Author: arieh

  • Archiving: Trump at the Rubicon

    On Wednesday 17 November US time, Alexander Macris published “Trump at the Rubicon”. The article became a reference document among the most hardcore Trump supporters in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021. I reproduce it here for historical and archival purposes:


    Trump at the Rubicon: How the Insurrection Act and Militia Act empower Trump to cast the die

    Alexander Macris
    macris.substack.com
    Wed, 18 Nov 2020 02:02 UTC

    In the closing days of 50 BC, the Roman Senate declared that Julius Caesar’s term as a provincial governor was finished. Roman law afforded its magistrates immunity to prosecution, but this immunity would end with Caesar’s term. As the leader of the populares faction, Caesar had many enemies among the elite optimates, and as soon as he left office, these enemies planned to bury him in litigation. Caesar knew he would lose everything: property, liberty, even his life.

    Caesar decided it was better to fight for victory than accept certain defeat. In January 49 BC, he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, in violation of sacred Roman law, and began a civil war. “Alea iacta est,” said Caesar: The die is cast.

    In the closing days of 2020 AD, the American media has declared that Donald Trump’s term as president is finished. As the leader of the deplorables faction, Trump has many enemies among the elite irates, and as soon as he leaves office, these enemies plan to bury him in litigation. Bill Pascrell, the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Oversight, has officially called for the prosecution of President Trump for “government crimes” following his term in office. In his thirst for vengeance, Pascrell has made it clear there will be no Nixonian escape by pardon:

    Donald Trump, along with his worst enablers, must be tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution. Any further abuse of the sacred pardon power to shield criminals would itself be obstruction of justice, and any self-pardons would be illegal.

    Like Caesar, Trump now must fight for victory or lose everything. Come January 2021, will Donald Trump decide to cast the die and cross the Rubicon? He might.

    The same people who warned us that Trump is worse than Hitler will now scoff: “Donald Trump is no Caesar!” That’s true. Trump is in a much better position than Caesar was.

    Unlike Caesar, Trump can cross the Rubicon legally. He need violate no sacred law. He has all of the legal power he needs to act and win. Congress has given it to him. All he needs to do is invoke the Insurrection Act.

    Invoking the Insurrection Act

    During the 2020 summer protests and riots, commentators on both the Left and Right argued about whether Trump would use the so-called Insurrection Act against the crowds. Strangely, no one seems to be considering the fact that Trump could use it now.

    The history of the Insurrection Act dates back all the way to 1797, and the legislative record is so long and tortured that it’s woeful to contemplate. Suffice to say that in the 21st century, the Insurrection Act has been pleasantly re-titled “The Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act” and codified in four sections of the US Code:

    Of the four provisions, the most recent and the most powerful is 10 USC § 253, which was written in 2006. This is the one that liberal pundits always forget to mention when they blab about Posse Comitatus and governors. It reads:

    The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it-

    1. so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
    2. opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

    That’s powerful language! Consider:

    • The authority is vested solely in the President. He does not need the invitation of state governors to intervene, nor does he need the approval of the Supreme Court. Older provisions of the Insurrection Act required either a governor or a judicial proceeding to authorize its use, but these limits were purposefully removed by Congress in § 253.
    • There is no time limit on the President’s activities. Older versions of the Insurrection Act limited the use of force to brief periods of time and then required legislative approval. Those limits, too, are also gone.
    • The President is allowed to use any means that he (and again, he needs no one else) considers necessary. This includes using the armed forces (which enables him to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act) and using the militia (which we’ll discuss in more detail below).
    • The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.

    In blunt terms, Congress has given the power to President Trump to proclaim:

    “I, President Trump, have determined that a conspiracy has deprived 70 million Americans of their right to vote and that the other authorities are refusing to protect this right. I therefore order the suppression of this conspiracy by any means necessary.”

    And with that, Trump will cross the Rubicon.

    Horror and Denial: He Shouldn’t! He Wouldn’t!

    If you are of libertarian leanings, you are likely to feel horror: “Why on Earth did a free republic vest so much power into one man?”

