Do Legal Restrictions Account for the Downward Trend in New COVID-19 Cases?
The New York Times thinks so, but the data do not fit that hypothesis very well.
The New York Times thinks so, but the data do not fit that hypothesis very well.
The rhetoric may not be accurate, but it is definitely useful.
The coronavirus pandemic has ushered in an age of sloppy, inaccurate journalism and a heightened need for media literacy.
The study suggests that vaping raises your risk of catching the disease, but only if you stop.
If so, that could be really good news for the rest of the world.
Both major parties defend the Constitution only when it's convenient.
That scenario seems highly implausible based on what we know about the epidemic.
The trend means we should see declining daily deaths in the coming weeks.
Will his blunt self-aggrandizement reinvigorate concerns about presidents who exceed their powers?
The former New York Times SCOTUS reporter does not seem to understand the arguments she is criticizing.
The wide range of estimates reflects real variations as well as methodological differences.
About 40 percent of infected persons show no symptoms but may still transmit disease.
Whitmer's argument is short on facts and legal reasoning.
Cases per 1,000 tests are rising in the majority of states.
Cheap, rapid antigen tests may be on the way—and the FDA has finally approved test pooling.
Meanwhile, the case fatality rate is still falling.
Antibodies may decline, but T-cells could provide effective long-term protection.
We are starting to see the fatal consequences of the recent infection surge.
The paper's claim reflects the same arbitrary distinction between religious and secular activities that churches are challenging in court.
Enable people to act responsibly toward their neighbors and co-workers.
Expanded testing, a younger mix of patients, and improved treatment help explain the seemingly contradictory trends.
Stanford epidemiological model predicts self-flattening while MIT forecasts continued epidemic growth.
If the findings are true, that's really great news.
COVID-19 control measures violate the First Amendment when they arbitrarily favor secular conduct.
Trends in Massachusetts highlight the importance of voluntary changes in behavior.
The evidence suggests Americans are right to wonder.
It could quickly amplify coronavirus testing by tenfold.
The difference implies that the virus is much less deadly than it looks, but it also makes contact tracing a daunting challenge.
U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe finds that the state's COVID-19 control measures arbitrarily discriminate against religious conduct.
The trend, which may reflect growing defiance of social distancing in some age groups, implies a lower death rate.
The downward trend continued after states began lifting their lockdowns.
New infections are down nationwide but rising in some places as people rebel against government-recommended precautions.
The decision says the "unbridled and unfettered consolidation of authority in one unelected official" violates due process and the separation of powers.
Airborne transmission is the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19.
"My mask protects you, your mask protects me"
The episode illustrates the perils of confirmation bias on both sides of the debate about disease control measures.
Two models suggest that broad restrictions had less impact on the epidemic than commonly thought.
As SCOTUS declines to issue an injunction, the chief justice says the state's COVID-19 control measures seem consistent with the First Amendment.
Making cheap tests widely available would go a long way toward crushing the pandemic.
Two models generate strikingly different estimates.
Supreme Court precedent suggests COVID-19 restrictions that discriminate against churches are presumptively unconstitutional.
Control measures should be based on emerging evidence about the danger posed by the virus.
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
All of it, The New York Times assumes.
Studies from several countries find low infection rates.
The disease control agency is a poster child for bureaucratic incompetence.
The ruling says the state's top health official exceeded her statutory authority by ordering "nonessential" businesses to close.
When mask-wearing and social distancing rules are legally enforceable, the potential for violence cannot be avoided.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks