Follow the Science? How COVID Authoritarians Get It Wrong

[DanteEstonia]

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So Constitutional Amendment by popular vote.  Why didn't you just say it?  And yeah, that would turn out real well, would effectively turn the entire USA into California.

Read what I read again. I want a supermajority of States to pass Constitutional Amendments. I want the middleman cut out.

[Muda69]

1 minute ago, DanteEstonia said:

Read what I read again. I want a supermajority of States to pass Constitutional Amendments. I want the middleman cut out.

I did  read it. Quote:  "Instead of having State governments ratify Constitutional Amendments, why not instead have the people who elect the State governments ratify the Constitutional Amendments?"

Still sounds like a popular vote to me.

 

[DanteEstonia]

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Still sounds like a popular vote to me

And it would be. But it would still require a super majority of States.

[Muda69]

How Pope Francis Gets "the Common Good" Wrong

https://mises.org/wire/how-pope-francis-gets-common-good-wrong

Quote

In a New York Times op-ed full of musings on how to “build a better, different, human future,” Pope Francis praised world governments for putting “the well-being of their people first” while ridiculing critics of the covid-19 lockdowns.

Juxtaposed with Francis’s condemnation of skeptics in the prestigious newspaper, Tom Woods’s antilockdown “Covid Cult” speech was deleted by YouTube two days prior. That video, which had already gone viral, addressed the “common good” argument that the pope would make.

Considering how wrong both the legacy and new media have been on covid and the lockdowns from the start, it’s no wonder that platforms such as YouTube have a personal beef with Woods or his sober message calling out the pseudoscience that’s been used to destroy people’s lives and livelihoods. 

With the support of the Times and other establishment outlets, Francis urged readers to consider the “common good” as a demand for sacrifice. Covid, a flu-like respiratory illness that impacts only a tiny fraction of the population and usually not fatally, is the perfect excuse for mass sacrifice.

Francis wrote that governments are “acting decisively to protect health and to save lives” by “imposing strict measures to contain the outbreak.” But if you were to base your understanding of what lockdowns have accomplished on what Francis had to say alone, you would think we were living, or dying, in 1347 under the Black Death.

“Governments that shrugged off the painful evidence of mounting deaths” caused a great deal of pain, the supreme pontiff wrote.

While the jury is still out on what should even be considered a covid death, there is, indeed, enough evidence to suggest that the “strict measures to contain the outbreak” that he praised simply have not worked.

The Wrong Approach

During his speech, Woods argued that the response to covid was and remains completely disproportionate, especially as we become more aware of how the virus operates. He also chronicled how the nearly universal lockdowns caused more pain and suffering than the disease itself.

“There are other concerns in the world other than covid,” Woods said, a fact completely ignored by Francis in his op-ed.

Woods further argued that countries like Spain and Italy, which “locked down [early] and hard” saw no benefit from doing so. Countries like Sweden, which never locked down, saw a fraction of the deaths that the “listen to the science” crowd estimated while seeing no lockdown-related suffering and excess deaths.

As a matter of fact, even medical researchers think that lockdowns were a mistake.

In what became known as the Great Barrington Declaration, reputable infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists explained that the death toll caused by the lockdowns will far surpass anything precipitated by covid. 

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.

Allowing iron-fisted shutdowns to remain in place, the group of scientists added, “will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Despite their warnings, which first appeared online on October 4, 2020, Francis did not hesitate to mock critics of lockdowns for their alleged overreliance on “personal freedom” to justify their opinion. They are going against the common good, the pontiff wrote, and they are serving “idols.”

After governments imposed “responsible” lockdowns, Francis argued, “some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions—as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom!”

They are wrong, he jabbed.

Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.

Then why isn’t he?

The Seen and the Unseen

In his now famous “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” essay, French liberal school economist Claude-Frederic Bastiat wrote that when it comes to the economy, an act or law brought about by the government “gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects.”

Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen.

What many lockdown critics have consistently argued is that it is the effect that isn’t immediately seen that would be more costly to society than covid itself. It is exactly that concern that has driven the medical professionals associated with the Barrington Declaration to speak up, as well as countless working-class Americans and Europeans who found no other way to vent their frustration but to take it to the streets, as highlighted by Woods:

In Italy and the United Kingdom, at least some people are fighting back. The last lockdown took everything they had.

One video, which has gone viral, shows an Italian woman crying that she has lost everything, and has nothing to feed her child. I guess she better listen to the science right?

Yet to Francis, the common good dictates we lock down the globe, jeopardizing the future of the young, the livelihood of the working class, and condemning countless kids to a life of mental distress. 

If the concern for “the least fortunate” is what drives Francis, pursuing a strawman on the New York Times isn’t how he wins.

If he is honest in calling for more solidarity in the age of covid, he should begin by being charitable with those praying for an end to the lockdowns. As countless people suffer both physical and emotional pain over the draconian restrictions on basic freedoms, the number of lives lost due to what Woods calls the “covid cult” will only rise.