    You should feel horror. The Romans required a Senate vote to appoint a Dictator with emergency powers, and that Dictator served a strict six-month term limit. In America, we’ve given the President the right to decide when he should become a Dictator and for how long he can retain his emergency powers.

    This was certainly unwise; but it is done. “Game over, man.” The power has been given. The power can be used. And it probably will be used if the Democrats continue on their foolish campaign to seek vengeance on Trump.

    If you are in the grip of normalcy bias, you are likely to be in denial: “Trump wouldn’t dare! The US Armed Forces would remove him from office! The troops wouldn’t respond to his call!”

    Pompey said the same about the Roman legions. He was wrong. He was so wrong, in fact, that his decapitated head ended up in a stylish gift box presented to Caesar as a present when he landed in Egypt. Don’t be Pompey.

    Now, I don’t expect beheadings (just helicopters) but I do expect that the US Armed Forces would obey Trump’s orders. Although he is not popular with the Pentagon, Trump remains popular with actual soldiers, especially with white middle-class men who make up a disproportionate number of the infantry, armor, pilots, special forces, and other combat arms. (His support among law enforcement personnel is even higher. The men with guns love Trump.)

    But let’s assume the Armed Forces are paralyzed, split, or neutral. If so, Trump still has millions of troops available: The militia.

    Calling Up the Militia

    The militia is defined by 10 U.S. Code § 246:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (bThe classes of the militia are —

    • (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    • (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    This is, again, an incredibly powerful piece of legislation. Put into plain English, and ignoring a few minor exemptions (postal workers, etc), Trump commands an unorganized militia consisting of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45. The men don’t need to be in the National Guard. They don’t need to be veterans. They don’t need to be anything except 17 to 45 and able-bodied.

    Remember that 10 USC § 253 grants the President the power to use the militia to take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress conspiracy. The militia is statutorily defined to include the unorganized militia.

    Therefore, when you combine 10 USC § 253 with 10 USC § 246, the President can call on every able-bodied male age 17 to 45 to take any means he deems necessary to suppress the conspiracy to deny Americans their voting rights.

    How many men is that? With 328M Americans, 50% of them male, and 40% of them between 18 and 45, that’s 65M militia members.

    Organizing the Unorganized

    When Trump calls up the unorganized militia, how does it get organized? What Federal statutes, regulations, and case law govern what happens next? The answer… Well, there isn’t one.

    The Citizen-Soldier under Federal and State Law“, a lengthy law review article published in 94 W. Va. L. Rev (1992), reviewed all of the available statutes, regulations, and case law relating to the use of citizen-soldiers. Turns out, there’s not much about the unorganized militia. In fact, in the entirety of the 20th century, there has only been one case:

    In 1946 Virginia Governor William Mumford Tuck issued a call to the state’s unorganized militia to come to the aid of the state and to quell a labor dispute.

    Let’s quickly look at what happened. According to the Encyclopedia Virginia, the crisis began when the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union announced that its members would strike against the Virginia Electric and Power Company unless its demands were met by a deadline of April 1, 1946.

    At the time, “Virginia law divided its militia into four classes: the National Guard, the Virginia Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. This latter unit hypothetically consisted of all able-bodied males between the ages of sixteen and fifty-five who could be summoned by the governor if needed.” (Virginia law thus mirrored 10 U.S. Code § 246.)

    Two days before the strike deadline, Governor Tuck “unilaterally decreed that all IBEW employees were summarily drafted into the unorganized militia and ordered, on pain of court-martial, to continue at their jobs.” Shortly thereafter, the dispute was resolved and questions as to the constitutionality of Tuck’s actions were left unresolved. However, the next month, US President Harry S. Truman “used a similar tactic in threatening to draft into the U.S. Army railway workers whose union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, was calling for a nationwide strike; as in the VEPCO affair, the two sides reached a settlement at the eleventh hour.”

