Patterico's Pontifications

9/17/2020

Joe Biden On National Mask Mandate: Then and Now

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:25 am



[guest post by Dana]

He was against it before he was for it. One week ago, Biden said this about a mask mandate:

Asked to respond to the governors who had appreciated President Trump’s more targeted coronavirus approach, which gave more authority to the states, Biden said, “Well, I hope you could trust the governors.

“But here’s the deal, the federal government — there’s a constitutional issue whether federal government could issue such a mandate. I don’t think constitutionally they could, so I wouldn’t issue a mandate.”

Given the legal challenges, Biden said, he would “plead with” people to wear a mask, adding, “I’d set an example.”

Biden then noted that case rates were dropping in places where local authorities had implemented mask orders.

“It’s about making sure the public is safe and secure, and that is a local decision but there should be national standards laid out as to how it should be gone about. You can’t mandate that,” he continued

Biden yesterday:

Former Vice President Joe Biden is not ruling out the possibility of instituting a federal mask mandate if elected in November to deliver on previous calls for nationwide mask use as the country continues to grapple with the impacts of COVID-19.

“Our legal team thinks I can do that based upon the degree to which there’s a crisis in those states, and how bad things are for the country, and if we don’t do it, what happens,” Biden said of his ability to act federally if states decline to take action.

“The question is whether I have the legal authority as president to sign an executive order. We think we do,” Biden later added, stressing that he would make the case along with scientists to both Republican and Democratic governors about the necessity of a mandate before acting federally.

–Dana

76 Responses to “Joe Biden On National Mask Mandate: Then and Now”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (292df6)

  2. Well he’s not Trump. And that’s the best platform in someone’s lifetime.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  3. Dana,

    Statement 1: I want to mandate masks, but I don’t think I have the legal authority so I would try to persuade people.
    Statement 2: We think we might have the legal authority in certain limited circumstances, and would try to build a consensus about that action use that authority in a bipartisan manner.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  4. hit submit too soon, I wanted to ask what was wrong with that?

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  5. they will subject to it, and everything else, mandate vaccines, issue certificates, because you will have given consent,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  6. If they get away with it,it’s constitutional now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  7. because you will have given consent,

    “By signing this income tax return, you give consent to ________ and _________ and _________.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. And wait until Kamala unveils her plans for guns. As California has already started, “arms” will be redefined to be something the government approves, but nothing you currently possess will be on that list. The Constitution means nothing to these people other than some form that has to be met in some grudging and cramped manner.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  9. Time123,

    I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily wrong with his statement, other than this one is open-ended and vague as to specifics, and his latest comments semi-contradicts his previous statement on the issue of federal mask mandates.

    “Our legal team thinks I can do that based upon the degree to which there’s a crisis in those states, and how bad things are for the country, and if we don’t do it, what happens,” Biden said of his ability to act federally if states decline to take action.

    It leaves wide open exactly what defines the criteria for “limited circumstances”. Which states? What is the threshold a state must hit to be targeted for by federal mandate? Why would the circumstances allow for a selective federal mandate? How long would one be in place, and how would enforcement/penalties work, and who would be in charge of those?

    I realize it’s early-on, and no specific plan has been articulated. I also understand that Biden is presenting a stark contrast to Trump’s anemic reaction to Covid as well demonstrating that he is ready to get a grip on the pandemic. And I don’t doubt that he will follow through on getting our pandemic fight onto a more effective track. But I think its sloppy to throw statements out that are not necessarily in sync from week to week. Obviously, an EO is a much more likely avenue than any attempted act of Congress, which would face Constitutional issues.

    Dana (292df6)

  10. a mask mandate, offers little assurance, a mandated vaccine more so, so how much power are you willing to grant them, seeing as they have wiped out all elected opposition in california and new york, they can do whatever to you,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  11. Dana, those are all good questions and the quoted material doesn’t have those specifics. It’s likely that they haven’t worked out those specifics, since the people who have the expertise to develop them work for the CDC. What he did give us were guidelines on how they’d be developed.

    -Evidence based.
    -Limited, by both law and need.
    -Targeted at a specific outcome
    -In collaboration with state leaders.

    Obviously this is vague, but it’s a least a sense on what wants to do, or at least what he thinks people want to hear.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  12. If they get away with it,it’s constitutional now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/17/2020 @ 6:57 am

    Yes, Trump has established a lot of new norms with the emergency powers act and tariffs, that Kamala Harris will use in ways we hate. It will be hard to push back, since the HOR can’t compel people to testify.

    An administration that’s run competently will use those powers in ways that are harder to summarize and thus harder to build public outrage over.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  13. Another example of politician politicizing the pandemic:
    https://fox17.com/news/local/covid-19-emails-from-nashville-mayors-office-show-disturbing-revelation

    I mean… tars and feathers is warranted.

    whembly (c30c83)

  14. From a Times article that needs an account on June 25th

    “I would insist that everybody out in public be wearing that mask,” he said. “Anyone to reopen would have to make sure that they walked into a business that had masks.”

