No, Sotomayor Should Not Recuse Herself From All Cases Involving The Administration

President Donald Trump has called upon both Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from any cases involving his administration over their past comments. The trigger for this twitter storm is a recent rebuke by Sotomayor of her conservative colleagues where she suggested that they were showing bias in favor the Trump Administration. The statement of Sotomayor, which surprising to many of its directness, is not a basis in my view for such a recusal or disqualification.

The controversy centers on Sotomayor’s dissent in Wolf v. Cook County where the Court lifted an injunction and allowed the Administration to enforce its new “public charge” rule that limits visas for non-citizens entering the country. In her dissent, Sotomayor pointedly wrote “It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”

Trump blasted the statement on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

“Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.” @IngrahamAngle @FoxNews This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to “shame” some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a “faker”. Both should recuse themselves..44.6K11:09 PM – Feb 24, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy17.1K people are talking about this

There is no basis for such a demand against Sotomayor due to that dissent.

I have repeatedly criticized Ginsburg for her public statements against Trump and his policies as well as her discussion of cases that could come before her on the Court. Fans of the “Notorious RBG” have simply ignored the flagrantly improper character of these remarks. In my view, these comments would be worthy of sanction in the lower courts and arguably recusal on the Supreme Court might be considered in a few cases. These matters are left to the justices who are notorious for dismissing such concerns. However, even with Ginsburg, a blanket disqualification would not be warranted.

While I have been highly critical of public statements by Ginsburg and other justices, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the demand by Trump for a blanket disqualification is ridiculous and unhelpful. There is a real issue to be discussed but it is not such stray lines in dissent. It is the increasing practice of justices to speak publicly and thrill what seems like a type of ideological constituency of what I have called “celebrity justices.” (here and here and here).

183 thoughts on “No, Sotomayor Should Not Recuse Herself From All Cases Involving The Administration”

  1. … if not this, then what WOULD be sufficient to justify recusal?

    It seems your recusal bar is too high …

    This is an obvious and extreme example of political bias on the part of Sotomayor !!!

  2. Given your past hostility toward this celbrated Latina Justice I was happy to see an even handed approach to her jurisprudence Perhaps it means that you are not as racist as before

  3. ‘Biden at tonight’s debate falsely claimed that “17 intelligence agencies” agreed that Putin interfered in the 2016 election. WRONG. In fact, just 3 agencies — CIA, FBI and NSA — did, and NSA had only “moderate confidence” in the assessment (ordered by the Obama/BIDEN admin)’ @paulsperry

    Another fake news lie that Democrats like Joe Biden continue to perpetuate. Why doesn’t anyone in the media, or the debate moderators call it out? It is a verifiable outright lie. Most of what comes out of Joe Biden’s campaign is false. But he doesn’t get fact checked? Where are the Washington Post “four pinnochios” ?? Fake News.

    1. Anonymous,
      One benefit of a Trump-Biden contest would be the humor…….from the inevitable stream of gaffes from both candidates.
      Just a few hours ago, I watched a clip of Pocahantus claiming that her mother went to work for Sears when the minimum wage could support an average size family.
      It’s not likely that anyone will bother to ask, but I’d like to know when that was supposed to have been, and what her income was.
      Even in places with a very low cost of living, the minimum wage was never likely to support a family.
      These (mostly) entry level minimum wage jobs were not suffient to support a family, and the minimum wage was not established with that goal in mind.
      I think the federal minimum wage is long overdue for a substantial increase, but this talk of a “living wage” of $15 or $22 an hour is ridiculous.

      1. Joe Biden at his South Carolina rally was asked about overpopulation, and in addition to saying he would use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas, he went on to talk about women’s rights and actually said this to make a point: “If someone in this room got up and took off all their clothes and walked out the door, no man is allowed to touch her.”

        The man is not firing on all cylinders.

        1. Anonymous – I do not say this to be mean, however I think Biden is in the early stages of dementia.

          1. Paul C. Schulte, that may be. But in fairness, Biden has a long history of sticking his foot in his mouth.
            Given a notably gaffe- prone, long career, it might just be Biden being Biden.

          2. Paul – Most observers can see that Biden is in cognitive decline. Watch the way he angrily shouts his answers during the debates and then loses his train of thought mid sentence and then blinks his eyes shut in frustration as his brain is working hard to get his thought back on track but he never gets there. It’s hard to watch him. He’s never been the brightest fella, he’s always gotten by on his “good ol’ lunch box Joe” schtick, but this is getting ridiculous and noone in their right mind thinks Sleepy Joe is up to the job. Because he’s not.