    So in the only recorded instance in the last 100 years, an unorganized militia was called updrafted, and ordered to perform particular duties on pain of court-martial, unilaterally by a governor, without any other legislative action, new statute, or court order. And rather than condemn the governor, the US President thought this idea was so awesome he used it himself the next month on the federal militia.

    With no apparent limits whatsoever, the Insurrection Act combined with the Militia Act isn’t just a blank check; it’s a blank check book. Apparently our government can call on its citizens to do whatever it wants! I would protest this, but I’m currently on lockdown.

    The Balance of Forces

    Let’s return to our earlier assumption that Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act and then used it to call up the militia. Let’s continue to assume that the US Armed Forces are either paralyzed with indecision, split in their loyalties, or opting to stay neutral, and just look at the militia. So who is going to fight?

    Now, no matter what the law says, not every eligible militia man would respond to Trump’s call. But it seems likely there’d be a large number who did respond, and an even larger number of noncombatant supporters. Right now, 70% of Republicans don’t think the election was free and fair. If Trump calls on the unorganized militia to save the Republic from voter fraud, a militia will come.

    So too would an anti-militia or resistance. In fact, lots of people who are willing to fight are fighting on the streets already. It seems likely that if Trump crosses the Rubicon, he will trigger a civil war, just like Caesar triggered a civil war.

    When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he had only one legion against the might of Rome. What would Trump and his opponents be able to muster?

    Let’s assess the balance of forces. Trump’ voters consisted of 58% of 98M white men; 55% of 98M white women; 36% of 30M Hispanic men, 28% of 30M Hispanic women, 20% of 22M black men, and 9% of 22M black women.

    Meanwhile, the demographics of gun ownership in the US are as follows: 48% of white men own a gun, while only 24% of white women own a gun, 24% of non white men, and 16% of non-white women.

    Assuming that women largely don’t fight (which is the historical norm), the balance of forces looks like this:

    • 98 million white men x 58% Trump voters x 48% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 11 million white gun-owning Trump militia
    • 36 million Hispanic men x 30% Trump voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 1 million Hispanic gun-owning Trump militia
    • 22 million black men x 20% Trump voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 0.4 million black gun-owning Trump militia
    • 98 million white men x 42% Biden voters x 48% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 8 million white gun-owning anti-Trump resisters
    • 36 million Hispanic men x 70% Biden voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 2.4 million Hispanic gun-owning anti-Trump resisters
    • 22 million black men x 80% Biden voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 1.7 million black gun-owning anti-Trump resisters

    This basic math suggests 12.4 million potential Trump gun owners and 12.1 million potential anti-Trump gun owners.

    However, it’s likely the odds would stack more favorably to Trump. Although only 39% of Americans are Republicans, gun owners are actually 64% RepublicanIn other words, those who own guns are disproportionately Republican by a factor of 1.64! If we replace the percentage of Trump voters with the percentage of Republican gun-owners, then the balance of forces changes to 17.6M pro-Trump and 6.9M anti-Trump.

    3% of Americans fought in the Continental Army during the Revolution. If 3% respond to the call for the militia, that would mean between 450,000 to 700,000 militia and 210,000 to 450,000 resisters. To put that in context, there’s only 60,000 soldiers in the Infantry Branch of the US Army.

    Of the militia who do respond, those on Trump’s side will be much better trained. As noted earlier, the military’s combat arms are disproportionately white, with the infantry being 79% white and only 9% black. Since the United States has now been at war for 20 years, there are millions of combat veterans, and the vast majority of those who fought as infantry are likely to be on Trump’s side. Likewise, the vast majority of LEO veterans seem likely to fight on Trump’s side, if they chose a side.

    The Oathkeepers, a hundred-thousand-strong organization made up of military and law enforcement veterans and personnel, has already stated that it will refuse to recognize a Biden presidency. “We’ll be very much like the founding fathers. We’ll end up nullifying and resisting,” said founder Stewart Rhodes.

    The founding fathers resisted, of course, with guns.

    This Is Not a Drill

    Meanwhile, those in the grip of normalcy bias still think that the ‘nuclear option‘ is for Trump to ask the state legislatures to appoint some electors to the college. Using legislative ballots isn’t the nuclear option. It’s barely a grenade. The nuclear option is Insurrection Act and the Militia.

