Pelosi’s Identity Politics Pork Barrel

Pelosi’s Identity Politics Pork Barrel

March 24, 2020

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste,” Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel said during the country’s last major emergency. Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing this noxious idea back as she uses the coronavirus pandemic to permanently stamp identity politics on corporate America.

Pelosi’s coronavirus relief bill is a veritable pork barrel for programs that would force corporations receiving government aid to implement “diversity and inclusion” initiatives that have nothing to do with combating COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and preventing its spread.

In an age when the word “outrage” has lost its meaning through overuse, one is left speechless that the speaker of the House would hold the country’s physical and financial health hostage in an attempt to remake the corporate world along the lines of identity politics.

Pelosi’s bill uses the words diversity or diverse 63 times, the word inclusion 14 times, and the word minority 109 times as it lays money aside for large and small pet projects based on national divisions that depend on race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, etc.

This is not showing compassion for those in need; this is abusing the coronavirus emergency to reorder America.

Title V of Pelosi’s bill, “Investing in a Sustainable Recovery,” has sections on “Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity” and “Diverse Investment Advisers.”

The bill is meticulous in its attempt to coerce companies to count Americans along identity categories in every nook and cranny of corporate activity.

The legislation stipulates: “Any corporation that receives federal aid related to COVID-19 must maintain officials and budget dedicated to diversity and inclusion for no less than 5 years after disbursement of funds.”

The oversight panel set up to distribute the funds “shall collect diversity data from any corporation that receives Federal aid related to COVID-19 and issue a report that will be made publicly available no later than one year after the disbursement of funds.”

That report must include:

the gender, race and ethnic identity (and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group) as otherwise known or provided voluntarily, for the total number of employees (full and part-time) and the career level of employees (executive and managers versus employees in other roles). … The number and dollar value invested with minority- and women-owned suppliers (and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group) including professional services (legal and consulting) and asset managers, and deposits and other accounts with minority depository institutions, as compared to all vendors investments.

Pelosi’s legislation would require companies to supply a comparison of pay among sexes and racial and ethnic minorities. They would have to equally hand over to the government demographic data on their corporate boards, the “reporting structure of lead diversity officials,” and the size of the budget and staff of offices dedicated to “diversity and inclusion.”

Pelosi’s bill would order the Securities and Exchange Commission to set up a Diversity and Advisory Group composed of college professors, government bureaucrats, and members of the private sector to carry out a study that would propose strategies to “increase gender, racial and ethnic diversity” on corporate boards.

Even grantees that hire service personnel who assist elderly households “shall consider and hire, at all levels of employment, and to greatest extent possible, a diverse staff, including by race, ethnicity, gender and disability status.”

No stone is left unturned in Nancy Pelosi’s effort to use the greatest crisis this country has faced in years to stamp identity politics on all aspects of the economy.

What it all has to do with combating the coronavirus or getting our economy humming again is a mystery.

But as Emanuel, who would become chief of staff to President Barack Obama, made clear in 2008, the moments of greatest urgency and fear create opportunities to do things that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand—even if one must make one’s fellow citizens suffer a little longer.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told fellow lawmakers in a conference call last week, according to The Hill newspaper.

Indeed.

     Read his research.

Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

24 March, 2020

This is the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine’s (ESICM), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s (SCCM) new guidance on the management of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) .

Evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Infection Control

The risk of patient-to-patient transmission in the ICU is currently unknown; therefore, adherence to infection control precautions is paramount. The following recommendations and suggestions are provided as considerations rather than a requirement to change institutional infection control policies.

  • For healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, fitted respirator masks (N95 respirators, FFP2, or equivalent) are recommended, as opposed to surgical/medical masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves, gown, face shield or safety goggles (best practice statement).
  • Aerosol-generating procedures on ICU patients with COVID-19 should be performed in a negative pressure room to prevent the spread of contagious airborne pathogens from room to room. The main goal is to avoid the accidental release of pathogens into a larger space and open facility, thereby protecting healthcare workers and patients in a hospital setting (best practice statement).
  • For healthcare workers providing usual care for non-ventilated patients with COVID, or who are performing non-aerosol-generating procedures on mechanically ventilated (closed circuit) patients with COVID-19, the panel suggests using surgical/medical masks, as opposed to respirator masks, in addition to other PPE (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For healthcare workers performing endotracheal intubation on patients with COVID-19, the panel suggests using video-guided laryngoscopy, over direct laryngoscopy, if available (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For patients with COVID-19 requiring endotracheal intubation, the panel recommends that endotracheal intubation be performed by the healthcare worker who is most experienced with airway management in order to minimise the number of attempts and risk of transmission (best practice statement).