            1. Anonymous – I think this borders on elder abuse, if it is not elder abuse. Maybe they are using him as a stalking horse for someone else. Obama won’t support him and I can see why. But it is time to put a GPS in his shoes and lock him in the house.

  4. The President, not the administration, can be a party in any case before the Supreme Court, because the Administration is not the Federal Government, the Administration does not represent the Federal Government, and the Administration is not a State.

    to understand the assembly and function of the Supreme Court we must refer to Article IX of the Articles of Confederation:

    “The united states, in congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another, shall present a petition to congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, by order of congress, to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names, as congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of congress, be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress, for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection, or hope of reward: “provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.

    All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different states.”

    This method of assembling a court to hear grievances when necessary was replaced by Article III of the Constitution to provide a permanent non biased judiciary, with appointments made by indirect Nomination and the approval of the States. but the scope and responsibility of the court is still the same, to be the adjudicator of disputes between the States or between a State(s) and the Union, and the union is the united States in congress assembled, the Federal Government, not an unconstitutionally and improperly assembled Presidential Administration.

    1. The President, nor the administration, can be a party in any case before the Supreme Court, because the Administration is not the Federal Government, the Administration does not represent the Federal Government, and the Administration is not a State.

    2. this shows what happens when a programmer tries to interpret the source code that is the US constitution

      you might as well be reading machine language and trying to execute from that based on your flawed conclusions

  5. Speaking of Democrat Presidential Debates….why didn’t any of the moderators ask Joe Biden how his Senate race was going?

    1. ‘My name’s Joe Biden I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate look me over if you like what you see help out if not vote for the other Biden….’

      PS Go home Joe. no one in their right mind will ever let you anywhere near the Oval Office as POTUS. you don’t even know what office you are running for!!

    2. Aninymous:
      “Speaking of Democrat Presidential Debates….why didn’t any of the moderators ask Joe Biden how his Senate race was going?”
      I think panelist Deng Xiaoping asked him. At least, Biden thought he did. Why would anyone let this senile old man anywhere near the nuclear codes?

        1. Biden said during the debate that guns killed 150 million people – which is about half of the US population — and NO ONE corrected him, not even one of the 5 moderators?!! Shocking. Not.

          And why do these debates need so many “moderators”? Almost as many moderators as candidates? Ridiculous.

        2. since Dems are so mathematically illiterate, nobody had a correction at hand, which was immediately preposterous and incorrect. where’s the major newspapers mocking this fool?

          the number of 150 thousand would be near the truth not 150 million. sad!

          top 15 articles catching this lie on google results are all from “Right wing media” that Seth Peter regularly mocks. where’s the NYT or Wapoo etc? Let him look and tell me if they have anythign to say, I wont waste much more time on this

      1. I would laugh if it wasn’t so seriously alarming that this man was vice president for eight years. Joe Biden thinks squinting his Botoxed eyes and then raising his voice and shouting his mixed-up answers will somehow communicate that ‘Biden means business’? Biden doesn’t know which state he is in at any given stop, let alone what office he’s running for. He’s so awful that it’s hard to watch.

  6. Betu,
    The response was to Mr. T regarding Supreme Court appointments.
    I don’t know what “unconstitutional rulings by district courts” you are referring to, so I can’t respond to that.

  7. Trump Attacks Court As Judge Jackson Presides At Hearing On Stone Trial

    Judge Jackson made clear she was concerned about attacks by Trump and others on jurors, even ordering the hearing partially closed to protect the safety and privacy of those on the panel. 

    Citing the risk of harassment and intimidation jurors might face, Jackson decided that observers should be able to only listen to an audio feed — rather than see in person — arguments over Stone’s request for a new trial. She also barred the parties from naming jurors during the proceeding.

    Jackson noted the president himself had “used his Twitter platform to present his opinion about the foreperson” of the jury, and that Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson had displayed the foreperson’s Twitter handle and called her an “Anti-Trump zealot.”

    Text Of Tweet Sent By Donald J. Trump


    There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of “Trump” and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch.