    Left-wing media is a parade of ostriches marching heads down in the sand. “Trump will lose in a landslide!” Wrong. “Trump has already lost!” Wrong. “There is no evidence of fraud!” Wrong. “Civil War could never happen!” Wrong. Maybe it won’t happen. The future is unpredictable. But it really, really could happen.

    If I had told you last November that in the next 12 months the US would endure the worst pandemic since Spanish Flu, AND the worst depression since the Great Depression, AND the worst Constitutional crisis since the Civil War, AND the worst civil unrest since the summer of 1968, AND an unprecedented nation-wide lockdowns that led to the end of sports, bars, restaurants, movies, in-class attendance at school, and commuting to work, AND that it would culminate in the World Economic Forum announcing a Great Reset to the global economy to lock in this new normal, would you have believed me? No, you’d have laughed me off as a tinfoil nutjob. Yet here we are.

    To repeat a statistic from earlier: 70% of Republicans think that the most recent election is illegitimate. In a functioning democracy, if 70% of the second-largest political party in the country thinks an election has been stolen, the elites come together to cooperate to investigate and restore legitimacy in the eyes of the voters.

    In the US, that’s not happening. Instead, an enormous machine, consisting of tech oligopolies, liberal media, watchdog groups, and partisan activists, is doing everything it can to silence and suppress the dissenters. Simultaneously, this same machine is making enemy lists and actively declaring that when it wins, it will be taking vengeance, against Trump, against everyone who helped him, and against everyone who voted for him.

    This is not a drill. This is where we are. If Trump is standing on the banks of the Rubicon, it’s because the leftist machine has purposefully widened the Rubicon River until it reaches his feet.

    Clear-headed left-wingers — if there are any left — need to step in and deescalate the threats against Trump and his supporters, and listen to 70 million Americans clamoring for fair and fraud-free voting. There is still time.

    Otherwise, as another great military leader put it, “when on death ground, you must fight.”

    Update (1230AM 11/20/20): This afternoon, Trump’s legal team made serious allegations of election fraud in the Presidential election and indicated their intent to pursue these allegations in as many as 10 states. In response, Democrat thought leaders have declared the litigation efforts to be an attempted coup, begun a #sedition hashtag on Twitter, and written op-eds demanding felony charges against the entire legal team for treason — a legal team led by one of the nation’s most respected prosecutors and mayors in history! Taking the position that litigating before the Supreme Court is sedition is a perfect example of purposefully widening the Rubicon River until it reaches Trump’s feet.

  • Catching up

    Well, I suppose I haven’t been very active around here recently. Most of my writing now is on the Hat Tip, my fortnightly newsletter. If you haven’t signed up yet, please do!

    Recent newsletters covered:

    For the Tel Aviv Review of Books, I looked back at Israel’s approach to fighting the coronavirus pandemic:

    I was also quoted this week in the New Statesman’s cover story, “How Strongmen cling to power” by Jeremy Cliffe. The piece as a whole is great and worth a read.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2021/11/how-strongmen-cling-to-power
  • Tipping my hat

    Recently I’ve been writing mostly at The Hat Tip. If you’re interested in a weekly newsletter which usually includes a long article as well as a few bits and bobs, sign up. Paying subscribers get additional content, but the weekly newsletter is free.

    Subscribe now!

  • Israel’s vaccination strategy: leading the world but missing the target?

    Israel’s vaccination strategy: leading the world but missing the target?

    When Israel began its vaccination effort. I argued that targeting the vaccines by age would provide the most significant reduction in mortality risk. Vaccinating just the 3% of Israel’s population that is aged over over 80 would reduce the fatality risk by more than 50%, and would only require vaccinating 273,000 people.

    This hyper-targeted approach is how Britain is doing its vaccinations (after taking COVID test in Forest Hills, NY on every citizen), offering the limited supply of Pfizer vaccine only to the over-80s for now.