    Asked if he could use “federal leverage to mandate that,” Mr. Biden said he could, and “would from an executive standpoint.”

    He said he would do everything “possible to make it required that people had to wear masks in public.”

    On August 13th

    “Every single American should be wearing a mask when they’re outside for the next three months at a minimum,” … “It’s not about your rights. It’s about your responsibilities as an American,”

    Then the sequence you’ve got above started.

    He was against it before he was for it. He was for it, then sort of against it, and then for it again. Or more correctly, his team knows it’s unconstitutional and doesn’t poll well but it’s still something they are going to try.

    frosty (f27e97)

  15. Biden sounded old and confused yesterday, not to mention wrong about his authority.
    Trump sounded dishonest and delusional yesterday.
    This is what the two major political parties have given the American people as their pinnacles.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  16. Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/17/2020 @ 7:18 am

    Obviously this is vague, but it’s a least a sense on what wants to do, or at least what he thinks people want to hear.

    This runs counter to

    -Evidence based.
    -Limited, by both law and need.
    -Targeted at a specific outcome

    How can it be evidence based and targeted to a specific outcome and also vague but giving a sense of what it will do? How can it be limited by law when they are already saying it’s not about your rights? It sounds like you’ve got a lot of faith that you are trying to relabel.

    frosty (f27e97)

  17. He was against it before he was for it

    No, he was for it before he was againat it, before he was for it again.

    Always gotta pay attention to these focus groups.

    Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4)

  18. 3. Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/17/2020 @ 6:35 am

    Statement 1: I want to mandate masks, but I don’t think I have the legal authority so I would try to persuade people.

    That was Statement 2. We now have Statement 3.

    Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4)

  19. Time123

    , I wanted to ask what was wrong with that?

    The legal reasoning probably. Democrats have very creative lawyers.

    Sammy Finkelman (b1f8c4)

  20. It Votes For The Biden Or It Gets The Riots Again

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/15/it-votes-biden-or-it-gets-the-riots-again/
    __ _

    The Biden/Harris campaign platform in one slogan
    _

    harkin (820d1b)

  21. How can it be evidence based and targeted to a specific outcome and also vague but giving a sense of what it will do? How can it be limited by law when they are already saying it’s not about your rights? It sounds like you’ve got a lot of faith that you are trying to relabel.

    How can it be evidence based and targeted to a specific outcome and also vague.

    By not having worked out the details yet. They want everyone to wear a mask. They admit they won’t have the power to compel that in all cases. They believe they have the power to compel it in limited circumstances. They either haven’t worked out, or haven’t released, what those limited circumstances are.

    If he had been in power for a month and had the CDC working for him the lack of specifics would be inexcusable. But at this point it makes sense.

    For example I want to take a scenic drive through the north east. I want to see a number of historical places in a week and minimize the time I spend on highways so I can better see the area. I don’t know what my route will be, but I those are what I’m going to work to.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  22. Seems to me like he’s been consistent about what he wants; lots of mask usage.
    What’s been changing is his plan on how to achieve what he wants.
    I think the fact that he’s been changing that plan because he recognizes limits to the power of the president is a good thing.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  23. Cdc employees donate 90% democrat the y were focused on more worthy issues like obesity and gun control

    Bolivar di griz (d4a914)

  24. @23, His ppl have been running the CDC for 3 years. At this point, that’s on him.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  25. If anyone paved the way for a national mask mandate, it was Trump with his national eviction ban.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. I implore all of ya’ll to read this, that include citations of scientific studies.

    https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

    Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
    No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

    Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

    Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

    Masks and respirators do not work.

    Please take the time to review.

    whembly (c30c83)

  27. part of the same overreach, which you’re fine with, the way the leading medical journals have colluded with the cdc, to proscribe promising treatment, only authorizing the most expensive one is indeed criminal

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  28. “Cause if you could take care, if you were a quartermaster, you can sure in hell take care runnin’ a, you know, a department store uh, thing, you know, where, in the second floor of the ladies department or whatever, you know what I mean?” – Joe Biden
    _

    harkin (820d1b)

  29. And here’s the updated commentary of the previous article. I wish sites would do this more often…
    https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/still-no-conclusive-evidence-justifying-mandatory-masks
    (I removed the enbedded links as I didn’t want to be nuked by wordpress)

    In June, we published Denis Rancourt’s white paper titled “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy.” As of this date, the article has been viewed over 460,000 times world-wide. And, as the Reader’s publisher I pledged to publish all letters, guest commentaries, or studies refuting Rancourt’s general premise that this mask-wearing culture and shaming could be more harmful than helpful.

    In retrospect, Rancourt’s specific premise is that there are no gold-standard (a.k.a. policy-grade) randomized controlled tests that prove masks work effectively to stop the spread of a respiratory virus.

    The masks-may-be-more-harmful-than-helpful assertion is associated with the open questions Rancourt posed regarding unknown consequences of mandated masking being considered by thousands of local and state government officials, both elected and unelected.

    We received many submissions against and for Rancourt’s paper. After reviewing the attempted refutations, we remain resolute in our original support for his conclusions. Not one proved Rancourt’s analysis of the randomized controlled tests to be false or misleading. Nor did any of the attempted refutations answer or overcome any of Rancourt’s concerns regarding potential harm from mandated mask wearing.

    However, in the spirit of open debate and sharing opposing views, we provide links to several of the submitted refutation efforts below. While some submitters resorted to unpersuasive ad hominem attacks on Rancourt, we stand by Rancourt’s scientific and academic credentials, training, experience, and capabilities to provide the analysis and review of said RCT’s.

    The most prevalent opposing response has been that the very RCT research papers Rancourt analyzed were primarily measuring the effective differences between surgical masks and respirators … not whether masks in general work.

    Rancourt addressed this assertion in his conclusion: “Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.”

    Advocates for masking who attempted to refute Rancourt also cited passages within the RCT research papers Rancourt analyzed that affirmed the overall benefits of masking, claiming Rancourt cherry-picked his evidence from these published works.

    Yet for any seemingly affirmative statement masking advocates can point to within the seven publications Rancourt reviewed, there exists within each and every one of those papers the very qualifier that proves Rancourt is accurate in his statement “no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.”

    For example, one submitted refutation cited Offendu (sic). The paper Rancourt cited was Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 193-1942.

    This submission asserted that Rancourt failed to give the following Offeddu statement (located in the Randomized Controlled Trials section) its due, thus proving Rancourt’s claims are false: “Compared to non-rPPE wearing HCWs, those wearing medical masks or N95 respirators throughout their work shift were significantly protected against nonspecific respiratory infection.”

    Meanwhile, the submitter ignores the very next two sentences Offeddu writes in that same passage: “However, assessment of clinical outcomes was self-reported and prone to bias, as the intervention cannot be masked. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against VRI, a rarer outcome, was not statistically significant, though this may indicate insufficient statistical power in these studies, rather than lack of a protective effect.”

    Not one of the seven publications on RCT’s Rancourt reviewed, or all of them combined, warrants implementing (let alone attempting to enforce) mask mandating as a mitigation policy for COVID-19.

    Rancourt takes a dispassionate view of the evidence being reported within the RCT literature. He does not rely on terms such as “seem to,” “indicates,” “pretty likely,” “much less likely,” “may,” or “some evidence to support.” Rather, Rancourt selected the science-based disclaimers within each of the RCT analyses to prove his point that there is no policy-grade evidence that masks work.

    Select Attempted Refutations Submitted
    1) Submitted by David Kyle Johnson, Professor of Philosophy at King’s College Scranton, PA: “A (Complete) Debunking of Denis Rancourt’s Argument That ‘Masks Don’t Work.’”

    2) Submitted by Jack Komisar (no credentials): “Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” published in the Lancet Vol 395 June 27, 2020 pages 1973-1987.

    3) Submitted by Ben Abbott, Assistant Professor of Ecosystem Ecology, Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University: Making sense of the research on COVID-19 and masks.

    We have also included Rancourt’s newest analysis (cited below). We continue to steadfastly support his conclusions, especially in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, when we will always err on the side of self-determination.

    A free and open society can only enfranchise individual property rights, and our bodies are our own property. The desire for authoritarians to wield government power, whether through lawfare or brute force, in order to change or mandate others’ behavior, whatever the risks for a perceived benefit, is seemingly unquenchable.

    Also included here is DigiDebates July 24, 2020, debate between Denis Rancourt and Kyle Johnson on this very issue of whether masks should be mandated. The video is embedded below and linked to here on YouTube.

    In Johnson’s essay, he discounts the validity of RCT’s, writing “What Rancourt fails to recognize is that, while they are great (even necessary) for testing drugs and treatments, RCTs are not necessary or even appropriate for other scientific fields or questions.” And he cites an article in the American Psychological Association to prove this point in his effort to remove Rancourt’s argument’s critical context.

    For context to the contrary, the CDC itself states in the article titled “Non pharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings – Personal Protective and Environmental Measures” that “We aimed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of each measure for laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes for each of the measures because RCTs provide the highest quality of evidence.”

    This May 2020 CDC published paper goes on to state, “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

    And it is acknowledged here that influenza is not COVID-19, but they are both viral respiratory infections or VRI.