    Further Along In Story:

    Growing heated at one point, Jackson pointed out that it was she, the judge, who pressed the potential juror about her ability to remain impartial, and that Stone’s defense attorney said he had no questions. The defense attorney, Robert C. Buschel, said “Thank you” and sat down, never investigating or challenging the juror’s selection, Jackson asserted.

    Buschel also conceded during the hearing that he had not run a Google search on the juror.

    Prosecutors’ contention seemed to be that Stone’s defense attorneys had ample time to review her and other jurors questionnaires, which they were given on Sept. 13, and did not raise an objection in real time.

    The government on Tuesday called as a witness one of the prosecutors who brought the case against Stone at trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Marando.

    Marando quit the case only in recent weeks, after Justice Department leadership intervened to reduce the sentencing recommendation he and the other career prosecutors on the team made for Stone.

    Marando testified that Stone’s defense was given a list five days before jury selection began of about 80 potential jurors in the order they would be questioned, meaning those at the top would be likeliest to be selected.

    “It’s coming back to me now. A lot has happened since them,” Marando said.

    Stone also made a separate, failed bid to disqualify Jackson after Thursday’s sentencing hearing, asserting that she showed bias by referring to “the jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances.”

    Jackson slapped down that claim as a baseless smear, saying no law required a postponement and that she had agreed to delay execution of Stone’s sentence until his motion is resolved.

    “Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” Jackson wrote in a rare Sunday opinion.

    Edited from: “Trump Calls Stone Juror Totally Biased As Prosecutors And Defense Attorneys Debated New Trial”

    1. Regarding Above: it strongly appears the Stone’s Defense dropped the ball in screening Foreperson Hart.

      1. Dropped the ball because she deceived them. Sorry folks this is an easy call.. Concealed juror bias, defective voir dire, unfair trial, substantial error, grounds for reversal of verdict and new trial. Easy outcome..

        Unless you’re just afraid the evidence won’t stand up with a fair jury!

    2. Bravo for President Trump attacking Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
      The liberals have been attacking Justice Clarence Thomas for decades and now Justice Kavanuagh.

      Let them eat dirt….

    3. Seth,

      Perhaps this will be easier in a different context. Imagine you are sued in civil court and the jury renders a verdict for enormous damages against you and judgment is entered.

      Subsequently you learn that the jury foreman is a lawyer and is the husband of the plaintiff and will share in the judgment.

      During screening and voir dire the juror assured under oath that he could be unbiased. Your lawyer did not pursue the issue further.

      Should the judgment against you stand?

  8. Although it is doomed to fail,I expect a government motion to recuse would curb her enthusiasm for verbal diarrhoea.

  9. Wow – not even a mention that Trump appointed two of the Justices who owe their existence on SCOTUS to him and have consistently done his bidding. Shouldn’t we be discussing first whether they should be recused from all things Trump?

    1. have consistently done his bidding

      Like interpreting the US Constitution sans wish casting, as TIA might say, or “judicial activism”.

      May Trump appoint 6 more, or as we say in Catholic circles, “it’s cheaper by the dozen”

    2. Nor did Prof. Turley mention the Obama and Clinton appointees, Mr. T.
      All of whom owe their appointments to those two presidents, and all of whom are far left idealogues.
      In recent history, the Democrats have had much better results in matching their SC appointees with their own political agendas.
      The Republican choices have included O’Conner, Kennedy, and Souter; justices who frequently sided with the left wing of the Court.

  10. Nor should Sotomayor and Ginsberg be speaking out in partisan terms. It creates a public perception that SCOTUS decisions are politically driven, whether or not true.

  11. Kate Hill operative hacked Democrat California primary that sent her to Congress by less than 3000 votes


    “I’m absolutely shocked and saddened to learn today that Katie Hill’s campaign associates hacked my campaign in order to help her advance through the primary,” Caforio told The Intercept. “This should serve as a reminder that Russia is not the only threat to our democracy. There are bad actors on all sides who will do anything for their own personal gain, and we need to come together as Americans to defend our country and hold everyone responsible accountable.”

    The Intercept

  12. American “original intent” for the composition of the Supreme Court was one chief justice and 5 associate justices.

    Those numbers represent the perfect minimum for objective jurisprudence and the perfect maximum to preclude corruption.

    The only reason to reverse the genius of the American Founders and change those numbers is to politicize and corrupt the court.