 

[DanteEstonia]

23 hours ago, Muda69 said:

I did  read it. Quote:  "Instead of having State governments ratify Constitutional Amendments, why not instead have the people who elect the State governments ratify the Constitutional Amendments?"

Still sounds like a popular vote to me.

So, let's think back to the 21st Amendment. It was ratified by conventions, rather than State legislatures, correct?

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

So, let's think back to the 21st Amendment. It was ratified by conventions, rather than State legislatures, correct?

Yes.

 

 

[DanteEstonia]

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

Yes.

Why then not have every registered voter in the State be a member of a ratifying convention for Constitutional Amendments, and have the ratifying conventions be the only way to ratify Amendments? 

[Muda69]

54 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Why then not have every registered voter in the State be a member of a ratifying convention for Constitutional Amendments, and have the ratifying conventions be the only way to ratify Amendments? 

Why was the 21st Amendment the only  constitutional amendment to be ratified using this method?  I suspect the evil zealot FDR, whose was POTUS at the time,  had his hand in it.   

 

[DanteEstonia]

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Why was the 21st Amendment the only  constitutional amendment to be ratified using this method? 

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/dec-5-1933-ratification-of-21st-amendment-ends-prohibition/

[Muda69]

16 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/dec-5-1933-ratification-of-21st-amendment-ends-prohibition/

Thank you.  FTA:

Quote

It was ratified by a series of state conventions rather than by state legislatures, which have been used to ratify every other amendment, as Congress felt that many state legislators remained beholden to pro-Prohibition interests.

So you believe that state legislators are now so corrupt that popular vote is the only viable way to pass future Constitutional Amendments?  

 

[DanteEstonia]

13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So you believe that state legislators are now so corrupt that popular vote is the only viable way to pass future Constitutional Amendments?  

Who elects State legislators?

[Bobref]

Just curious @DanteEstonia, you’ve obviously given this subject a great deal of thought, and have formed strong opinions. Just how many distinct amendments would you propose to add or repeal?

[DanteEstonia]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Just how many distinct amendments would you propose to add or repeal?

It depends on how they were clustered. If by subject, at minimum 6. 

[Muda69]

14 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Who elects State legislators?

We the people. So are you saying those we elect to State legislatures are corrupt before they were first elected to the institution?  Or was it the power and influence of the position which does the corrupting?

 

[DanteEstonia]

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So are you saying those we elect to State legislatures are corrupt before they were first elected to the institution? 

https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

[Muda69]

1 minute ago, DanteEstonia said:

https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

I'll take that as a yes.

Reduce the size, scope, and power of the government, at all levels,  by at least 25% and most of these problems go away.  Your popular vote for most everything approach is just a band-aid destined to fall off.

 

 

[DanteEstonia]

Just now, Muda69 said:

Your popular vote for most everything approach is just a band-aid destined to fall off.

The 17th Amendment still works, does it not?

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

The 17th Amendment still works, does it not?

Member of the U.S. Senate are as corrupt as the representatives, if not more so.  Are they not?

 

[Bobref]

31 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

It depends on how they were clustered. If by subject, at minimum 6. 

I’m just trying to take from the electoral cycle we just went through and extrapolate that to 6 separate plebiscites, each on a vital national issue. And it’s really 50 x 6, isn’t it? Sort of boggles the mind.

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Member of the U.S. Senate are as corrupt as the representatives, if not more so.  Are they not?

 

I don’t know if they’re “more” corrupt. They’re certainly better at it. 😉

Edited December 18, 2020 by Bobref

[DanteEstonia]

18 minutes ago, Bobref said:

’m just trying to take from the electoral cycle we just went through and extrapolate that to 6 separate plebiscites, each on a vital national issue. And it’s really 50 x 6, isn’t it? Sort of boggles the mind.

We elected conventions for the 21st Amendment, correct? We elect US Senators, correct?

[Bobref]

26 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

We elected conventions for the 21st Amendment, correct? We elect US Senators, correct?

Sure. Piece of cake.

[Bobref]

32 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

We elected conventions for the 21st Amendment, correct? We elect US Senators, correct?

It would certainly be fascinating to watch the various coalitions form around each issue. Makes for some strange bedfellows.

[DanteEstonia]

7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Sure. Piece of cake.

Excellent! This is just an outgrowth of the last two concepts. 

[Muda69]

When There Wasn't Enough Hand Sanitizer, Distilleries Stepped Up. Now They're Facing $14,060 FDA Fees.

https://reason.com/2020/12/30/when-there-wasnt-enough-hand-sanitizer-distilleries-stepped-up-now-theyre-facing-14060-fda-fees/

Quote

For many American craft distillers, 2020 was already one of their worst years ever. The COVID-19-related closure of tasting rooms and cocktail bars, loss of tourism, and inability to offer in-store sampling slashed their sales revenue and cut them off from their customers. Then this week, just as it seemed they'd made it through the worst of a terrible year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had one more surprise in store: The agency delivered notice to distilleries that had produced hand sanitizer in the early days of the pandemic that they now owe an unexpected fee to the government of more than $14,000.