    In his follow-up paper titled “Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: ‘A growing body of evidence,’” Rancourt is doubling down on his resolve that mandating mask-wearing for the public is not only unsupported by science, it is irresponsible policy by authorities.

    He writes, “I prove that there is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general population, and that all the latest-decade’s policy-grade evidence points to the opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population. Therefore, the politicians and health authorities are acting without legitimacy and recklessly.

    Rancourt’s follow-up paper includes his extensive credentials. Here’s a link to the full 37-page paper.

    Thank you to all authors for your submissions. This is what public discourse should embrace. Your analyzes were robust and most welcome. Hopefully readers’ understanding of the science and controversy surrounding this important issue will be exponentially advanced by your efforts.

    Inconclusive, Ineffective, Incurious & OSHA
    And if you have not had enough of this topic already, below is a compilation of pertinent information related to mandating mask wearing in order to prevent viral spread.

    Prior to 2020, multiple studies on the efficacy of mask-wearing, especially for healthcare workers, have been published by CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Journal of Medicine, Nature, JAMA, PUBMed, and many other professional venues. Nearly all these studies, whether randomized control studies or clinical observational studies, find that mask-wearing to prevent transmission of infectious viruses is inconclusive at best, ineffective at worst.

    Almost all the studies on the efficacy of mask-wearing prior to 2020 concerned themselves with the efficacy of (1) surgical masks versus N95 or N100 respirators for healthcare workers; and (2) surgical masks versus cloth masks for both healthcare workers and community members.

    Most studies rhetorically support N95/N100 respirators as providing a better barrier than surgical and cloth masks even though the various Random Control Trials (RCT) found no statistical difference between the two types of masks in preventing viral transmission. All the RCT studies concluded that cloth masks provide no meaningful protection, other than occasionally stopping large droplets, in whole or in part, from escaping through cloth masks while accumulating a quagmire of bacteria and viral particles inside masks that don’t escape via the masks’ persistent gaps.

    Several studies made note that N95 and N100 respirators have the added benefit and confidence of use within strictly regulated and sanitized environments that promote rigorous, redundant protocols designed to mitigate biological hazards. (whembly: meaning, it’s not JUST the mask. It’s the culmination of proper equipment AND PPE training that provides the mitigations.)

    Various authors acknowledge that “potential” benefit in preventing some transmission from droplets when wearing surgical and cloth masks could be improved with plastic barriers, face-shields, frequent hand-washing, proper fitting of masks, consistent donning of new masks and disposal of old ones, glove use when appropriate, and other common-sense hygienic-mitigation protocols.

    The few studies conducted in 2020 on mask-wearing that do endorse the practice concluded mask-wearing may have a positive, correlative, and statistically significant benefit in reducing transmission, especially in preventing transmission from large droplets generated when talking, coughing, sneezing, or spitting. But these conclusions are underscored with authors’ acknowledgments that the findings lacked sufficient data to definitively claim that mask-wearing prevents transmission of viruses, cautioning that more research needs to be done.

    There is updated research that posits viruses, including coronaviruses, are more likely to be transmitted via aerosol particles versus droplets. As this proves accurate, cloth masks will provide less protection as aerosol particles are significantly smaller than droplets.

    OSHA has remained curiously silent relative to COVID-19 and mask-wearing safety in the workplace, nor has it explained suddenly waiving its safety standards otherwise strictly imposed on employers who require mask/respirator-wearing by employees in the workplace. Mandatory government oversight of this workplace practice confirms there are substantive dangers associated with mask-wearing for prolonged periods, requiring rigorous protocols to mitigate potential health hazards.

    (1) OSHA strictly regulates the airflow, temperature and humidity, amount of oxygen that must be available throughout the work environment, behind the respirator itself, and in the bloodstream, while wearing respirators. This is especially true in surgery rooms, where the environment is very specifically regulated for optimum oxygen availability, intake, CO2 expulsion, etc.

    (2) A complete medical evaluation must be completed on each employee required to wear a respirator during work hours to ensure his/her ability to safely wear the device for prolonged periods.

    (3) Employers must provide a “Respirator Program” for their facilities that meet OSHA requirements for employee safety on penalty of stiff fines, even shutdowns.

    Knowing the differences in approximate sizes of viruses, particles, aerosols, droplets, and mask pores is useful to assess the risks inherent in cloth masks. Viruses are measured in nanometers or microns (1 nanometer is 1/billionth of a meter, while 1 micron is 1/millionth of a meter) and viruses typically measure 125 nanometers or .125 micron. Viruses are carried as part of larger particles that range in measurement between 0.02 – 0.14 microns. Particles are transported in aerosols and droplets. Aerosols are typically less than 5 microns, while droplets are often larger, ranging between 5 – 10 microns.

