This doesn't actually surprise me much; there's historically a lot of latitude for this sort of thing during public emergencies. Courts will let the executive handle the emergency and focus on reviewing it all well after the fact.
The aspect this court is missing -- probably deliberately -- is whether there is actually an emergency that justifies that treatment. There's certainly a panic, but I'm not convinced the data shows an actual emergency. So can the government exaggerate an unusual, but not disastrous, new disease and get a pass from the bill of rights? I suspect not, but I doubt the courts will say so until more time makes the evidence very clear. Particularly courts with a liberal bias.
There's also the question of duration; temporary restrictions can pass muster where permanent ones would not. So, for how long are we supposed to hide from the Kung Flu? What happens if there is never a cure, never a vaccine, and (just like the normal flu or the common cold) we just have to learn to live with it? Does the bill of rights stay suspended then?
This was a political panic job designed to sabotage the economy. Not that the virus isn't real; that seems undeniable. Not that it wasn't manufactured in a lab -- case not proven yet, but it seems likely. But it certainly wasn't the deadly disease it was sold as when the CDC's Dr Fauci shut down the country.
Unanswered questions: So why did China shut down like they did? Maybe deliberately, because they hate Trump and were read in on the plot. Maybe they just panicked in the presence of an unknown disease. Maybe the disease really was as bad as advertised, but mutated to a less deadly strain. Maybe air pollution in China is bad enough to increase vulnerability. I don't know.
It's worth also pointing on when that funding happened. 2015, under Obama.
I'll trust Pompeo's description of what the intel community's best experts think over what a random interviewer thinks they said, given that Pompeo's the one with the official clearances. I don't read Pompeo as backtracking at all.
We're a long ways from understanding everything going on behind the scenes with this virus. But Fauci appears to be central to it, and I don't think he's been asked the right questions yet.
In other somewhat unrelated news, Senator Burr is stepping down from the committee over an FBI investigation into insider stock trading around the Kung Flu.
I can't help but think this is merely convenient timing, and he's actually leaving for reasons related to SpyGate. Although the FBI investigation into his trading habits certainly justifies his removal by itself.
Wait, what? Why? Why was this done, why was it considered good policy? Even if you want the FDA to have regulatory control of food safety, why would you require in those regulations that food be processed in a large central facility instead of in a distributed (and thus resilient) system?
Let's let the free market and competition solve this problem.
Researcher close to Covid-19 breakthrough killed in murder-suicide?
The murder part is pretty solid. The suicide part is based on assuming a dead man they found was responsible for the murder. Who knows whether he was actually close to a breakthrough. But the whole situation is weird
Official investigation into the origin of the Kung Flu
Holding China accountable is unlikely to be very successful. Yes, this situation will generate a lot of political support for policies to punish China. Which means what? Pulling our manufacturing out, applying more tariffs perhaps, things which we mostly wanted to do anyway (under Trump, at least). We're unlikely to get them to actually pay us trillions. They will ignore lawsuits or enforcement actions through international bodies. They already have enough intellectual property to be only mildly inconvenienced by losing access to more.
A military response is only really on the table if there is strong evidence they did this deliberately, and that's a hard case to make. (Accidentally, sure).
Our options for responding to this hostile act by China seem limited.
CIA issued a warning against hydroxychloroquine, saying it has potentially dangerous side effects, despite Trump talking up the drugs' usefulness against COVID-19. To be clear, they are both right: the drug is unproven but appears useful against COVID-19 but also has well-known risks and side effects that mean some people probably can't or shouldn't take it.
But the fact that someone at that agency was going out of their way to contradict the President is noteworthy.
Covid-19 virus may have orignated in Chinese lab after all
I don't know where the virus originated, but there is quite a lot of credible evidence that it escaped from the virology lab in Wuhan. The lab was studying coronaviruses in bats, hiring people to study a new virus, and has had previously reported safety incidents related to their bats.