"I was in literal disbelief when I read it yesterday," says Aaron Bergh, president and distiller at Calwise Spirits in Paso Robles, California. "I had to confirm with my attorney this morning that it's true." The surprise fee caught distillers completely off guard, throwing the already suffering industry into confusion.

When the onset of the pandemic led to a massive increase in demand for hand sanitizer this spring, many distilleries stepped up to alleviate the sudden shortage. The main ingredient in sanitizer is ethanol, which they are in the business of making, albeit typically in more fun and tasty formats. More than 800 distilleries pivoted from spirits to sanitizer, offering it for sale or in many cases donating it to their communities free of charge. Their prompt action helped ensure supplies of sanitizer when it was otherwise unobtainable.

(Even then, the FDA needlessly complicated things, imposing additional requirements on top of guidelines published by the World Health Organization for emergency production. The FDA's mandate that all alcohol used in sanitizer first be denatured—rendering it undrinkable—created a bottleneck that raised costs for distillers and slowed production.)

Producing sanitizer is viewed as a point of pride in the distilling business, a way that they were able to help their communities in a fearful time of crisis. 

Now, however, that good deed is being punished with unanticipated fees by the FDA. "I compare it to surprise medical billing," says Becky Harris, president of the American Craft Spirits Association (ACSA) and of Catoctin Creek Distilling in Purcellville, Virginia.

At issue is a provision of the CARES Act that reformed regulation of non-prescription drugs. Under the revised law, distilleries that produced sanitizer have been classified as "over-the-counter drug monograph facilities." The CARES Act also enacted user fees on these facilities to fund the FDA's regulatory activities. For small distillers, that means ending the year with a surprise bill for $14,060 due on February 11.

"People are incredibly anxious," Harris says. "We have been dealing with tons of phone calls talking to individual members and state guilds to tell them what we know and what we don't know."

Harris and the ACSA have spent the day trying to learn more details about the law and the FDA's intentions, but the combination of the holidays and the pandemic makes this a difficult time to reach anyone. "We recognize that this bill [the CARES ACT] was not written specifically for the issue of sanitizer," Harris says. "The problem that we have right now is that [the fee assessment] is going out to a whole lot of small businesses who are struggling in the pandemic."

Bergh's CalWise Spirits is a typical example. He says that his distillery produced 5,000 gallons of hand sanitizer, with distribution prioritized to medical workers and others on the frontlines of the pandemic response. "Some of my hand sanitizer was donated," he said in a statement today. "The rest was sold at a fraction of the market price. My goal was to get as much out as I could, at as low of a price as I could, while being able to bring my furloughed employees back to work. The hand sanitizer business saved me from bankruptcy—but I didn't make an enormous profit."

Potentially compounding the impact of the fee is that it is determined by registration as an OTC (over-the-counter) monograph drug production facility in the previous calendar year. That means that distilleries not only have to contend with this year's fee; if they fail to update their status with the FDA by tomorrow, they may be liable for an additional fee in 2022 as well.

For now, Harris is advising members not to pay the fee right away. "We want to push back on this," she says. She's hopeful that if the FDA has some discretion as to the applicability of the fee, that they will exercise it to exclude distilleries, most of which no longer produce sanitizer and have no intention of continuing to do so now that the emergency shortage has passed. Currently, however, the FDA's website explicitly notes that facilities that produced sanitizer under the agency's temporary COVID-19 policy are not exempt. Reason's inquiry with the FDA has yet to receive a detailed response, but we will update if we receive one.

Paying a surprise $14,000 bill would be a challenge for small businesses in any year, but it's a particular challenge for craft distilleries in 2020. An industry survey conducted earlier this year by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and the American Distilling Institute projected that sales revenue at craft distilleries would decline by more than $700 million this year, amounting to approximately 40 percent of their sales.

For many distillers, the unexpected fee assessment from the FDA thus arrives as one more substantial blow in an already devastating year. "If you were making sanitizer for your community at a limited capacity, this should not be something you have to deal with," says Harris. "It will be a slap in the face to make it through all of this and then get hit with this bill." 

So the free and open market steps up to fill a need and then the government slaps them for it. 

[swordfish]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/31/politics/distilleries-hand-sanitizer-fine/index.html

"Small businesses who stepped up to fight Covid-19 should be applauded by their government, not taxed for doing so. I'm pleased to announce we have directed FDA to cease enforcement of these arbitrary, surprise user fees," Brian Harrison, HHS' chief of staff, said in a statement.

"Happy New Year, distilleries, and cheers to you for helping keep us safe!" he added.

 

Harrison said the distilleries were charged "by mistake" and that the fees were not cleared by HHS leadership.

"Many of these are rather small business, craft distilleries, and their business and livelihoods were damaged when restaurants closed down," he said. "But they jumped into the fray and joined the fight against Covid. It was nothing short of heroic. They are American heroes."

Crisis Averted.....