COVID-19 Exposed the Truth About the CDC
The agency will never be controlled by fact-driven experts shielded from politics.
HD DownloadThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was once widely viewed as the gold standard in public health, considered an apolitical, science-driven bulwark against all pathogen threats, foreign and domestic.
Today, trust in the agency has plummeted because COVID-19 exposed the truth: The CDC is thoroughly corruptible, and federal regulators will never be impartial experts. They respond to political incentives just like everyone else, and a fact-driven, purely technocratic state is an impossible dream.
The Trump administration pressured the CDC to narrow the scope of testing so case counts would drop, blocked officials from doing interviews, and edited its flagship scientific reports. The CDC provided a scientifically dubious public health rationale for rejecting migrants at the southern border. President Joe Biden continued that policy, and under his purview, CDC guidance on school closures was surreptitiously written by leaders of the country's second-largest teachers union.
Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, co-authored a 2021 op-ed with three other former agency heads expressing hope that Biden's incoming CDC Director Rochelle Walensky would "restore the public's confidence in the CDC's scientific objectivity," with its reputation "a shadow of what it once was." Yet, Frieden endorsed large-scale protests against racial injustice two months after writing in The Washington Post that "the faucet of everyday activities needs to be turned on slowly. We cannot open the floodgates." Meanwhile, public health officials were keeping people from attending the funerals of their loved ones.
And could it be pure coincidence that the CDC chose the Friday before President Biden's State of the Union address to drop its indoor mask recommendation for the majority of Americans, even though the supporting data were months old?
In other words, it doesn't matter who occupies the White House—political incentives mean that, no matter how dedicated or competent the career scientists who work at the CDC are, the agency will never be controlled by fact-driven experts shielded from the "hurry and strife of politics," as Woodrow Wilson wrote. After decades of mission creep, the CDC's role should be strictly narrowed, limited to surveillance and coordination, leaving the heavy lifting to local officials and private and academic researchers who are more reactive to direct feedback from their communities.
In 2007, former agency director James Mason noted that of course, the CDC is "going to have some political oversight and political influence…It's inherent and necessary." But he stressed that it's the responsibility of CDC leadership to stand up to political interests when needed.
During the pandemic, that didn't happen. Not only did the agency consider political factors when making what were most often presented as purely science-based decisions, but officials frequently hid, ignored, or distorted legitimate data either out of incompetence or to appease their political bosses.
The CDC has also been a superspreader of COVID misinformation. To justify universal mask mandates, Walensky spent months citing a junk study on their efficacy in schools, exaggerating the risks of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated, and misrepresenting a study on outdoor COVID transmission, according to its author.
The CDC claimed the delta variant was as transmissible as chickenpox, which isn't true—it turns out the agency had used inaccurate data from a New York Times infographic. It also promoted an infographic on cloth masks using data that were not statistically significant. Meanwhile, the CDC has not run a single randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of masking since the beginning of the pandemic.
In the vaccine rollout, the CDC told the elderly they needed to wait in line behind essential workers, including young and healthy school support staff, corporate tax lawyers, and magazine fashion editors. In its noble zeal to convince parents to get their children vaccinated, the CDC used old data that the agency knew were no longer valid to falsely claim hospitalizations were rising among adolescents; it misrepresented a study to exaggerate the dangers faced by unvaccinated children, and it falsely claimed that kids who get COVID are more likely to develop diabetes.
Under both the Trump and Biden administrations, the CDC publicly cast doubt on the value of N95 masks, vaccines, and diagnostic tests at times when there were supply shortages or when it was politically expedient. Both presidents even used the CDC to exert federal control over state-level housing policy, repeatedly extending an unconstitutional ban on evictions based on junk science.
Nor is this laundry list of blunders and machinations that put politics ahead of public health unusual for the modern CDC, an agency that began as a post-World War II effort to eradicate malaria in the United States but now is in charge of investigating everything from car accidents to sports injuries to gun violence to teen vaping. Despite having a budget that is 14 times larger than it was in the late '80s, today's CDC is less prepared than ever to address its founding purpose: controlling infectious diseases.
Once the politicians in charge learn that they can gain influence and funding for pet issues by couching them as important for Americans' health, there is no end to what arenas they will task public health officials with asserting control over.
The CDC was once a poster child for the movement by many federal entities starting in the 1970s toward an approach known as "regulatory science," which aimed to create impartial standards for regulatory action that would be evidence-based and apolitical, and therefore trustworthy and consistent. But none of these reforms changed the underlying incentives of the CDC or other agencies or of their political overseers. The public choice implications remained the same: Politicians want to look good to voters; bureaucrats depend on politicians for their job; and so bureaucrats will do what it takes to make politicians look good, no matter how unmoored from objective data a particular favored policy may be.
Political concerns also ensure that the CDC is structurally incentivized to be overly cautious, making its officials slow to act in a crisis and reluctant to look outside the agency for help. This is what led to the CDC's greatest blunder at the beginning of the pandemic, when it banned academic, private, and nonprofit laboratories from developing diagnostic tests, delaying their arrival by at least two months and leaving both government and private scientists blind to the spread of the virus. When the agency finally released its own test, it was poorly designed, prone to contamination, and inaccurate.
None of this was unpredictable. Even after the CDC got a chance to stress-test its crisis response during the H1N1 or "swine flu" virus outbreak of 2009, it failed to address known shortages of N95 masks, ventilators, and other critical medical equipment, partly due to political interference by the Obama administration. In an even more recent harbinger of what was to come, during the Zika virus outbreak starting in 2016, the CDC mishandled the development of a diagnostic test while shutting out commercial manufacturers.
So how do we stop another predictably disastrous response before the next pandemic? Even serious proposals that address the CDC's problems by adding on more layers of oversight and red tape are doomed from the start. These attempts only add greater scope for lobbyists and politicians to exert influence and exploit loopholes. Such reforms miss the fundamental reality that centralizing control over public health, especially at the federal level, necessarily results in sclerosis, risk aversion, and mission creep.
Today we can see the costs in thousands of lives lost unnecessarily, and Americans are finally fed up. But the pandemic did not create this reality, it simply exposed it.
