I often end up in this place with people with whom I agree on a great many things, and I love your blog! That being said: I have a degree in epidemiology and I was a Case Investigator for my state during the worst of the Covid pandemic. I spoke to literally thousands of people who had just been diagnosed, found out how they were exposed (almost always going to a public gathering or seeing family who had flown on airplanes to get there) and I spoke to way too many family members of people who had just died. Covid is and was real. The public health response was not perfect, but there was much we did not know. Countries that had stronger, more restrictive responses suffered less. Americans are stubborn in our individualism and I kinda like that about us. But people can also be really stupid about from whom they take medical advice. I am fortunate that I have the education and experience to evaluate medical studies for myself. I can find the flaws in them and make my own decisions. I feel sorry for people who take their advice from social media quacks. And I feel even worse for those with chronic disease or compromised immune systems to are exposed or have to confine themselves more because others don't take advantage of vaccines.
Lastly, you said because of your education and background, you’re able to look and see flaws in medical advice. That's a great thing. Millions could not. And at the same time, some of their own doctors would tell them different from the CDC, and would be demonized. It was an extremely scary and difficult time for them for that reason alone. Do I follow the specific advice from my doctor who has known me for years and that I trust, or throw everything out the window because the experts are now saying he’s a quack? For millions, that was their experience.
My post never said covid wasn’t real. It highlighted how certain perspectives were elevated and others were suppressed. I also had many friends in the medical profession who have a completely different viewpoint to you. During the COVID era, they were attacked constantly for simply sharing their experiences.
The public health response was terrible in this regard. You are right that there was so much that was unknown. Which is why it was even more confusing to me why certain positions were heralded, and others, from the same types of medical experts were denigrated. Not social media quacks. Actual doctors, epidemiologists, etc.
And that’s my main point. You spoke with a lot of people and your POV is based on that. How is that more important to others who have spoken with a lot of people and have a different viewpoint?
And that’s the danger of leaving things up to an appointed group of experts and blindly taking their advice above everyone else.
Understand where you are coming from, and the governmental directives during the uncertainty and panic surely upset many people and made them lose faith in governmental experts (abetted by a lot of bad faith propaganda sowing distrust).
But there’s a lot more to the Chevron doctrine than the CDC and COVID. It’s at the heart of regulating industrial activity vs. public health, safety and the environment. It’s the “reform” that got made in the Gilded Age thru the New Deal agencies and the EPA (originated during the Nixon administration.
IIRC the Chevron case dealt with whether the EPA could re-define “sources” of air pollution to exempt classes of regulated companies and relax regulation. The court correctly decided to let scientists and technocrats guided by politics and law make that call, not courts. That was widely regarded at the time as the correct decision, as we understand the risks of judicial activism and corruption.
So, where are we going with this? Well courts will make decisions about congressional dictates rather than administrative agencies. And if you think that’s a good idea and will end well with Trump 47 and Project 2025, look no further than the mifepristone muddle where a bunch of judge-shopping fascists find a contrarian Trump appointed judge in south Texas and he entertains a case from a party lacking standing (obgyns concerned about non-babies), another shocking and improper (to lawyers) thing and suddenly some doofus appointed for life judge in Texas knows more than the FDA.
Guarantee as much as you sometimes don’t like the decisions of technocrats and scientists trying to figure out what’s in the public interest, you’re going to like it a heck of a lot less if Trump and the plutocratic class make those decisions to benefit themselves and their friends.
A bright spot in this (always a bright spot) from my perspective as (retired) lawyer and history buff: what brought the sclerotic Soviet Union down after decades of drift and unhappiness with the state of life under that dictatorship were the grass roots citizens environmental movements after the government mishandling and lies around the Chernobyl disaster. These organic movements ushered in demands for political change.
I know there are thousands of more examples than Covid and the CDC. Just using it as one of many examples. I don’t believe the way authority has been outsourced to unelected experts has been a great idea overall, even if some good has come out of it. Good things coming from a bad idea doesn’t make the bad idea good.
I do believe that differing experts should have access, and not just one agency who may or may not have their own agenda.
Where you and I seem to differ is that I don’t believe what’s happened is an unfortunate result of people with good intentions. What has lessened the people’s faith in government experts was mainly the government and their experts, not other people sowing discord. We experienced it. The examples I gave were just a small small few of how our leaders treated us. Lots of hypocrisy. Not even a modicum of regret or apology.
I understand the EPA example you gave. That’s a very early example and further illustrates to me that something good happening out of a directive does not inherently make the directive a good one.
The moment we put blind trust into any of our government structures, we write them a blank check. That never ends well.
"That was widely regarded at the time as the correct decision, as we understand the risks of judicial activism and corruption."
But the thing is, we have checks and balances. I don't think the answer to potential corruption should be to appoint another group of people, who can just as easily be corrupted, but without the same safeguards that were put in place for our three branches.
There were businesses, and government entities that mandated vaccines to work for them. There were places that mandated vaccines in order to enter their business. Restaurants that made you show your vaccine passport in order to eat, etc. it all violated our medical privacy.
