselves.

    3. How did you agree that he is handling it well? What did you base that decision on?

    4. 6:23,
      What up, snowflake?

    5. 12:52,
      Your wife is just saying that so Trump won't blame her, next, for his criminal negligence.
      She's smart to get out in front like that.

  11. The preoccupation with testing is stupid. Those with symptoms are admitted and treated, those without are sent home. Symptoms could be from any cause and are serious, whether influenza or something like it that isn't coronavirus.

    Once you have a test you're not protected. You can get it ten minutes after you leave the site. This fact seems to be lost on the test obsessed.

    1. People who are positive but asymptomatic can spread the virus. Finding those people is important, so that they can modify their behavior.

    2. "Finding those people", eh?

      Mein Herz, in the US, in the affected areas (all controlled by liberals, incidentally), everyone is already quarantined to the maximum (reasonable) extent possible.

      Unless, of course, you're suggesting to further "modify their behavior" by throwing them into concentration camps or something. Wouldn't surprise me.

    3. Mao,
      The markets have spoken, and they show most Americans want to live in areas controlled by liberals.
      I (don't at all) wonder why that is.

    4. Yeah, dembot. Markets have spoken, indeed, and so your zombie cult gets to control all ghettos in the country, sparkled with a few billionaires' mansions.

      People (plus quite a few zombies) who haven't done a single day of honest work in their lives.

    5. Take the next logic step, Mao.
      If the economically anxious are voting for liberals, what was the real reason rural whites voted for Trump?

    6. Deambot, it's not complicated at all: the globalization-exploiting rich plus the ghetto dwellers they bribe is the constituency of your zombie cult.

      The working people oppose your zombie cult.

      What is it you're confused about, my dear?

    7. Mao,
      Do you kiss Republicans with that mouth?
      You should, during a pandemic.

    8. Trump should have stuck to shooting a black guy on 5th Avenue, instead of killing a quarter of a million Americans through criminal negligence.

  12. It's testing + quarantine when positive, you twat. See S Korea for the results of this process.

    1. Most areas of the country and all hotspots have been quarantined for weeks. Testing is next to useless now.

  13. I want the world to know a great man that is well known as DR Padman ,website: has the perfect solution to relationship issues and marriage problems. The main reason why i went to DR Padman. was for solution on how i can get my husband back because in recent times i have read some testimonies on the internet which some people has written about DR Padman, and i was so pleased and i decided to seek for assistance, which he did a perfect job by casting a love spell on my husband which made him to come back to me and beg for forgiveness.I will no stop publishing his name on the net because of the good work he is doing. I will drop his contact for the usefulness of those that needs his help.His Email ( or his ebsite: Whatsapp +19492293867 this great spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem, Once again i am very much grateful to Dr.PADMAN

  14. Life is always beautiful when you have good health. For almost a year had Hpv and I was lonely and sad luckily I was directed to a very kind and Great Dr Onokun who helped me cure my Hpv and today I am free from Hpv and very healthy thank you so much Dr Onokun Email him via: or website:

  15. How I Got My Ex Husband Back..Am so excited to share my testimony of a real spell caster who brou. We were happily married with two kids, a boy and a girl. 3 months ago, I started to notice some strange behavior from him and a few weeks later I found out that my husband is seeing someone else. He started coming home late from work, he hardly care about me or the kids anymore, Sometimes he goes out and doesn't even come back home for about 2-3 days. I did all I could to rectify this problem but all to no avail. I became very worried and needed help. As I was browsing through the internet one day, I came across a website that suggested that Dr  Aluya   can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and and told him my problems and he told me what to do and i did it and he did a spell for me. 48 hours later, my husband came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my family are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr  Aluya Powerful Love Spell that really works. If you have any problem contact him and i guarantee you that he will help you. He will not disappoint you. Email him at:  or whatsapp him on:  +2348110493039      you can also go through his website