We can look to examples of localized, distributed public health systems in other countries that proved themselves during the pandemic. Consider what the outcome might have been here if the CDC hadn't monopolized testing early on and instead taken a cue from its South Korean counterpart. After confirming their first four COVID-19 infections, health officials there rushed to work with biotech companies on a diagnostic test and were able to deploy it within a single week.
In Germany, government health authorities partnered with private labs around the country to create a broad testing network early on, and rapid tests were available in vending machines while the U.S. was still struggling through supply shortages. Perhaps most importantly, countries whose public health authorities were transparent and maintained the public's trust have seen higher rates of voluntary participation in vaccination and other efforts to stem the community spread of the virus.
CDC veteran Martin Cetron has warned colleagues for years of a phenomenon he terms a "bankruptcy of trust," when people no longer place their faith in public officials, allowing speculation and misinformation to fill the void. Now that the pandemic is functionally over, it's clear that the CDC has long been on the path toward its utter failure to plan for or competently address the foundational reason for its existence. And Americans have good reason to rethink their confidence in the federal government's ability to protect their health.
Written and produced by Justin Monticello. Edited by Isaac Reese. Graphics by Reese, Tomasz Kaye, and Nodehaus. Audio production by Ian Keyser.
Music: "Robotic Butterflies" by Evgeny Bardyuzha; "We Fall" by Stanley Gurvich; "Free Radicals" by Stanley Gurvich.
Photos: BSIP/Newscom; BSIP/Newscom; Sarah Silbiger/UPI/Newscom; Shawn Thew - Pool via CNP/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Alex Edelman/ZUMA Press/Newscom; SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Simon Shin/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Michael Brochstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Adam Schultz/White House/Newscom; Brazil Photo Press / SplashNews/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Polaris/Newscom; Jonathan Alpeyrie/Polaris/Newscom; Aimee Melo/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; Julian Stratenschulte/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; Sven Hoppe/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom; CNP/AdMedia/Newscom
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you fraudulent faggot fuck stains had proffered an argument against this shit 2 and a half FUCKING years ago when it actually made a fuck, you bootlicking Nazi pieces of subhuman fucking shit.
I saw the paycheck which was of $9282, I didn’t believe that my mom in-law was like truly earning money part time from their computer.. (res-11) there neighbor started doing this 4 only months and recently paid for the on their home and got Maserati.
.
More info here:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
They did.
LOL
No they didn't you liar. Reason was completely silent for pretty much all of 2020 because they fell for all the lies and bullshit coming from the WHO, CDC, and Neil Ferguson out of the Impetial College in the UK.
It wasn't really until the summer of 2021 when Matt Welch's kids were told they still couldn't attend live school classes in Park Slope and other Readonoids were being told they still couldn't dibe out at some of their favorite restaurants (even while smarmy fuckbag lockdown politicos like Peliso and Newsom were having the time of their lives out on the town) that they finally realized the absurdity of the situation and started raising a big stink. Much too little, much too late.
And to this day, I still have yet to see one person at this pathetic rag acknowledge what everyone now knows to be true: face diapers do absolutely nothing to stop the spread of Coronavirus, and the experimental mRNA vaccines sadly turned out to be almost completely ineffective.
Worse, these mRNA vaccines are dangerous. They weren’t adequately tested, and, moreover, the testing done that showed the dangers, was ignored. And then they tried to hide it for the next 75 years. Just trust the bureaucrats who have a revolving door with the drug companies, and are receiving royalties from them too. After all, they are the experts, right?
But that was the FDA, which we should look at next.
You can click the link that says CDC under the article. Page back to 2020. You'll see headlines like:
"The CDC Is Still Botching the Coronavirus Testing Process" (5.22.2020)
"Mission Creep and Wasteful Spending Left the CDC Unprepared for an Actual Public Health Crisis" (5.13.2020)
"Public Health Authorities Have Failed America at Every Level" (4.13.2020)
"How the CDC and the FDA Wrecked the Economy" (4.8.2020)
"The CDC's Revised Face Mask Advice Is Based on Information That Was Available Months Ago" (4.6.2020)
"What's Up With All the Contradictory Advice About COVID-19 and Face Masks?" (4.1.2020)
Yeah, they never said masks are ineffective, but they did criticize the CDC.
Wait. Youre claiming reasons calls for mass testing as being responsive to freedoms? Spending billions is the libertarian response? Lol.
Where did you get that from? No, I'm claiming that Reason did "had proffered an argument against this shit" and criticized the CDC even back in early 2020.
If you want to claim that anything short of perfect libertarianism makes Reason "bootlicking Nazi pieces of subhuman fucking shit" well then, you win.
The comments in those articles are the only libertarian aspects of them.
"The CDC Is Still Botching the Coronavirus Testing Process" (5.22.2020)
-Reason's criticism is that the CDC wasn't testing and tracking enough
"Mission Creep and Wasteful Spending Left the CDC Unprepared for an Actual Public Health Crisis" (5.13.2020)
-Again, Reason's criticism is that the CDC isn't more active
"Public Health Authorities Have Failed America at Every Level" (4.13.2020)
-Here Reason's criticism is that they need better experts to implement totalitarian rule
"How the CDC and the FDA Wrecked the Economy" (4.8.2020)
-Fairly obvious, probably should've focused on the massive crushing of liberty as their editorial thesis
"The CDC's Revised Face Mask Advice Is Based on Information That Was Available Months Ago" (4.6.2020)
-Oh, so forced masking is cool if the information is up to date?
"What's Up With All the Contradictory Advice About COVID-19 and Face Masks?" (4.1.2020)
-Totalitarianism is fine, just message better!
I don't understand how you got those conclusions from those articles.
Did you read them?
I did. I guess some confirmation bias of preconceived ideas for Nardz and me (and you?) causes us to perceive very different messages. I stand by my original comment, but I understand you guys disagree. And no one called me a lefty faggot troll so that's progress. 🙂
"no one called me a lefty faggot troll so that's progress."
The day's not over with yet.
No, they did not.
The pandemic totalitarianism exposed Reason as evil, boot licking leftist bitches to an even greater extent than their support for the FBI's/Deep State's conspiracies, lies, and political persecutions
Reason's problem is they think it was Trump corrupting the CDC, and not the CDC overstating or outright lying about various figures.
I did it and they blame Trump.
Ha! Sucks to be you!