    Ginsburg and Sotomayor have demonstrated intellectual defects as biases, disloyalty and a complete lack of objectivity.

    They should have never been confirmed.

    They should be impeached, convicted and removed with extreme prejudice.

    There was good reason why the American Founders required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” four times and why the American

    Founders generally required voters to be male, European, 21 with 50lbs./50 acres.

    The Ten Commandments were written to stand in perpetuity as was the “original intent” of the American Founders.

    The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral” as are the American population, American freedom and free enterprise and American


      1. Norrin,

        I see you’re another one of those very special people.

        I’m getting ready to raise funds for free vacation trips to Wuhan China.

        Let me know if you’d like to go.

      2. I have an idea, let’s “fundamentally transform” the United States of America into extinction.

        I’m sure the Founders, the Constitution and Bill of Rights would like that.

        Americans can simply vanish and cede their country to women on strike against motherhood, hyphenates and illegal invaders.

        Yep! It truly is amazing how well that sells.

      3. I forgot. I apologize. Thank you for reading.

        Just as an aside and to gain a modicum of perspective, are you a man, a woman or an “other?”

        1. Could you, perhaps, flesh that out – my ignorance of the Constitution, the defacto positions of the American Founders, the original intent for immigration and citizenship, the original intent for voting and the expectation by the Founder of the inviolability of the restricted vote in the American republic, the status of the American fertility rate, the composition of the American population, etc.?

          Are you subconsciously engaging in transference?

      1. More Americans die than are born.

        The replacement fertility rate is 2.1.

        The American fertility rate is 1.6.

        Simply put, the American population is being imported and Americans are becoming extinct.

        Who does that?

        Who has taught Americans to despise and abhor themselves and commit national suicide?

        1.3 billion Indians. 1.4 billion Chinese.

        .25 billion Kiwis/Aussies/Canucks/Europeans/Americans.

        Say good night, America.

      2. The “fertility thing” demonstrates the scope and breadth of the decline of America since inception. It’s kinda, “Look around you, everything has gone to heck including the actual American population.”

  13. Trump Relies On Emergency Stays And Conservative Majority Keeps Granting 

    Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, called attention to the pattern of behavior that Sotomayor was criticizing in a November 2019 paper in the Harvard Law Review. He found that Trump’s solicitor general sought emergency stays in 20 cases in the first 2½ years of Trump’s term, including six to stop nationwide injunctions against Trump’s travel ban and three involving the transgender military ban.

    By comparison, in all 16 years of the Barack Obama and George W. Bush administrations, the solicitor general filed a total of eight stay applications.

    He called it the solicitor general’s “shadow docket.”

    “A majority of the Justices now appear to believe that the government suffers an irreparable injury for purposes of emergency relief whenever a statute or policy is enjoined by a lower court, regardless of the actual impact of the lower court’s ruling,” Vladeck argued.

    Edited From: “Trump Slams Sotomayor And Ginsburg, Says They Should Recuse Themselves From Trump Related Cases”

    Today’s Washington Post 

    1. Meaningless since “emergency” is entirely subjective. In Trump’s opinion they ARE emergencies. And as chief administrator no one has the right of authority to overrule that.

    2. I can grant that there is a legitimate criticism in this somewhere, but i can’t grant that it was relevant to the case itself… normally cases are decided on merits not handling of the docket by the majority

  14. Trump is clearly wrong on this count, but…

    Sotomayor is not that stupid, either. How can she ignore the fact/truth that those who oppose Trump are judge shopping and suing for anything and everything the can imagine? It’s a pathetic and transparent attempt to distract the administration from getting its agenda done.

    I didn’t vote for Trump, but I do accept that he won, and he did run on an agenda. He got 60M+ votes, so “democratically,” there are plenty of people who oppose those who bring these lawsuits.

    I am a Sotomayor fan, in general, but this judge shopping is not democratic or republican (small d, small r). It’s sore losers finding like minded sore losers on the bench to further an agenda not elected.

  15. I welcome Trump speaking his mind.

    However, there’s no need for recusal in general, such as he suggested.

    Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. Now for a molehill that’s actually a mountain:
    COVID 19 Corononavirus is projected to break out in the US

    Where’s Seth peter? Please copy the text of the Wapo article will you? “spread inevitable health officials say” or something like that.