    Mask pores have a wider range of diameter sizes, anywhere from 80-500 microns. While viruses always travel as part of larger particles carried in aerosols or droplets, mask pores’ larger circumference arguably can’t prevent most flow through of smaller aerosol particles that carry ever smaller bacteria and viruses.

    Supporting documentation for this compilation is available at the end of this August editorial titled “Disturbingly COVID Incurious,” by Kathleen McCarthy.

    Why does all this matter?
    And so we have a situation where mask-mandating advocates are going to stand on the premise of “reducing risk and flattening the curve is worthy of mandating mask wearing.”

    And those of us who are firmly against the coercive behavior modification proposed by such central planners are going to stand by “based on the inconclusive science currently available, the risks of mandated masking outweigh the perceived rewards.”

    And neither side is likely to move.

    Americans have blindly accepted taking off one’s shoes and belt, exposing oneself to harmful X-rays, and randomly having your body molested by a stranger in order to get on a commercial airplane flight.

    And study after study show that these coercive and stressful measures are pure theatre.

    In the above scenario, government has you over a barrel, so to speak. You need to get on that plane and will suffer the indignities to do so. It started with belts and shoes and now grandma in a wheelchair gets to have a full pat down.

    So what’s next if we quietly and blindly accept, as one submitter put it, “Do us all a favor and just mask up!”? What’s next is mandated vaccinations with risky and dangerous fast-tracked vaccines. What’s next is restrictions on your ability to travel, shop, and bank where you want without an “immunity pass.” Mainstream media is already spouting that succumbing to such draconian measures is patriotic.

    Some who have read this far may be asking themselves, “What is the big deal? What harm can wearing a mask do?”

    It is an enormous deal for compelling reasons that include:

    (1) Mandatory mask-wearing has no conclusive scientific basis for such an extreme mandated measure;

    (2) OSHA strictly regulates mask-wearing in workplaces, imposing rigid protocols precisely because mask-wearing for prolonged periods has very real, identified dangers associated with such requirements;

    (3) Mask-wearing for prolonged periods has well-documented negative impacts on health, including reduced oxygen, increased carbon dioxide, adverse skin reactions, and the triggering of latent viruses and/or bacteria otherwise dormant in humans, causing illness;

    (4) There is growing concern and recent evidence that reduced oxygen levels awakening dormant viruses are resulting in positive COVID tests because humans have an abundance of other dormant coronaviruses at any given time;

    (5) Accumulation of bacteria, viruses, particles, droplets, spittal, dirt, makeup, food, all contributing to trapped pools of contaminants behind masks, and around the gaps and outer edges, that can transfer on;

    (6) a false sense of security when near “at-risk” loved ones believe they are protected by their masks;

    (7) One quarter of one percent lethality is non-compelling justification for healthy people to wear masks to protect others when 99.75 percent of those who contract COVID will not perish and the majority of those who will die from COVID have comorbidity complications;

    (8) A perverse policy that threatens psychological damage from a constant manufactured message of fear of others, and of the environment, evidenced by an ever-masked population;

    (9) A violation of each individual’s natural right to control his/her own body and the risks that accrue;

    (10) The lack of an iron-clad, unambiguous, and uncontroversial justification before any government/health authority is permitted a scintilla of jurisdiction over our livelihoods, our natural rights to live, survive, thrive as a response to any public threat.

    Whew lads.

    whembly (c30c83)

  30. the boston fed study led to the subprime crisis with detours, the hockey stick, to banning the lightbulb and sinecures like solyndra, of course warren’s research led to the tarp and the stimulus and obamacare in part, any bogus piece of research serves a purpose which suppresses liberty,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  31. The question is whether I have the legal authority as president to sign an executive order.

    A question Democrats only ask when campaigning.

    beer ‘n pretzels (9915a8)

  32. they move the overton window, and there’s no telling where you’ll end up, and churches found out their freedom is conditional, again franklin said words to that effect, so did lord acton,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  33. Time123 (7cca75) — 9/17/2020 @ 8:17 am

    For example I want to take a scenic drive through the north east. I want to see a number of historical places in a week and minimize the time I spend on highways so I can better see the area. I don’t know what my route will be, but I those are what I’m going to work to.

    So, basically you are making a personal decision that impacts you.

    It’s not about your rights. It’s about your responsibilities as an American

    Asked if he could use “federal leverage to mandate that,” Mr. Biden said he could, and “would from an executive standpoint.”

    As POTUS he would use the police power of the federal government, or convince the states to use their police power, to compel people to wear masks.

    You don’t see any issues with a vague plan to do something by EO that would apply to everyone because you like to loosely plan your site-seeing trips?

    frosty (f27e97)

  34. …….
    The president’s defiance of public health guidelines led to a sour moment on Wednesday with one of the United States’ closest allies overseas. Israeli Health Ministry officials watching an Arab-Israeli ceremony this week at the White House on television grew angry at the lack of masks and social distancing, and they ordered Israeli reporters returning from Washington to quarantine. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was spotted at the event without a mask, coughing while talking with the head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency.