Im President, whoever I am.
Gotta go, those stewed prunes from last night are kicking in and I gotta go change my Depends.
I actually love this account. Poop jokes about the president are so representative of how much power free speech has. In some other countries, you would have been incarcerated as a political prisoner.
Whoever you are, shine on you crazy, poopy diamond.
Ite me, Dementia Joe.
I know who I am today
Be happy for me.
Tomorrow Ill be back to " Jesus Christ".
"CDC guidance on school closures was surreptitiously written by leaders of the country's second-largest teachers union."
SCIENCE!!
Out of context information which the writer is wrong on the substance. The CDC had just issued a relaxing of standards for vaccinated Americans (which of course contradicts the paranoid and stupid claim made here over and over again that once gaining control the CDC and Biden would never let go). The NEA reminded the CDC that not many in schools were vaccinated and so the new standard should not apply. The CDC director noted the error and changed the standard for schools.
That is science.
No. The CDC guidance on school closures was written by a teachers union instead of the Center for Disease Control. Stop lying about this, shill.
Repeating the same out of context bullshit does not make it not bullshit Mother, you stupid fuck.
Except it's not out of context, shill. Your uncited assertions are the bullshit here.
Joe Asshole slinging more bullshit.
Up yours with a running rusty chainsaw, Asshole.
The CDC director noted the error and changed the standard for schools.
That is science.
No, it's clearly not. Young people weren't getting vaccinated due to being extremely low risk, and some unscientific nonsense about the danger to vaccinated people from the unvaccinated corrupted their policy. They were pressured into changing their evaluation based on the outcome of their recommendation on a powerful union.
“….a relaxing of standards for vaccinated Americans.”
“…..contradicts the stupid claim….. that once gaining control the CDC and biden would never let go.”
Lol. You get dumber every day, joe.
Story changing so soon? Are we now saying that all the moral panic about "vaccine tyranny" was a hoax by Richard Epps, the FBI and the MSM to make conservatives look like credulous, anti-science nitwits?
Might be a good time to make the pivot, just hadn't heard the whistle. Hoping I can keep up with the bright guys like you.
"So how do we stop another predictably disastrous response before the next pandemic?"
Eliminate the CDC.
Next question?
The disastrous response was resistance to vaccines promoted by people just like you on this fucked up forum of stupid paranoids. As a result, in both red and blue states, new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from Covid were lead by the unvaxxed.
Congratulations!
The vaccines that haven't worked in a year?
We've had detailed explorations of your numeracy with vaccine data in the past, right. How did those go.
Lol. No you haven't. You repeated government propaganda that they've later admitted was based on bad data.
Lol.
Ahaha. Dear anti-vax Jesse. So it will be easy for you to link to an article where "they" admit the vaccine data that "they" still host across hundreds of sites and peer review publications around the world was "government propaganda".
No doubt "they" have also admitted that Richard Epps and the FBI incited the Jan 6 events, as you so fervently (easily) believed. That's what Hutchinson's testimony today was all about I think, according to the coverage on Daily Stormer I was looking at this morn. About time that story fully broke!
in defense of the shit for brains.... and one of the points of the article.... the reason the stupid paranoid BS was able to gain traction was the glaringly bad way the CDC handled itself. they flip flopped on masks, and admitted it was because they were worried about supply issues. they could not tell us how widespread it was for months because they were screwing up the testing. (we didn't start getting real data until the private labs started to defy them and run their own testing anyway.) they destroyed themselves as a trust-able source..... when people can't trust the reliable source, it gets a lot easier for BS from unreliable sources to take hold.
This 100%. They screwed up the international vetting from China. They screwed up the tracking of spread so failed to vet from Europe (that's the strain that hit NY/East Coast) early. They failed to even give a shit about the public health mgmt of their first test instead appearing solely to manage it for crony reasons. They failed to understand basic supply chain issues and psychology re public health - so failed to even become credible re toilet paper, soap, sanitizer, masks, etc which made them useless for all further non-pharma/medical intervention. They failed to even create a random sample for a study where they could have selected the entire universe (that carrier outbreak) - instead using a convenience sample which just proves they are incompetent with anything statistical. Which is probably why a)they failed to provide useful data dashboards, b)they failed to provide any useful data structuring for states, c)they failed to conduct pretty much any further studies in the US which further meant we relied way too much on UK and Israel data and failed to gather info that we needed to gather re serological testing, etc.
I could go on and on. I'm not sure I really blame CDC for misleading the shit for brains contingent - since that group had no good faith intention anyway. But you're right that in a credibility vacuum, the shit for brains looks remarkably like SHTF.
What should've happened is that the entire CDC should have been fired. Maybe spare the janitors and test tube washing interns. It would have had no effect whatsoever on how covid progressed but at least it would have been satisfying.
Joe F is building a bad argument like he builds houses.
That is what should happen. The CDC has been wrong or outright lying so many times in the past 2 years that it's completely absurd that anyone gives them any credit at this point. They are worse than useless and need to go. As does every politician that ever supported any kind of lockdowns or forced business closures.
Now that the pandemic is functionally over
Citation needed.
This is (just one example of) why Government Almighty needs to be as small as possible! Giving it all over to "Team Red" is NOT a fix at ALL!!!
In this case (disease control), if we gave it all over to "Team Red", the below gives you a hint of what we would get...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot
This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.
(End subtitles and excerpts).
See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) as much as possible!
The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!
“We are ALL data-driven by now!”
Not me. I wouldn’t have a self driving car if you paid me.
Red Barchetta.
actually orgs like the cdc have no business making any public policy ever -- under any circumstances. their job is to simply provide information for congress to make policy/laws. what we saw during covid is the lazy, low iq democrats just defer to the cdc and let them do their job.
Most of this article is accurate and raises legitimate concerns, however, most of the public distrust is politicized bull shit by MAGA fucks like those who predominate here and like to gloss over the fact that the CDC was correct on the big things - the vaccines are safe and effective and masks are a deterrence to the spread of covid.
Fact: in both red and blue states, the unvaxxed who were celebrated here and cheered by most posters led in new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from covid.
Fact: Masks have been proven over an dover by both lab testing of how they work and data (much harder to validate due to the numerous factors involved) to help lower the spread of vaccines.