    1. COVID 19 Corononavirus is projected to break out in the US

      By whom? There are 35 cases. Of these, 18 were passengers on a cruise ship and are in quarantine. Of the remainder, 11 of 17 were identified > 17 days ago, enough time to fight off the infection.

        1. Spring is coming

          perfect. right before Election Day.

          Given that 2/3 of Americans are obese/overweight, and hence have a comorbid condition, perhaps Coronavirus will be a modern day Plague of Locusts. Frankly I would prefer an angel of death passover with or without the blood of a lamb on the door posts.

          I’ve given up on you Allan, George, Oky1, MIchael A and Kurtz. If you want to believe that the Coronavirus is reason to get what few neurotransmitters you all have combined to create an evoked potential, good luck with that. OTOH I say bring it and it wont be soon enough. I only have one request: please let it bring me a bag of limes. I like my Corona Beer with lime

          Happy Shrove Tuesday to all of you heathens.

          We are having pancakes at church tonight!

          Shrove is the past tense of the English verb “Shrive” which means to obtain absolution for one’s sins by way of confession and by doing penance.

          With Shrove Tuesday taking place before the start of Lent on Ash Wednesday, it was the day when Christians were encouraged to go to confession in preparation for the penitential season that would end 40 days and 40 nights later with Easter Sunday.

          Dating back to 1000 AD, over the years Shrove Tuesday not only became a day for Confession but a time for Catholics to feast on eggs, sugar and dairy which are traditionally restricted during the Lenten fast.

          Not only was Shrove Tuesday a last chance to gorge on such foods but it was also a way to use them up before the fast began.

          1. ” perhaps Coronavirus will be a modern day Plague of Locusts.”

            Estovir, remember pneumonia is the old man’t friend (attributed to William Osler)

            “I’ve given up on you…”

            Do you not work Estovir, or do you spend 16 hours a week in the gym?

            ” I like my Corona Beer with lime”

            Sounds low energy to me.

          2. I had no idea Lent was already here. I guess we should go to church more. Thank you for the Shrove Tuesday reminder

              1. Thanks for teeing today’s reading from the Catholic calendar on this day before Ash Wednesday.

                Pancakes at church and fellowship tonight at church were marvelous, Paul. We saved a plate for you

                Lucky you: I am giving up the internet for Lent!



                Reading 1JAS 4:1-10

                Where do the wars and where do the conflicts among you come from?
                Is it not from your passions that make war within your members?
                You covet but do not possess.
                You kill and envy but you cannot obtain;
                you fight and wage war.
                You do not possess because you do not ask.
                You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly,
                to spend it on your passions.
                Do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God?
                Therefore, whoever wants to be a lover of the world
                makes himself an enemy of God.
                Or do you suppose that the Scripture speaks without meaning when it says,
                The spirit that he has made to dwell in us tends toward jealousy?
                But he bestows a greater grace; therefore, it says:
                God resists the proud,
                but gives grace to the humble.

                So submit yourselves to God.
                Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you.
                Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.
                Cleanse your hands, you sinners,
                and purify your hearts, you of two minds.
                Begin to lament, to mourn, to weep.
                Let your laughter be turned into mourning
                and your joy into dejection.
                Humble yourselves before the Lord
                and he will exalt you.


                1. here’s my quote:

                  “Ezekiel 14:21
                  Verse Concepts
                  For thus says the Lord GOD, “How much more when I send My four severe judgments against Jerusalem: sword, famine, wild beasts and plague to cut off man and beast from it!”

                  If God will send pestilence on his chosen, then he certainly would send it on us. I don’t pretend that I will be able to sway either God or a virus from my doorstep with prayer. Even though it may boost the immune system, to a degree.

          3. huh? i know what evoked potential is but I can’t quite make out the insult. it’s above my head I must be too dumb to figure it out

            considering that the coronavirus deaths have been grossly understated by the PRC authorities, who didn’t have test kids or means to test all the carcasses they’ve been incinerating in Wuhan like so much stacked cordwood the past month, I rather suspect that the mortality rate is above 3%

            not that 3% is a trifling rate, if you consider how infectious this is

            systems can easily be overwhelmed and then people will be dying like flies from all their “comorbidities” ie diabetes, etc

            and in China it wasnt just already-sick old people, doctors have died too.