I often end up in this place with people with whom I agree on a great many things, and I love your blog! That being said: I have a degree in epidemiology and I was a Case Investigator for my state during the worst of the Covid pandemic. I spoke to literally thousands of people who had just been diagnosed, found out how they were exposed (almost always going to a public gathering or seeing family who had flown on airplanes to get there) and I spoke to way too many family members of people who had just died. Covid is and was real. The public health response was not perfect, but there was much we did not know. Countries that had stronger, more restrictive responses suffered less. Americans are stubborn in our individualism and I kinda like that about us. But people can also be really stupid about from whom they take medical advice. I am fortunate that I have the education and experience to evaluate medical studies for myself. I can find the flaws in them and make my own decisions. I feel sorry for people who take their advice from social media quacks. And I feel even worse for those with chronic disease or compromised immune systems to are exposed or have to confine themselves more because others don't take advantage of vaccines.
Lastly, you said because of your education and background, you’re able to look and see flaws in medical advice. That's a great thing. Millions could not. And at the same time, some of their own doctors would tell them different from the CDC, and would be demonized. It was an extremely scary and difficult time for them for that reason alone. Do I follow the specific advice from my doctor who has known me for years and that I trust, or throw everything out the window because the experts are now saying he’s a quack? For millions, that was their experience.
My post never said covid wasn’t real. It highlighted how certain perspectives were elevated and others were suppressed. I also had many friends in the medical profession who have a completely different viewpoint to you. During the COVID era, they were attacked constantly for simply sharing their experiences.
The public health response was terrible in this regard. You are right that there was so much that was unknown. Which is why it was even more confusing to me why certain positions were heralded, and others, from the same types of medical experts were denigrated. Not social media quacks. Actual doctors, epidemiologists, etc.
And that’s my main point. You spoke with a lot of people and your POV is based on that. How is that more important to others who have spoken with a lot of people and have a different viewpoint?
And that’s the danger of leaving things up to an appointed group of experts and blindly taking their advice above everyone else.
Understand where you are coming from, and the governmental directives during the uncertainty and panic surely upset many people and made them lose faith in governmental experts (abetted by a lot of bad faith propaganda sowing distrust).
But there’s a lot more to the Chevron doctrine than the CDC and COVID. It’s at the heart of regulating industrial activity vs. public health, safety and the environment. It’s the “reform” that got made in the Gilded Age thru the New Deal agencies and the EPA (originated during the Nixon administration.
IIRC the Chevron case dealt with whether the EPA could re-define “sources” of air pollution to exempt classes of regulated companies and relax regulation. The court correctly decided to let scientists and technocrats guided by politics and law make that call, not courts. That was widely regarded at the time as the correct decision, as we understand the risks of judicial activism and corruption.
So, where are we going with this? Well courts will make decisions about congressional dictates rather than administrative agencies. And if you think that’s a good idea and will end well with Trump 47 and Project 2025, look no further than the mifepristone muddle where a bunch of judge-shopping fascists find a contrarian Trump appointed judge in south Texas and he entertains a case from a party lacking standing (obgyns concerned about non-babies), another shocking and improper (to lawyers) thing and suddenly some doofus appointed for life judge in Texas knows more than the FDA.
Guarantee as much as you sometimes don’t like the decisions of technocrats and scientists trying to figure out what’s in the public interest, you’re going to like it a heck of a lot less if Trump and the plutocratic class make those decisions to benefit themselves and their friends.
A bright spot in this (always a bright spot) from my perspective as (retired) lawyer and history buff: what brought the sclerotic Soviet Union down after decades of drift and unhappiness with the state of life under that dictatorship were the grass roots citizens environmental movements after the government mishandling and lies around the Chernobyl disaster. These organic movements ushered in demands for political change.
I know there are thousands of more examples than Covid and the CDC. Just using it as one of many examples. I don’t believe the way authority has been outsourced to unelected experts has been a great idea overall, even if some good has come out of it. Good things coming from a bad idea doesn’t make the bad idea good.
I do believe that differing experts should have access, and not just one agency who may or may not have their own agenda.
Where you and I seem to differ is that I don’t believe what’s happened is an unfortunate result of people with good intentions. What has lessened the people’s faith in government experts was mainly the government and their experts, not other people sowing discord. We experienced it. The examples I gave were just a small small few of how our leaders treated us. Lots of hypocrisy. Not even a modicum of regret or apology.
I understand the EPA example you gave. That’s a very early example and further illustrates to me that something good happening out of a directive does not inherently make the directive a good one.
The moment we put blind trust into any of our government structures, we write them a blank check. That never ends well.
"That was widely regarded at the time as the correct decision, as we understand the risks of judicial activism and corruption."
But the thing is, we have checks and balances. I don't think the answer to potential corruption should be to appoint another group of people, who can just as easily be corrupted, but without the same safeguards that were put in place for our three branches.
I was, and still am, against mandating the vaccines.
My opinions about the vaccine itself are moot.
There were businesses, and government entities that mandated vaccines to work for them. There were places that mandated vaccines in order to enter their business. Restaurants that made you show your vaccine passport in order to eat, etc. it all violated our medical privacy.
I was and am against all of that.