The writer should acknowledge this MAGA political problem which has led to an estimated unnecessary 300k deaths, full ICUs, fatherless children, widows, and the public distrust those stupid fuckers thrive on and which Reason has done nothing to squelch - including this article.
"lower the spread of vaccines." SHOULD BE "lower the spread of COVID.".
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
well at least we found someone more full of shit than the CDC!
Tell me how you stupid fuck, or shut up.
Bring it!
>>CDC was correct on the big things - the vaccines are safe and effective and masks are a deterrence to the spread of covid.
I love when you parody.
Prove me wrong or STFU you stupid twit.
Post some evidence to back your assertions, shill. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
Here you go Mother, you stupid cretin:
"Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been and an indication that deaths per day — now down to under 300 — could be practically zero if everyone eligible got the vaccine.
An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 1.1%.
And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average.
The AP analyzed figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC itself has not estimated what percentage of hospitalizations and deaths are in fully vaccinated people, citing limitations in the data.
Among them: Only about 45 states report breakthrough infections, and some are more aggressive than others in looking for such cases. So the data probably understates such infections, CDC officials said.
Still, the overall trend that emerges from the data echoes what many health care authorities are seeing around the country and what top experts are saying.
Earlier this month, Andy Slavitt, a former adviser to the Biden administration on COVID-19, suggested that 98% to 99% of the Americans dying of the coronavirus are unvaccinated.
And CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said on Tuesday that the vaccine is so effective that “nearly every death, especially among adults, due to COVID-19, is, at this point, entirely preventable.” She called such deaths “particularly tragic.”
Deaths in the U.S. have plummeted from a peak of more than 3,400 day on average in mid-January, one month into the vaccination drive..."
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187
I hope you' re proud of your part in this.
we're not all in this together?
Yeah, we sure as fuck weren't, nice work there. Hopefully y'all will dial back on the death threats to health care workers eventually, but I suppose we'll see.
Act Blue paying a lot for this thread.
More lies from Joe Asshole. Joe Asshole is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember the les he posted just minutes ago.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
Don’t know if you actually looked at your cited article. It is a year old (6/29/21), and by the AP, which means that it is political, and not scientific. Where we we a year ago? That was pre-Delta (8/21) and pre-Omicron (12/21). Back when there was a good match between the vaccines and the spike proteins of the dominant variants. And, of course, most of those catching the virus were unvaccinated - that wad the status of most of the populace back then. This article was a couple weeks before the P Town Superspreader event where it became well known that the vaccines didn’t prevent catching the virus.
They appear to make catching it more likely in fact
this.
So far this year I know 12 vaccinated and boosted people who have caught the rona. I know about 12 more unvaxed who have not.
Small sample size, but this is turning into a pandemic of the vaxed.
Not every vaccinated person I know has caught it. But zero unvaccinated people I know have caught it.
"by the AP, which means that it is political, and not scientific"
While bad facts are common, the pervasive problems in these 'debates' about objective/scientific findings are more typically just a long list of classic logic fallacies. 'Ad hominem' here (with whiffs of circular reasoning in a cultural context. The AP often conveys scientific findings, which we wish to reject, and so we can highlight that the AP is ideologically unreliable, in turn allowing us to reject the scientific findings they convey...)
"pre-Delta and pre-Omicron"
And what are outcome results for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated through Delta and Omicron?
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
Do results by age and comorbidity. Far more telling retard.
"Do results by age and comorbidity"
Why? We're comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. If it is 'only' higher risk unvaccinated individuals dying 50x as frequently as vaccinated it still supports the claim that vaccines have been effective and counters Bruce's comments disputing this.
Are you following? Maybe you are forgetting which conspiracy theory you are trying to knee-jerk rationalize. This is more from the denial-of-raw-global-hospital-data playbook, not the anti-vax playbook. They are related but logically distinct.
I suspect you could use your brain critically, but might be afraid to do so as others could accuse you of defecting from the culture warrior tribe.
It's also important to note that "the unvaccinated" also includes those who had the second shot less than 2 weeks prior to being infected.
Bruce, very few are dying anymore because the Omicron variants are not very lethal, though they are contagious. Those who are dead primarily from the Delta Variant are not coming back and they were overwhelmingly unvaccinated. Stupid assholes like most here were cheering them on and are partly responsible for those deaths. That mistrust was due to political bullshit about "freedom" sold by jerk offs like DeSantis, not missteps by the CDC.
Copy and paste; none of these prove any thing or are even relevant as to the lack of credibility on the part of the CDC. It's just part of your rant.
"Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been and an indication that deaths per day — now down to under 300 — could be practically zero if everyone eligible got the vaccine.
That is medical misinformation.
From Scientific American, June 7:
Yes, the unvaccinated people are dying at greater rates than unvaccinated, which one would expect from a therapeutic. If you're old and infirm, and there's a therapeutic which shaves the sharp corners off a disease, unvaccinated people will die at a greater rate than those that are vaccinated. But your quoted article indicates almost no one vaccinated is dying, which is absolutely untrue.
then your own article says this:
Okayyyy...
Anyhoo, the Scientific American Article is actually pretty good reporting. Yes, your chances of dying are much higher if you're unvaccinated, old and infirm. So quit fucking trying to jab my goddamned two year old with your experimental shit.
Yes, the unvaccinated people are dying at greater rates than unvaccinated
Should be unvaccinated people are dying at greater rates than vaccinated...
"shave the edges off"
Still not giving it up eh.
15 to 50x higher risk of death/hospitalization have been common. So easily hundreds of thousands of unnecessarily dead Americans due to politicized anti-vax misinformation campaigns, as regularly pushed by rightists in the forum here.
BA.4 and BA.5 have dropped this to 7x recently. Still not "shaving edges". But let the attempts to redefine history and data continue, per the norm in anti-science culture wars.
dianne is right. but there is good data available from european countries and it shows that many, many "vaccinated" people are dying. in fact in some places they our number the "unvaccinated".
You don't have to use scare quotes. If people have received vaccine doses, then they are vaccinated. That's just English.
"in fact in some places they our number the "unvaccinated""
If you have a high enough % of vaccinated and low uptake in booster doses this can happen.
Even in omicron UK HSA reports mRNA vaccine effectiveness at 60-75% with booster dose.