    A day after the ceremony, which drew together hundreds of people on the South Lawn, a Trump administration official tested at the White House was confirmed positive for the coronavirus. The official, who was not publicly identified, was not present for the ceremony, and authorities began tracing the person’s contacts to try to stop any further spread. “It’s not anybody that was near me,” Mr. Trump said.

    ……
    Me! Me!
    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. Maybe Mossad will get mad enough to…

    urbanleftbehind (35ca35)

  36. Pure stupidity:

    Israeli Health Ministry officials watching an Arab-Israeli ceremony this week at the White House on television grew angry at the lack of masks and social distancing, and they ordered Israeli reporters returning from Washington to quarantine.

    Israel quarantines travelers from countries they determined to be “Red Zones.” The US is one of those countries:

    https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/DynamicCollectors/green-red-countries?skip=0&country_name_en=United%20states

    Idiots.

    BuDuh (262f80)

  37. and israel has been in lockdown, without much results, even well intentioned officials fall afoul,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  38. Would you want this old man driving a school bus w/your kid in it?
    Would you want this old man conducting brain surgery on you?
    Would you want this old man piloting the 767 you’re flying in?
    Would you want this old man to hug your daughter?

    Would you want this old man ordering you a Big Mac at Burger King?

    Nah.

    Play it safe: entrust America’s thermonuclear weapons codes to him instead.

    “Hold the pickle; hold the lettuce; North Koreans don’t upset us…”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. As POTUS he would use the police power of the federal government, or convince the states to use their police power, to compel people to wear masks.

    You don’t see any issues with a vague plan to do something by EO that would apply to everyone because you like to loosely plan your site-seeing trips?

    frosty (f27e97) — 9/17/2020 @ 9:16 am

    You’re pushing the analogy way too far. I was illustrating how a vague plan could be bound by broader strategy.

    But I think We will mandate masks to stop the spread of disease in limited circumstances and work with state leaders on the implementation because we’re constrained by limits on presidential power is a much more limited government approach then Trump’s eviction ban. Which is nation wide and only tenuously related to stopping the spread of disease.

    So it looks like in this case Biden is a more limited government choice then Trump.

    I also like the fact that they didn’t just point at the eviction moratorium and as justification for a mask mandate.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  40. The question is whether I have the legal authority as president to sign an executive order.

    A question Democrats only ask when campaigning.

    beer ‘n pretzels (9915a8) — 9/17/2020 @ 9:11 am

    Trump’s CDC issued a nationwide ban on evictions. The stated reason was to stop the spread of disease. I think that’s a pretext, but we can just take it at face value.

    What are your thoughts on that? Is it legal? Is it justified? Is the lack of push back by GOP leaders acceptable?

    If it’s legal I think the law is unconstitutional. I think the lack of push back by GOP leadership is clear evidence that the GOP will not act to limit federal powers.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  41. @41. ‘concern or panic’…

    America ain’t a nation of Einsteins; there are bleach-tipplers who’d exclaim,’Ooooo, look– free coffee filters, Edna.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. What are your thoughts on that?

    I don’t like it, but I like it better that it’s temporary. And, it’s a measure taken as last resort, by an administration that would want to avoid it if it could.

    Democrats issue EOs for things they’ve always wanted to do, but couldn’t due to not having the votes. And, they are often not intended to be temporary.

    beer ‘n pretzels (a90b94)

  43. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/business/eviction-moratorium-renters-landlords.html

    … Last week, one landlord filed a legal challenge in federal court in Atlanta. That lawsuit contends the C.D.C. order is unconstitutional because it impairs private contract rights and the C.D.C. lacks the authority to “order state courts and relevant state actors not to process summary evictions.”

    And even as they argue that the C.D.C. has overstepped, property owners are still filing eviction cases.

    Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba)

  44. @44, they should. This is just more big government republican over reach.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  45. @31 apparently in the case of Trump, republicans don’t even bother to ask the question, the order just gets issued.

    Nic (896fdf)

  46. Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/17/2020 @ 10:03 am

    What are your thoughts on that? Is it legal? Is it justified? Is the lack of push back by GOP leaders acceptable?

    Don’t like it. Don’t think it’s constitutional. This a vague question but not sure if it’s morally justified. No not acceptable. In other words, I’m not lining up to justify the eviction mandate.

    frosty (f27e97)

  47. @43, I don’t think the parties are different here. Trump has been saying that if elected he will stop collection payroll taxes permanently. This would be an example of a republican goal that they haven’t been able to accomplish legislatively.

