≡ Menu

Some Covid Links

Robby Soave is on to the New York Times‘s pro-lockdown bias. A slice:

Note the agenda here: The “experts”—i.e., overly cautious epidemiologists picked by The New York Times to give weight to Team Blue’s quixotic COVID-19 mitigation preferences—think the focus on vaccines is damaging because it comes at the expense of a pro-lockdown, pro-masking, pro-social-distancing strategy. Vaccination, broadly speaking, lets most people live their lives like normal again; this is somehow viewed as a bad thing.

These policy preferences are completely contrary to the reality of the human social experience. The health benefit of a booster shot is not “obtained just as easily by wearing a mask or avoiding indoor dining or crowded bars,” because wearing masks and eschewing conversation with other people is much more taxing than getting a shot. Many normal people actually like talking to people in bars and seeing human faces, so forgoing this indefinitely is not a trivial matter. (Note that the Times recently ran an op-ed piece titled: “Actually, Wearing a Mask Can Help Your Children Learn.”)

If Trump deserves criticism for failing to urge his base to get their shots—and he does—then why should The New York Times get a pass for suggesting to its readers that regular masking is an effective substitute for booster shots?

John Stossel is correct: “YouTube has the right to shut down Rand Paul. That doesn’t mean it should.

Here’s a new interview of Jay Bhattacharya.

I’m always honored to be a guest of Amy Jacobson and Dan Proft.

TANSTAFPFC (There Ain’t No Such Thing As Free Protection From Covid.)

Again, TANSTAFPFC (There Ain’t No Such Thing As Free Protection From Covid.)

Gerry O’Driscoll writes about Covid and prevention measures with genuine scientific understanding. Here’s his conclusion:

As further research into the actual effects of the widespread, coercive policies implemented in the wake of the pandemic appears, one hopes there could be a dispassionate reassessment of the policies. There was widespread agreement that we had to give up freedoms to save our health. Together, the papers I’ve reviewed in two posts suggest that more freedom leads to better health.

In this insightful essay, the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker compares the hubris of nation building with the hubris of Covid restrictions. A slice:

The two weeks to flatten the curve have turned into 18 months of chaotic policy that have robbed Americans of all their traditional presumptions concerning their rights and liberties. We didn’t know it – or most did not – but government can shut our businesses, close our churches, empty out our schools, restrict our travel, separate us from loved ones, all in the name of crushing a virus.

We might as well replace crush the virus with drive the Taliban out of public life in Afghanistan. Some things government can do; others it cannot do. It is long past time to hear an American president recognize that. Now that recognition needs a domestic application as well.

Here’s a report (in the Wall Street Journal) of yet another of the multitude of manifestations of malicious Covid Derangement Syndrome.

Johan Hellström tweets from Sweden (HT Martin Kulldorff):

As of today the Swedish youth & children are back in school.
As last year we maintained in person & mark free education. I will follow and statically report on it’s overall public health effect. I was sending my two smiling boys this morning to their school and friends.