But good job avoiding citing your sources, solid anti-vax / anti-science tactic that can keep us skeptics from taking a little look at the data directly, which naturally isn't the strongest part of anti-vax arguments.
15 to 50x higher risk of death/hospitalization have been common.
50x what, and in whom and what demographic?
"50x what, and in whom and what demographic?"
reduction in per capita risk of death or hospitalization for a given period. ("Death rates are calculated as the number of deaths in each group, divided by the total number of people in this group. This is given per 100,000 people.")
e.g. Jan15 omicron, 23x reduced risk of death all ages (24x for 65+)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~65%2B
higher earlier Delta and pre-Delta
In other words, consistent with the calculation here:
“between January 2021 and April 2022, vaccines could have prevented at least 318,000 Covid-19 deaths. This means that at least every second person who died from Covid-19 since vaccines became available might have been saved by getting the shot”
https://globalepidemics.org/vaccinations/
Pretty sure we've been through such data before. Wiped due to cognitive dissonance?
There is also a difference in exposure between people who work from home, order on Amazon and basically aren’t exposed to COVID Vs people who deliver Amazon packages and make lattes. Or don’t work from home and are much more likely to be exposed to COVID
So is it life style or vaccination status.
No way to know with out a controlled study, real science.
Well ideological science contrarians happily reject controlled study results as well as anything else. Common in the climate science 'wars' (e.g. controlled studies on core radiative transfer, or coral heat stress, or other areas).
Very, very little evidence that any of this (politicized backlash against science on any topic) has anything at all to do with reasoning.
Diane writes:
"...unvaccinated people will die at a greater rate than those that are vaccinated."
Glad we agree for once but note she has been attacking vaccines for a year now here and encouraging doubt and inaction. She has blood on her hands.
there are no vaccines
and has been provided endlessly in past forums. Seems unlikely you've been suddenly converted to reason and empiricism in the past couple of months.
don't drive angry.
Vaccines increased child myocarditis from 2 in a million to 40 on a million with no measurable effectiveness in children from covid.
Meanwhile, many European countries are saying don't vaccinate children, and are not advising it for those under 30.
FDA approving it for young children is an absolute disgrace and should be a massive scandal.
Oh no, just accept that your chance of dying are eleventy times if you aren't vaccinated! SCIENTISM!
DON'T STRATIFY BY AGE AND INFIRMITY! EVERYONE MUST GET THE JAB!
I have money to make! Kickbacks.
Get that poison vaccine and wear those masks made in third world countries handled by riff raff with AIDS and TB.
And ol Joe goes " KA- CHING!!
Dumbasses!
Bring it! Fight me IRL! Do you even lift, bro?"
The shillbot is summoning Internet Tough Guy I see.
A call to argument you asshole, not a fight.
God are you dense! Not for the bullshit, but for thinking it flies.
On 2nd thought, it does here.
Yeah, everyone else here is wrong but you. You're the only one that sees the truth.
So far you cretin, but I have hope.
Amazing! More lies form Joe Asshole!
most of the public distrust is politicized bull shit by MAGA fucks like those who predominate here
I ain't no MAGA fuck and I certainly don't trust the CDC. The constantly moving goalposts and contradictory information earned their distrust from me.
Let's talk about deaths! Deaths are slowing. Not many deaths anymore.
Let's talk about people in the hospital! People aren't going to the hospital.
Let's talk about cases! Yeah, cases! That's not a cold, it's COVID! Gotta keep up the numbers!
sarcasmic you stupid fuck, that's due to variants declining lethality, though with increased contagion. Those 300k unnecessarily dead? They're not coming back because the variants are less lethal now and those who spread disinformation here and elsewhere about vaccines are still stupid fucks who need to be held accountable for those deaths and the misery of the family members, the cost to our health system and the economy. That's not on the CDC which promoted and provided vaccines which are yet another marvel of modern medicine that saved millions of lives.
"sarcasmic you stupid fuck"
Joe Friday! You ignorant slut!
Hey. I finally agreed with Joe on something. Small victories.
Fuck off and die, Asshole.
When you start off by calling someone names you tend to lose their attention. It may impress trolls, but it's not an effective way to have a conversation.
The guy who claims to claims to fuck other commenters mothers, and admits he's only here to troll, is now lecturing on how to have effective conversations. We should sell tickets to this narcissism.
sarcasmic, you have gotten personal about me in your circle jerks with soldier. I know you like playing footsy with that fatuous coward but courtesy and appealing to reason are not one way streets.
add to this that they made off label use of effective prophylactic treatments illegal - consigning waaay more people than needed to to be forced to the hospitals to be killed by poor treatment protocols.... at least thats what a certain well credentialled but othered doctor would maintain...Peter McCullough
the vaccines are safe and effective
Sure, if you change the standards for what constitutes a safe and effective vaccine, rig your studies and ignore the huge number of reported adverse events.
All you have to do is change what the word "vaccine" means.
And also really stretch the range of "effective" to include pretty much any effect, even the exact opposite of what's intended.
Then also define "safe" as anything that doesn't immediately kill the recipient, at least not every time.
masks don't work and never have. there are no vaccines, just experimental drugs that do no good. wake up.
No, Joe.
- The evidence that cloth masking does anything meaningful to stop the spread COVID is somewhere between slim and non-existent. The "lab-testing" that the CDC has done is thinks like screwing around with mannequins set up to simulate coughing. That can indicate there's biomechanical plausibility but can't determine what impact there is from real-world masking by actual people.
- There's evidence for vaccine efficacy against severe outcomes, but the efficacy against infection/transmission wanes over a few months. The latter admittedly wasn't understood when the vaccines were first rolled out. Over and over CDC has foolishly disparaged immunity from prior infection and made dubious claims about the benefits from vaccination for those already infected.
- In the latest, CDC's messaging about vaccination for children < 5 years old has included unfounded claims that aren't established by the trials. Benefits in reducing severe disease for this age group? Not known because the trials were so small and severe outcomes are so uncommon in this age group. Benefits for those previously infected (and there's high seropositivity among children)? Not known because of both trial inclusion criteria and the small size.
