From the start, the Disinformation Governance Board looked like a political caricature dreamed up by people who never appreciated either Monty Python or Orwell’s 1984. Given the Biden record, it was unclear whether the new board will be fighting or promulgating “disinformation.” After controversy erupted, an unnamed DHS spokesperson told the Washington Post: “The Board’s purpose has been grossly mischaracterized; it will not police speech…. Its focus is to ensure that freedom of speech is protected.” Geez, why didn’t the Founding Fathers think of adding a clause to the First Amendment creating a nefarious-sounding government agency to ride shotgun on the nation’s media?
Europe has operated the ETS since 2005. Mandarins issue a set number of permits each year, and then market participants can trade the permits so heavier emitters can buy the certificates they need from those who have reduced emissions. If demand exceeds supply, a rising permit cost is supposed to encourage green investments to reduce emissions.
The system wasn’t designed with a crisis such as this year’s in mind, however. One factor driving up permit costs is a shift in the fuel mix driven by political supply constraints rather than the kind of market incentive the ETS is supposed to change.
And yet, there was a public health “consensus” that the schools should stay closed until … until … well, the target seemed variable.
Early in the pandemic, I heard one public health “expert” proclaim on television that no measure is too extreme if it saves a single life. Such an assertion does not even constitute serious argument, still less the teaching of an academic discipline. But the host treated the claim like Holy Writ.
In her book, [Anya] Kamenetz laments that those who knew better didn’t raise their voices loudly enough. A more realistic way to put the point is that those who knew better were drowned out, even accused of spreading misinformation. But allowing only one side in a debate over an issue of public importance leads predictably to bad policy. And, in the jargon of the moment, it’s also a threat to democracy, which thrives only on open disagreement.
The case, ;Missouri et al v. Biden et al, is now in federal court under judge Terry Doughty. Jenin Younes of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, notes that Dr. Fauci had “demanded that specific individuals, including two of our clients, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, be censored on social media.” Dr. Bhattacharya, of Stanford Medical School, and Dr. Kulldorff of Harvard, are co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which took issue with Dr. Fauci on the issue of lockdowns.
As we noted, National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins tasked Dr. Fauci to conduct “a quick and devastating public takedown” of the Great Barrington scientists, smeared as “fringe epidemiologists.”
In an Epoch Times commentary, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff wondered if Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD and why they opted for a “takedown” instead of “vigorous scientific discussion.” The GBD authors recall the harm caused by the lockdowns caused, particularly the school shutdowns that harmed children without affecting disease spread. That damage will take years to reverse, but the authors have thoughts on ways to avoid similar disasters.
Hospitals receive a 20% increase in the Medicare payment rate for every patient diagnosed with COVID.
This bolus of payments might help explain why all the large urban hospital systems we checked and the vast majority of smaller systems were still COVID testing all patients. The tests themselves can also be cash generators for hospitals.