    I’m not trolling when I say that I think Biden will result in a more limited government then Trump. We’re talking about differences in ‘bad’ to be sure. But it’s still a difference.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  48. @47, I knew there was a reason I liked you. 😀

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  49. “What Rancourt fails to recognize is that, while they are great (even necessary) for testing drugs and treatments, RCTs are not necessary or even appropriate for other scientific fields or questions.”

    Just why?

    And RCTs are considered necessary for medical devices, and masks are being used here as medical devices!

    There is an inconsistency here you cannot get away from.

    Now maybe the evidence is good enough to recommend masks, but if so, it is also good enough for convalescent fluid without any more RCTs, and for monoclonal antibodies,

    And even for hydroxychloroquine with zinc.

    Sammy Finkelman (bec8ba)

  50. Younger Judges Appear More Sympathetic to Executive Power

    The Republicans may rue the day when the approved Trump’s judges without an understanding their views on executive authority:

    A paper in the February 2020 Journal of Law & Economics by Tom Campbell and Nathaniel Wilcox, “Younger Federal District Court Judges Favor Presidential Power,” finds that federal judges tend to be more supportive of executive power claims when they are younger, and that this may be a consequence that younger federal judges are influenced by the prospect of “promotion,” i.e. potential nomination to a higher court.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  51. @47

    Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/17/2020 @ 10:03 am

    What are your thoughts on that? Is it legal? Is it justified? Is the lack of push back by GOP leaders acceptable?

    Don’t like it. Don’t think it’s constitutional. This a vague question but not sure if it’s morally justified. No not acceptable. In other words, I’m not lining up to justify the eviction mandate.

    frosty (f27e97) — 9/17/2020 @ 10:26 am

    That’s where I’m at.

    FWIW, there are lawsuits ongoing right now to stop this, or because court adjudications takes time, this case will block future POTUS from taking the same action.

    whembly (c30c83)

  52. OT: Outrage from the “disenfranchisement(!!)” crowd in 3, 2, 1…

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/17/pennsylvania-supreme-court-block-green-party-ballo/

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Green Party ticket from the state’s presidential ballot, handing Democrats their second win this week in knocking out third-party competition for Joseph R. Biden in swing states.

    The state’s high court ruled that Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins and vice presidential candidate Angela Walker failed to submit filing papers in person as required and therefore forfeited their spot on the ballot.

    Keep handing Trump ways to question the results.

    beer ‘n pretzels (25b6ed)

  53. Rancourt cherry-picked and misrepresented the studies on masks, and McGreevy is no better in his defense of Rancourt. There’s a long takedown here. It should be noted that Researchgate took down Rancourt’s piece for its poor quality. The guy is a climate-science-denying quack who is claiming that “coronavirus has been a huge fabrication”.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  54. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 9/17/2020 @ 11:21 am

    This has always been an issue with both sides. Judges won’t save us from ourselves. We’ve got a congress, on both sides, that write ridiculous legislation that increases the power of the bureaucratic state and the executive branch is an out of control monster.

    frosty (f27e97)

  55. 53. beer ‘n pretzels (25b6ed) — 9/17/2020 @ 12:25 pm

    Keep handing Trump ways to question the results.

    He can’t really use that, because how can he argue that he lost votes relative to Biden because some candidate he’s not for, or sympathetic to, was not on the ballot and so maybe Biden didn’t lose a few votes?

    In Wisconsin the Green Party also got kicked off the ballot. They had appealed, figuring they’d win because the Republicans had a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court but the most recent elected judge had promised to be impartial. They may have had a good case but delayed appealing because they couldn’t find any good law firm willing to volunteer to help.

    Then a conservative law firm volunteered (the Green Party understands they are being paid by some group or person that supports Republicans) The Wisconsin Supreme Court said the appeal was just too late.

    The Democratic Parry, as an institution, is in many cases trying to get rid of third parties. They used a backhand method to raise the qualifications in New York. It went from getting at least 50,000 votes in the Governor’s race to 130,000 votes (or 2% of all ballots cast whichever is higher) every two years both for Governor and for president. The method of changing the law that they used actually failed in court but then they put it through in the budget bill this year (now the Democrats have control of the New York State Senate. Only the New York Conservative Party is safe.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/nyregion/working-families-party-biden.html

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-working-families-party-new-york-ballot-sam-20200901-t7uaxnix5ngchnctmxgtj7wziu-story.html

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  56. 54. The takedown should not use argument from authrority and ad hominems. Those are logical fallacies,/

    Although it is fair to use the ad hominem “he’s a liar” after citing two or three examples if he wants to be very brief.

    But this person prefers argument from authority and wants to use incompetence rather than lying.

    If Ran c=court is merely incompetent he might be right on on thing. His opponent wants people in general not to examine arguments and to treat h=he conventional wisdom as infallible – at least for the time being.