Sorry Dave, you're wrong and the CDC is not the only source for studies on masks of which there are 2 types. Those which discuss the physics of masks and how they block transmission of particles and those which study results and which while abundant that show positive results are subject to interpretation and misrepresentation due to the number of variables which can impact the spread of Covid, from behavior to environments. The former type studies of course conform to common sense, which is obvious. I don't need a study to show me that getting hit by a Mack truck will fuck me up.
I'll bet you a fat dollar most people still trust the CDC and their expert opinions. Nobody's paying attention to how full of shit they are. And that goes the same for all the other self-serving experts in every other aspect of government. Look at Climate Change, for example. How many experts are pulling down fat stacks from the government to have public shit-fits about how doomed we are by the greatest existential threat to face Mankind and how fast would that funding disappear as soon as they stopped hyperventilating? You think they don't know which side their bread's buttered on?
Well, we won’t have to worry about it after 2035 when we’re all dead.
Typical MAGA dumb ass.
More lies from Joe Asshole.
Fuck off and die, Asshole.
Typical statist unresponsive insult.
Fuck off you ignorant twit. I provided text, facts, and logic above. MAGA grunts are not responses.
Up yours with a running rusty chainsaw, Asshole.
Talk about a self own; "MAGA grunts are not responses" says the guy who continually grunts "MAGA" in response to things that make him un-comfy.
Climate change is settled science - time to defund it.
"The agency will never be controlled by fact-driven experts shielded from politics."
Currently headed by a career bureaucrat with a completely un-earned reputation as an MD - what do you expect?
fact-driven, purely technocratic state is an impossible dream.
BUT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
Is there a standard article format for Reason writers?
I mean like First Paragraph "Blame Trump"
Second through Fourth Paragraph "Get to the story"
Fifth Paragraph "Blame Trump" and so on.
I think you have it, except for the second through fourth part - - - - - - - - -
The article rightly blames Trump and Biden. Sorry MAGA fucks can't handle that. Of course Trump tried to subvert the CDC before and after he lost reelection - you all heard about that, right? - but he tried to be a little positive about vaccines because he ordered funding fro them. The knuckle dragging GOP stirred their paranoid and stupid base to mistrust vaccines with assholes like DeSantis leading the way with his quack surgeon general - as if Florida schools didn't have a list of required vaccines that had been in place with additions for 75 years plus.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
I lost my respect for the CDC when they deemed gun violence a public health threat. But I am sure they had similar tantrums before that, if I'd been paying attention.
Thanks for explaining the source of your ignorance and stupidity.
Thanks for upholding the proggie tradition of insults without explanation.
Get a life you fucking ass troll. Whoever is paying you is not getting very good value.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lying lefty shit.
Haven't you read all the studies on how contagious gun violence is?
It spreads faster than gender dysphoria.
It's a good article but it includes one major flaw outlined here:
officials frequently hid, ignored, or distorted legitimate data either out of incompetence or to appease their political bosses.
Officials didn't just act politically out of deference to their political masters. They acted politically to advance their own political interests as well.
At no time did the CDC advise against the vaccines or fail to act to keep the supply coming. Whatever politicians you are implying failed by influencing the CDC, those who also kept the vaccines coming and promoted them, did the most to curb the deaths and limit the spread. Those who spread doubt - like that jerk-off DeSantis in Florida and most of the commenters on this forum of brain damaged freaks- have blood on their hands. Let's be clear on that fact.
Those who spread doubt - like that jerk-off DeSantis in Florida and most of the commenters on this forum of brain damaged freaks- have blood on their hands. Let's be clear on that fact.
Like those who claimed - wrongly - that a vaccine couldn't possibly be available by the end of the year?
The sad fact about you losers is that you don't give a shit about people dying except when they're useful for your politics. Take a hike you useless sack of shit.
Oh yeah, that had great consequences and set back ......
Say what?
Consensus among scientists - see Science magazine at the time - was early spring. So sue them! How did that impact the pandemic?
Joe probably thinks newsom did a good job.
Joe is a Statist, thru and thru. The more powerful the State gets the harder he gets.
Joe Asshole is a lying pile of lefty shit who should be addressed with insults.
Lots of Democratic anti-vaxxers in 2020. Anti-vaxxing was the cool thing after evil Trump and evil Pharmeceutical companies developed vaccines in record time.
" if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it." Kamala Harris
“We can’t let this vaccination plan go forward the way that Trump and his administration is designing it.”
Andrew Cuomo
Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that California will review the safety of all COVID-19 vaccines that receive federal approval before distributing them to the public
What doubt did DeSantis spread about vaccines? He prioritized the elderly and encouraged vaccination.
He also opposed mandates, which was proven correct because the waning/low efficacy against infection/transmission shows that vaccination should undoubtedly be a personal decision.
It's a horrible article since it views the entire issue through the lens of Utilitarian statism.
Speak English. We're not all in the cult dude.
Too erudite for you to understand and insult?
seriously ffs googles it before telling the world you don't know what you're talking about lol
Hey, Joe Asshole's pretty much limited to single syllables. On top of being a pathological liar, the sumbitch is stupid as a rock.
It highlight institutional weakness and specifically describes this weakness as unavoidable which is perfectly in line with line with libertarian thought. I'm not sure what you read.
As overt has been pointing out, this was Reason's approach the entire time.
Even when, very very late, they got around to criticizing totalitarian policies like shutdowns/lockdowns and vax mandates, it wasn't the liberty crushing principle they objected to but the effectiveness of the policies that bothered them.
Hell, Reason kept pushing mass test-and-track policies through even this year.
Indeed. As if the technocratic experts would have everything humming along if only the politicians stayed out of their way.
Reason magazine: we just need the right Top Men
You lost me at expelling migrants. I know it's the pet project of Reason, but that doesn't belong in the top 100 CDC Covid fuckups.
It's Reason reasoning.
Gotta' make Trump look like he did all kinds of bad shit with the CDC, and Biden.. well, you know, they also let him not wear a mask at his state of the union speech. Their weird bothsideism.
Here's a better both sides.
Trump was flailing for a way to keep the nation upbeat during the initial stages of a pandemic when things were changing rapidly and there was overwhelming worldwide pressure to do more, more more. He was also doing so with an extremely hostile press who would spin any statement, even innocuous ones, in the worst possible light. He was often wrong. As were many others at that time.