    Israel, though, chose a broader approach. In addition to healthcare workers, the four national health providers (HMOs) announced that they’d vaccinate any member aged over 60.

    Unsurprisingly, this caused a huge flood of Israelis flooding the phonelines and apps, trying to book their slots. But the vaccine programme is working. As of the morning of December 29, Israel had vaccinated 495,000 people, around 5.5% of its population and the highest per-capita vaccination rate in the world. This week, as the efforts have ramped up further, Israel’s been vaccinating more than 1% of the population a day!

    Except… today the Health Ministry published the age breakdown of the people who’ve been vaccinated, and only 305,000 of them were aged 60 or older.As vaccination can prevent from horrible disease it is always advisable to get them at earliest. When vaccination are not done it may result to many health issues including back pain. You can also read this article to get rid off back pain.

    So around 38% of the people vaccinated so far are under 60. Some of these are frontline health workers, of course. But a lot of them aren’t. Many of the vaccination stations were giving a jab to anyone who lived with a person over 60, which includes many young people. Some were giving shots to anyone who turned up and asked for one, regardless of age. And some were giving out any spare shots at the end of the day.

    Partly, this is a defensible practice. The Pfizer vaccine isn’t stable for very long once it’s defrosted, so it’s much better to give thawed vaccine to a young person than throw it out.

    But there’s a sense that some of the health providers aren’t doing enough to make sure that the right people are being vaccinated. In the South of Israel, some clinics ended up destroying hundreds of vaccine doses because they thawed so much; a few vaccination centres in the North opened to adults of all ages, too, after they had set too ambitious a daily target and needed to avoid wasting their shots.

    Israel has vaccinated 21% of over-60s, which is a huge achievement.

    However, vaccination isn’t evenly distributed across the age-groups. A quarter of all 70-79 year olds have had their first shot, but only 11% of the over-90s, the group at the highest risk, have been vaccinated.

    Why are the over-80s, who need the vaccine most, lagging behind?

    Partly, this is because the programme to vaccinate residential care homes had a slower start than the drop-in vaccination centres. Older people are more likely to live in care homes, so hopefully the care home project will catch up soon.

    Another factor is the popularity of the vaccine. Whether it’s long waits on the phone (I knew people who waited five hours on hold to make an appointment!) or self-booking through websites and apps, many over-80s are just less likely to be able to navigate the process of booking a vaccine and travelling to a vaccination centre. This isn’t ideal, because vaccinating over-80s gives the biggest return when it comes to protecting both the population and the health system.

    Mapping these vaccination figures onto the previously-calculated mortality risk reduction predictions makes it possible to calculate how much the vaccine has already reduced the risk of Covid-19 deaths.

    Obviously, a bunch of assumptions go into this: it assumes the vaccine is just 95% effective at preventing death from Covid-19 (in reality, the trials showed 95% effectiveness at preventing illness, but were 100% preventative of the serious illness that leads to death); it assumes that the vaccine is equally effective at all ages, which might not be true as immune reactions can be weaker for older people; it assumes everyone gets their second dose.

    All that said, Israel’s Covid-19 vaccination programme to date should have reduced total mortality risk by something like 16.3%.

    And this matters, because Israel is currently experiencing a major wave of the coronavirus, with hospitalisation rates and serious cases rising sharply again.

    There is already significant political pressure to open vaccinations up to younger people. Teachers are next on the list, and it’s possible that Israel will start vaccinating all over-18s within a week or two.

    Focusing all efforts into getting around three quarters of over-70s vaccinated might be frustrating to the many younger people (including me!) who want vaccines now. But vaccinating older people, especially the over-70s, provides by far the most immediate benefit, reducing strain on health systems and saving lives.

  • A little vaccine goes a long way

    Coronavirus vaccination programmes are starting all over the world, following the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; Moderna’s vaccine is also likely to be approved within days.

    Mass vaccination programmes are complicated logistical feats. The right amount of vaccine needs to be delivered to the right places at the right times, stored (the Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept at -70C, a crazy low temperature) and injected into people. That also means health systems need syringes, needles and nurses to do the actual injecting.