            I’m overweight and healthy as a horse in the gym four times a week, my doctor laughs because he’s in exactly the same spot as me. he doesn’t bust my chops over it.

            as for plagues of locusts, those are out and about in the world too in case you didn’t hear. more trouble on its way

            remember this: systems can be overwhelmed with socially devastating cascading effects


            have fun at Mass. I’m staying home. God will judge me as he pleases.

            1. considering that the coronavirus deaths have been grossly understated by the PRC authorities,

              Given that the reported mortality rates outside of China are a great deal lower than they are in China (with the exception of those in Iran), this is rather counter-intuitive.

              1. I’m sure the rotten standards of the PRC health care system have had an effect in this respect. the US health care system for all its faults is far superior. For now, unless Bernie somehow got elected and Congress implemented his crazy schemes. Or one of his rivals with similarly insane plans.

                that said, if the infection rate is high enough, it may not matter if the mortality rate is 1 2 or 3 %, there could still be an overwhelming number of hospitalizations. therein lies my concern

                there is also a concern in that base reagents for US medicines are about 90% manufactured in– yes, you guessed it…… China. So we may see a supply interruption in various medicines, some of which were already stocked thinly in the first place.

                there is information on this, you can look it up

      1. There are several reasons why Covid-19 is expected to become more common in the US.

        Other countries have not done as well at quarantining positive patients. It has come out that China refused our help, and does not have sufficient test kits. (This information is a couple of weeks old, and might have changed.) China hid the outbreak for enough of a window that people traveled outside of Wuhan.

        Covid-19 is spreading in other countries.

        The United States still has air travel with countries who are experiencing outbreaks. For instance, we currently receive flights from Tokyo.

        Since we still have so much international travel, it is inevitable that covid-19 will arrive here. Since so many patients with covid-19 experience regular cold symptoms, there will be patients who do not self report or quarantine. They will be at Disneyland, the mall, the movies, and in schools, coughing and hacking.

        If the world properly quarantined these patients, and every country shut down air travel, this virus could have gone extinct in a single season. However, doing so would have serous economic impacts, which is why travel remained so open. For a virus to actually die out, every patient must be quarantined, and all population mixing, such as international travel, has to stop until it’s gone. If the virus made people get bright purple spots, or some other easily identifiable feature, it would be easier to stop. Another example is ebola, with the blood leaking from every orifice. You are not going to go to school with blood coming from your eyes. But an illness with cold or flu like symptoms? That’s going to spread.

        I view these outbreaks as a trial run for something even more serious in the future. It’s the international quarantine and travel closures that we are not good at yet, because the cost would be severe. If other countries do not quarantine as we do, and everyone travels here, it spreads.

        This is just a theory, however. It could turn out that covid-19 will not survive for future seasons, and will die out. In that case, I would be happy to be wrong.

      2. it’s projected by experts such as this Lipshitz guy from Harvard, epidemiologist, who projects half the world or more infected within a year.

        and other people at CDC

        i hate to say but probably more money should have been requisitioned for this problem, although nancy and chuck are probably just saying so as a political foil. kind of life crying wolf, when they are finally telling the truth, people may not listen

        1. Half the globe? The usual estimate in re the Spanish flu epidemic a century ago is about 1/3 of the globe.

          1. x XX and Mr. Kurtz,
            There seem to be different models/ projections about how this coronavirus will play out.
            It looks like no one can really predict, with a high degree of confidence, the ultimate course and costs ( infection and deaths) of this virus.
            One positive is that the mortality rate for those infected, and who’ve been treated in the U.S. has been low.
            I think that globally the mortality rate has also been far lower than, say, the Spanish flu epidemic.

        2. “i hate to say but probably more money should have been requisitioned for this problem,”

          My understanding is that Trump has asked for $1.25Billion to fight the Corona virus and is transferring $535Million from Ebola. That is just shy of $2Billion. The Democrats will find something wrong with that as they did when he stopped travel because of the virus. I think he is fast tracking research which should significantly speed up research. Spring is coming so one hopes the US can remain relatively free from the disease until then giving a chance to develop of vaccine for this virus though the time span is somewhat short.

          Transmission rates last I heard (from memory) was around 2.4 but I have read numbers as high as 4. I have seen estimates of 2- 5 for Spanish Flu and a multiple of that for measles. The rate for Ebola I believe is significantly less than Corona. The transmission rate and time before symptoms can make this a tough disease to deal with until a vaccine is available.

Comments are closed.