    But then experts realized just how long a person could be infected with COVID without knowing it and even that many infected never have any symptoms.[16] Consequently, public mask mandates are the only way to ensure that infected persons—including those who are pre- or asymptomatic—are wearing a mask.

    The fallacy (and the wrongness) here is like this:

    Asymptomatic people are also probably non contagious. In fact the experts later said so.

    Pre-symtomatic people might become contagious maybe even before developing noticeable symptoms. But that that window of time can last only about one or two days. There are very few people like that walking around.

    BTW, people who have recovered are probably never contagious.

    The only reason to have everyone wear a mask is in order to have a simple rule.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  57. Newly revealed USPS documents show an agency struggling to manage Trump, Amazon and the pandemic
    …….
    The records also offer fresh detail about the Postal Service’s precarious position in the White House’s early pandemic response. At one point in April, USPS leaders drafted a news release announcing plans to distribute 650 million masks nationwide, enough to offer five face coverings to every American household. The document, which includes quotations from top USPS officials and other specifics, was never sent. But it suggests that the government’s initial interest in tapping the Postal Service as part of its campaign to combat the coronavirus may have been far more advanced than initially reported this spring.
    ……
    Some top administration officials even hoped to tap the mail service’s vast network — and its unrivaled ability to reach every U.S. Zip code — to help Americans obtain personal protective equipment. The idea originated out of the Department of Health and Human Services, which suggested a pack of five reusable masks be sent to every residential address in the country, with the first shipments going to the hardest-hit areas.
    ……
    Before the news release was sent, however, the White House nixed the plan, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations….

    “There was concern from some in the White House Domestic Policy Council and the office of the vice president that households receiving masks might create concern or panic,” one administration official said in response to the scrapped mask plan.
    …….
    There’s that “P” word again.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  58. That’s a gross misreading of what Johnson is saying, Sammy. Rancourt cherry-picked quotes from studies, ignoring that those studies actually did say that masks worked. That’s not the work of an honest man.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  59. After balking at masks, pastor and church staff in North Idaho contract COVID-19
    A Coeur d’Alene pastor who opened his large church in early May for in-person services that allowed and even encouraged unmasked congregants to gather has been recovering from COVID-19 at the Kootenai Health intensive care unit.

    Paul Van Noy, the senior pastor at Candlelight Christian Fellowship, has spent the past two weeks in the ICU while his wife, Brenda Van Noy, recovered from her own bout with COVID-19 at home. Five other church staff have been infected, said Eric Reade, body ministry coordinator the church.
    …….
    The church closed its doors for two weeks and underwent deep cleaning before reopening for in-person services Sunday, Reade said.

    “We didn’t want, obviously, to be spreading the virus,” he said.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  60. the bureau paid stephen hatfill 5 million to excuse, the previous little witchhunt, and nick kristof, apologized in person, considering all the people that mueller swept up in his net there should be a sizable payout, I don’t expect that general flynn would get all of his three million dollars he spent, but some portion, same for carter page, caputo, et al,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  61. Bookmark this and play it every time you see an attack on Biden:
    Russia trying to ‘denigrate’ Biden campaign, says FBI director (Reuters)

    nk (1d9030)

  62. That’s Wray, the FBI Director that Trump appointed to replace Comey. I wonder if Barr will call him up and tell him to be more delicate.

    nk (1d9030)

  63. Stay pufts lawyer (credit) supervisor of enron taskforce (demerit)

    Bolivar di griz (d4a914)

  64. our president donald who believes that if you like your virus you should be able to keep your virus is mr vladimirs special friend with benefits

    and mr vladimir wont rest until failmerica is great again

    Dave (1bb933)

  65. Tiring dan (thats your real name, theres no dave working at irvine who also did cern

    Bolivar di griz (d4a914)

  66. Stay Puft is alright these days, hes the token morbidly obese friend of the no mask no lockdown crowd.

    urbanleftbehind (399163)

  67. @62. ROFLMAOPIP

    “No miracle is coming.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. The bureau seems focused on imaginary russians and not the 200 dead cops and twobillion dollars in damages, maybe they should get a clue im just saying.

    Bolivar di griz (d4a914)

  69. “Russia is our opposition; China is our competitor.” – Joe Biden

    And ice cream is fattening, eh, Joe.

    “Hare. Hunter. Field.” – Rudolph Petersen [Montgomery Clift] ‘Judgment At Nuremberg’ 1961

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. @69. Uncle Joe always gets Red when his Irish is up.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  71. Tiring dan (thats your real name, theres no dave working at irvine who also did cern

    Like to back that up with a little wager?

    Dave (1bb933)

  72. Nice to know you care enough to try to dox me though!

    Dave (1bb933)

  73. “Nice” does not seem like the best for it somehow.

    nk (1d9030)

  74. best *word* for it

    nk (1d9030)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4429 secs.