Laboratory Diagnosis and Specimens

  • For intubated and mechanically ventilated adults with suspicion of COVID-19, obtaining lower respiratory tract samples is suggested for diagnostic testing versus upper respiratory tract (nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal) samples (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). With regard to lower respiratory samples, the panel suggests obtaining endotracheal aspirates in preference to bronchial wash or bronchoalveolar lavage samples (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).

Haemodynamic Support

  • In adults with COVID-19 and shock, the panel suggests using dynamic parameters skin temperature, capillary refilling time, and/or serum lactate measurement over static parameters in order to assess fluid responsiveness (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For the acute resuscitation of adults with COVID-19 and shock, the panel suggests using a conservative over a liberal fluid strategy (weak recommendation, very low quality evidence); using crystalloids over colloids (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence); and using buffered/balanced crystalloids over unbalanced crystalloids (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
  • For the acute resuscitation of adults with COVID-19 and shock, the panel recommends against using hydroxyethyl starches (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence), gelatins (weak recommendation, low quality evidence), and dextrans (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For adults with COVID-19 and shock, the panel suggests using norepinephrine as the first-line vasoactive agent, over other agents (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If norepinephrine is not available, vasopressin or epinephrine is suggested (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The panel recommends against using dopamine if norepinephrine is available (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). The panel suggests titrating vasoactive agents to target a MAP of 60 to 65 mmHg, rather than higher MAP targets (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For adults with COVID-19 and shock with evidence of cardiac dysfunction and persistent hypoperfusion despite fluid resuscitation and norepinephrine, the panel suggests adding dobutamine, over increasing norepinephrine dose (weak recommendation, very low quality evidence).

Ventilatory Support

  • In adults with COVID-19, the panel suggests starting supplemental oxygen if the peripheral oxygen saturation (SPO2) is < 92% (weak recommendation, low quality evidence), and recommends starting supplemental oxygen if SPO2 is < 90% (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
  • In adults with COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure on oxygen, the panel recommends that SPO2 be maintained no higher than 96% (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
  • In mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the panel recommends using low tidal volume (Vt) ventilation (Vt 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight), over higher tidal volumes (Vt>8 mL/kg) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence); targeting plateau pressures (Pplat) of < 30 cm H2(strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence); and using a conservative fluid strategy over a liberal fluid strategy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).

COVID-19 Therapy

  • In mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and respiratory failure (without ARDS), the panel suggests against the routine use of systemic corticosteroids (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • In mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and ARDS, the panel suggests using systemic corticosteroids, over not using corticosteroids (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • In mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure, the panel suggests using empiric antimicrobials/antibacterial agents, over no antimicrobials (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For critically ill adults with COVID-19 who develop fever, the panel suggests using acetaminophen/paracetamol for temperature control, over no treatment (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • For critically ill adults with COVID-19, the panel suggests against the routine use of lopinavir/ritonavir (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).
  • There is insufficient evidence to issue a recommendation on the use of other antiviral agents in critically ill adults with COVID-19.

Denise Baez

Treatment of COVID-19

Treatment of COVID-19

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19

18 mars 2020

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open label non-randomized clinical trial

pdf article to download: Hydroxychloroquine_final_DOI_IJAA

Percentage of patients with PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples from inclusion to day 6 post-inclusion in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine only, in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithomycin combination, and in COVID-19 control patients.

Please cite this work as Gautret et al. (2020) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID‐19: results of an open‐label non‐randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents – In Press 17 March 2020 – DOI : 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949

Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now

This information was updated on 13 March, 2020. We hope you will take this information and use it to protect yourselves, your families, and all those around you.
The first link above is the main article. The second link here is from JAMA, and shows how Taiwan handled their interaction with China.

A Perspective

    Seasonal flu is causing many more deaths than COVID-19. The problem is that people die because what is communicated is often a response to fear generated by our present mass communication leaving out the complete picture. Unfortunately, government bureaucrats choose their own prejudiced focuses, and rely on what they and the majority want to believe.

    Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with numbers constantly escalating, estimates that more 34 million people have been sickened by the flu, from 350,000 to 620,000 people have been hospitalized, and from 20,000 to 52,000 people have died from it. COVID-19 cases pale in comparison to the number of flu cases, and unlike COVID-19, seasonal flu is in every state and every community in the US. Like hurricanes, the magnitude of Katrina, Ebola, HIV, MERS, SARS, H1N1 flu, and on and on, true freedom only exists within the bounds of immutable Law.