And, yes, fuck you Republicans for allowing stupid things like an eviction moratorium from the CDC. Have the balls to say "that's not our job" and follow the constitution and the law.
Biden came in after vaccines, after the Alpha wave, after a year of pandemic, after we long figured out things like 'Rona spreading via aerosols and not fomites, indoors not outdoors, etc. And he weaponized the CDC in the culture wars to look good to his mask-wearing virtue-signalling base. Even after the fundamental reason for mandates had changed (zero covid became very obviously impossible post Delta), the rules remained or became more strict. When faced with evolving challenges the rules became regressive doing the same thing we did in May 2020. When faced with a chance to unite the country, every single choice was to divide, to demonize people who challenged the CDC and Democrat orthodoxy, to cowtow to unions, and to alienate and "other" the people who might have been reluctant before but now could never be convinced of anything since you poisoned that well.
Biden learned nothing from the first year of the pandemic. Well, nothing other than it might make a good
political excuse"emergency" he could use to pour money onto Democrat pet projects and call it "relief."There's your both sideism Reason. Just insert "Oh, and let anyone who wants to come here with no rules or restrictions whatsoever" so you can make Koch happy.
fuck I'm in a crabby mood today. Happening a lot recently.
Your crabby post was pretty much spot on. Hope that makes you feel a little better!
I'll be honest with you, it's just lack of personal emotional resilience. Saw a headline this morning out of New York with the "New wave is the Worst Omicron Yet" comment. Which is, of course, pure hyperbole.
But I can already see mask wars happening again, all based on horrible reasoning "supported" by the worst evidence possible.
Masking, virtue signalling around masking, and all of the other shit ruins EVERYTHING. The things I enjoyed doing in the 20teens have been miserable, pale imitations of themselves, lacking all the social aspects they once encompassed.
For instance, I'm a music lover and Everything had to be a fucking fight at these events, even when I just want to have a relaxing social evening around other people. I didn't buy any of my normal summer festival tickets because I know one of these headlines too many and the classical music venues will go in full-on mask nazi mode. They'll cite te CDC and some nebulous "in consultation with local health authorities" then say soporific but completely incorrect things like "so we can keep each other safe." Then I have a choice of following rules that, at best, do absolutely nothing, or being a hermit.
This is the CDC's fault. Entirely. But the fact that, in summer of '22, we're still getting this sort of scaremongering, just has a burr in my britches.
Yeah I hear you on wanting to just go and enjoy something. This whole thing has been beyond ridiculous and it is terrible the way that the authorities and covid-phobes have taken away so much enjoyment from normal people.
From what I can tell - at least in Southern CA classical and live theater venues have tended to be more restrictive than sports and rock music. Eventually I think most things will get back to normal but it's taking way way longer than I would have imagined.
I try to laugh about it to keep from getting too angry and upset.
As if any government agency would ever be "controlled by fact-driven experts shielded from politics."
What part of government agency did you miss Justin?
Please explain how government could - MUCH LESS SHOULD - be shielded from politics?
Where the fuck do they find these writers???
And who do they think they are fooling with their claims to libertarianism?
Let's be clear on some things.
Science will never hold any government official to account for their behaviors. Because firstly science does not work that way, secondly science does not give a shit, and thirdly because science cannot tell us what we want to happen.
The more people persist in this notion that government agencies should be shielded from politics the more likely it is that they become unaccountable to anyone and less likely to use actual science.
I would go further and say that the people who believe a perfect technocracy can ever be anything other than a dream are more deluded about their own literature and history than the most obtuse of religious fundamentalists.
Yes. I am willing to argue that even if "fact-driven experts shielded from politics" were able to be constructed, that there are inherent knowledge problems that make it simply not work. We've seen this so many times over history, and it's lead to a situation where it's almost like we're borrowing from Communists and saying that "true technocracy has never been tried."
and it's lead to a situation where it's almost like we're borrowing from Communists and saying that "true technocracy has never been tried."
So much this.
Reason demonstrates themselves to be less libertarian than Dwight Eisenhower...
Monticello - in case you are bothering to read the comments on the off chance that you might actually gain some semblance of an education - the reference is to a portion of Eisenhower's Farewell Address. The one lefties and so called 'libertarians' love to cite because it sagely warns of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
You know, the address you sort of heard about in high school, but never actually read.
Well, what your red diaper teachers didn't teach you is in that same speech Ike included another warning. A warning much more prescient especially when viewed in the context of which portions of the Federal leviathan exert the most control over the every day lives of the citizenry.
Which is why your sub headline should cause the hair on the back of the neck of any actual libertarian to stand up.
Not almost
Even then, I could understand how there is some sort of play to be had with portions of society being broadly collected under central control. Technocracy goes beyond that, IMO, stating that all facts can be knowable in time to make any given decision and knowable better than an arbitrarily uninformed decision. Ideas not even largely or broadly supported by science and information theory. Certainly not to say that more information doesn't lead to better decisions, but the idea that, given enough time, every correct decision according to the data is absolutely knowable is a religious statement even many/most major religions don't lay claim to.
Worse than "true technocracy has never been tried" and the parallel between the true socialism idiom, the more technical aspect means the idiom would be "true technocracy/socialism *should* work".
We are libertarians because we value liberty, not because we think it guarantees any other outcome.
Meanwhile Reason 'libertarians' will entertain statisms, be it socialism, or technocracy, if they think it will give them whatever it is they actually deem desirable.
No one cares
We all knew the CDC and Fauci were shit since the 80's during their response to AIDs. i guess people at Reason don't know history or are still blaming Reagan for what Fauci did.
this.
I find this article fascinating. It really went in a different direction than what I would have expected from the title. It really turned into a defense of expert driven decision making, that has been corrupted by politics.
That is an incredibly Progressive mentality. Maybe more specifically a sort of Pragmatist mentality. But I don't understand Dewey that well.
Yeah, the article could have taken a radically different turn. And it's amazing that the first cannon shot on the CDC's failures was a Trump reference.
You could have done a 3000 word article on the aggressive lies that Rochelle Walensky has told in front of television cameras and never mentioned Trump. You could have done a 10,000 word article on the state and local restrictions that were put into place by blue states based on CDC advice that either did nothing at all to stem the pandemic, likely made it worse, and have completely destroyed the economy. But... Trump!