    It also means deciding who gets vaccinated first. For the next few months, vaccine supplies are going to be limited as every country scrambles to buy up what they can.

    Personally, I’d love to get my vaccine right now. But at the individual level, a vaccine wouldn’t change my life very much.

    We know that vaccines protect against coronavirus disease – CoViD-19. But it’s possible that vaccinated people can still catch, carry and transmit the actual virus to other people, without experiencing any disease symptoms.

    There’s good reason to think that vaccines DO reduce coronavirus infection and transmission, too, but that hasn’t been properly studied yet, and the reduction is likely to be less than the claimed 95% effectiveness these vaccines show at preventing disease.

    So how long will it be before I can benefit from the vaccine, if it might be months before I get my turn for a jab?

    Actually, the benefits will come a lot faster. Because Covid-19 is so much more risky for older people, a little vaccination goes a long way.

    (The following methodology and analysis is based on Harry Lambert’s article in the New Statesman which applied it to the UK)

    Three thousand Israelis have died from Covid-19. Of the casualties, 54% were over 80 years old. 80% were over 70, and 93% were over the age of 60.

    This is even more striking when considering the size of each age cohort. Israel’s young population means that the over-60s only represent 16% of the total population.

    Let’s assume the vaccine is 95% effective at preventing death from Covid-19. In reality it might be higher than this, because it seems like the 5% vaccinated people who do get Covid-19 have less severe symptoms, but it’s a reasonable assumption.

    With just the 51,000 over-90s vaccinated, which is around 0.5% of Israel’s population, the total risk of fatalities from Covid-19 drops a huge 19%.

    Expanding vaccination to all over-80s would only require 273k people to be vaccinated, but would more than half the fatality risk of the virus.

    By the time we’ve vaccinated all over-70s, we’ll be up to 76% lower fatality risk with just 735,000 people vaccinated.

    For those people who are into 80-20 principles, the graph suggests that when Israel has vaccinated the most vulnerable 20% of people, the fatality risk will be reduced by 80%.

    Alongside this drop in fatality should also be a drop in serious cases and hospitalisations, reducing strain on the health system as a whole.

    Adding on all over-60s drops the fatality risk by 88%; adding in under-50s brings us to a 93% decrease with a quarter of the whole population vaccinated.

    But from then on, vaccinating all the under-50s, which is the remaining three quarters of the population (6.8 million people), only moves the fatality risk from 93% to the maximum of 95%. And even this is misleading; we might be able to get close to 95% by targeting vaccines at vulnerable under-50s with known conditions.

    So the most devastating phase of the Covid-19 pandemic is nearly over. But what comes next?

    Does Israel reopen rapidly once all the over-60s are vaccinated? Reducing the risk by 93% is huge, but with unmitigated virus spread, the remaining 7% might still represent many thousands of deaths.

    Equally, maintaining restrictions after mass vaccination seems crazy; isn’t the whole point that we want to get back to normal life?

    My best guess is that it’s somewhere in the middle. Once the most vulnerable part of the population has been vaccinated, we’ll be able to take many more steps back towards normal life, while maintaining some restrictions.

    What I’m less sure about is how that works. It’s tempting to just allow massive coronavirus spread in, say, under-40s as a path to herd immunity once all over-60s are protected. That approach could lead to thousands of deaths… but maybe they’d be in the ballpark range of annual flu, or a little higher.

    Or perhaps we keep a constant level of restrictions until the whole population is vaccinated, including the 75% of us that are under 50, and hope that the vaccine also significantly reduces the risk of spreading the infection. This is a longer path back to normality, but a safer one. There’s good reason to think a vaccine will give better, stronger immunity than an asymptomatic virus case, so this is a more durable path too.

    The coronavirus isn’t going away. It probably never will. But a little vaccination goes a long way to reducing the risk. Vaccinating just half a percent of Israel’s population should cut the fatality risk significantly, and just 3% will half it. There’s a lot to be hopeful about right now.