More specifically, the plaintiffs argue that “COVID-19 is not a toxic substance or agent,” adding that “OSHA cannot attempt to shoehorn this disease into the phrase ‘new hazards.'” That phrase, they say, should be understood in context to exclude airborne viruses: “Because Congress expressly allowed for an ETS to be issued for ‘substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful,’ the catch-all phrase to encompass other hazards must be read in light of, and limited to, items similar to those that come before it.”
Otherwise, the brief says, OSHA “would have unbridled power to promulgate any regulation that would have the arguable effect of preventing the spread of a communicable disease.” Such measures could include “a shutdown of an entire industry [such as meatpacking] that might harbor a high [incidence] of COVID-19,” “a nationwide shutdown of all employers engaged in interstate commerce,” “a nationwide mask mandate on all customers visiting OSHA-regulated businesses,” or even “a rule mandating [an] appropriate regimen of vitamins” aimed at boosting employees’ immune responses.
hospitals got paid massive sums for finding covid cases. there was a huge pool of federal money that went to them and vastly boosted revenues. states got aid based on covid counts and covid deaths, so they found ways to get more covid on more death certificates. it’s just simple math. you do what pays.
even family members were recruited into the act and medical fees were paid for by the government if it was covid (but not, for example, if it was pneumonia).
even funerals got into the act.
Max Borders explores vaccine authoritarianism. A slice:
Vaccine mandates introduce unnecessary risks to the scores of millions of Americans who are Covid recovered. Study after study (after study) demonstrates that people who have recovered from Covid-19 have robust, durable immunity, which is as good or better than vaccine immunity. There is no reason people with natural immunity should be compelled to undergo any therapy whose long-term effects are unknown. Never mind that the magnitude of the known risks is still being studied. (One Covid recovered law professor [George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki] sued his university for just such a mandate.)
University of California at San Francisco professor Vinay Prasad justifiably accuses CDC Director Rochelle Walensky of publicly telling “a lie, and a truly unbelievable one at that.” Here’s his conclusion:
No matter how you feel about these issues; these are dangerous times. Truth and falsehood is not a matter of science but cultural power— the ability to proclaim and define the truth. If this continues, dark times lie ahead. Someday soon, we may not like who defines the truth.
Eric Hussey describes the terrible damage of masking children.
Boo for Big Bird proselytizing for the vaccination of children against Covid-19.
Here’s a recent tweet by the great Jay Bhattacharya:
When @MartinKulldorff, @SunetraGupta, and I wrote the @gbdeclaration, we offered concrete ideas to protect the vulnerable.
In response, influential public health deans pushed inapt analogies and lockdown. They own the abject failure that ensued.
In response to James Surowiecki’s baseless assertion that the Focused Protection called for in the great Great Barrington Declaration is impractical, Carneigie Mellon University’s Wes Pegden tweets:
“It’s impossible to effectively target public health efforts at those facing the greatest risks from COVID” was one of the most toxic knee-jerk reactions from one of the most politicized stages of the pandemic.
It was nonsense then, is still now, and repeating it is beneath you.
Also tweeting in response is Great Barrington Declaration co-author Martin Kulldorff:
Across the board #COVID19 restrictions instead of focused protection: The biggest public health mistake in history.
Weighing in too on Twitter is Nobel laureate Michael Levitt:
From my own personal experience, I totally agree.
This rejection of alternative narratives started in March 2020.
We had and still have to fight to be heard.
This opponent of the great Great Barrington Declaration concludes about its authors: “Doubt they actually cared about protecting the vulnerable”. Well. Thomas Sowell long ago pointed out (I forget just where) that enthusiasts for government interventions are more likely than are skeptics of government interventions to accuse their opponents of moral turpitude rather than of intellectual error. Accusing those with whom we disagree of moral turpitude – of having bad motivations rather than of reasoning or researching poorly – is a symptom of intellectual laziness (or of simple childishness). In addition, such an accusation saves those who fling it from experiencing any obligation to engage seriously with opponents’ arguments and evidence.