Bill Whittle on Technocracy and Progressives
Long, but worth watching.
The headline is clickbait. The articles rarely, if ever, deliver on the promise.
Yeah, this rag of a rag, and the foundation that goes with it, lost all credibility on the CDC shortly after the lockdowns started.
The writers couldn't help it though, they wouldn't have been invited to those cocktail zoom calls.
Reading this article makes me glad that there is still one huge USSC decision still coming, the West Virginia case against the government. If the court rules in favor of West Virginia it could go a long ways to erasing the power of the alphabet soup agencies.
Want not to get my hopes up...
The CDC is thoroughly corruptible, and federal regulators will never be impartial experts.
Lysenkoists gotta Lysenko.
That's some hard hitting journalisming right there.
the biggest problem with the CDC was something Fauci openly admitted very early on..... they wanted control... when he admitted that he said he didn't think masks would make any difference BECAUSE he was worried about supply problems.... he was admitting they wanted to control you, and they would twist whatever facts they had to towards that goal. that one act, alone, rendered them untrustable.... but it wasn't the only instance.
second biggest problem is that they are mostly incompetent bureaucrats. a good scientist/researcher/engineer/etc. comes to a situation and admits that they don't know everything, and actually starts to outline what they don't know in an effort to find answers..... bureaucrats can't admit they don't know, won't tell you what they don't know, and will talk out their asses to try and maintain their "authority" status. this makes the fact that the picture will change as more data comes in is not communicated, and the changes look more arbitrary and unscientific, even when they are not being shaped by the first problem.
what we needed were clearly communicated facts. what we got was political doublespeak and open attempts to control our behavior. with no voice of reason, the conspiracy theorists went nuts.
The "conspiracy theorists" were correct about everything.
If that bothers you, seek comfort in your 5th booster shot.
^^^see what happens to stupid people in the absence of reliable data..... they actually think you should listen to people who are clinically insane...
And who is the name of the doctor at the CDC that said it was more important to go out and protest than adhere to COVID restrictions in the wake of the involuntary manslaughter of saint George Floyd? After that statement I lost what little respect I had left for the CDC. The CDC is just a typical bureaucracy where the person in charge (Fauci) are more interested protecting their organization and enriching themselves than performing its core function.
"COVID-19 Exposed the Truth About the CDC"
Calling "gun violence" a public health issue and encouraging pediatricians to ask about it on children's health forms didn't clue you in?
Doctors err on the side of caution. Because of some test results in November that were out of alignment with prior results, my doctor wanted new tests in May. I didn't get them. Now, I keep getting e-mails. I'll get them at my next physical in November.
Meanwhile, I expect the e-mails to continue.
A doctor is no different than the lawyer who keeps telling clients to update wills, partnership agreements, and the like. Or the financial planner who wants clients to get out of stocks with no growth potential.
Is it annoying to have professionals telling you constantly to stop screwing up? Yes.
Erring on the side of caution is still erring. In some cases (certainly with the worldwide response to CV-19) it's much worse than erring on the side of danger.
Erring on the side of caution enforced with guns rather than emails makes this a bit different.
"Doctors err on the side of caution."
Unless you need to juice the death toll. In that case, stick everyone who comes in on a ventilator.
it's notable that nowhere in the article is any mention of the smurf. he's objectively the wrongest man to live and is at fault but the author here totally gives him a pass. the author seems to have a case of tds.
why the fuck should we care HOW invaders were stopped at the border?
what an idiotic thing to focus on
There went tho 50 votes Ill need to be Pres again!
CDC has lost all credibility. They pused vaccines for children while quietly admitting children are the least affected by the virus while side effects to the vaccine were unknown. Then they. Push boosters knowing full well that the booster (which is just more of the same of the Alpha vaccine) was all but useless against subsequent variants like Omicron. The biggest betrayal was about masks. They knew from the get go that they were all but useless against a viral pathogen but pushed them anyway so they could say they were doing ‘something’ like every politician does. Once you enter the realm of politics, you stop being scientists and I am free to ignore you.
Yeah and I made a shitload of money on the deal!
Its good to be the King!
https://twitter.com/cliftonaduncan/status/1541919034379313153?t=hbDZ8QKHnrkgXYoguj3R-g&s=19
Cult.
[Link]
Anyone who cites twitter as a source has to be recognized as an imbecilic piece of shit
Fuck off and die, asshole.
This sites just another Democrat agit- prop arm with a hand giving you the finger.
We Leftists have no end of Government, Soros and Gates money to intellectually enslave you with, Slaves!
Back to your coal mines and grindstones, Prols, I got me more corruption to do today.
The assertion that federal regulators cannot be held accountable outside (electoral) politics is fucking ridiculous. Just because D's don't want accountability and Rs want regulatory failure doesn't mean those are the only possible options. Sweden had no existential problem holding their public health experts accountable an limiting their actions. So it is clearly possible
I don't think there's any practical way to hold unelected regulators directly accountable.
Unelected officials should act in an advisory manner only and have zero direct power. "Emergency" powers should be eliminated completely. Citizens should only be held to obey laws passed by due process by an elected legislature and signed by an elected executive (or veto overriden by the legislature)
Hayek talked about something called rechtstaat - which checks bureaucrats via a court that specifically protects enumerated individual rights from bureaucrats rather than generally deferring to agencies. Sweden has something called ministerial governance which requires agency rules can only originate in the legislation directly.
Yeah it's possible.
The US was supposed to work the same way. Progressives destroyed that arrangement because they wanted to shift power from the legislative branch to the executive.
Certainly Sweden had a more rational approach to Covid than most nations. We should look to emulate what they did. Basically elected officials should have to at least sign off on everything.
In theory, expert advice has great value if utilized properly.
But we have to recognize that experts aren't infalliable, don't always have the public's best interest as the top priority, and most importantly can't possibly understand and weigh the diverse multitude of wants and needs for the entire population.
Men...angels... government... Madison... Federalist...51... something... something... something
Sweden is a completely different culture and legal system. Among other things, Swedish public servants are not corrupt, do their jobs, and aren't using public service as a launch pad to a lucrative private sector job.
Resist any further phony health emergency measures! Sign the Posterity Pledge!
https://covidreason.substack.com/p/sign-the-posterity-pledge