Utopia, you are standing in it!

by Greg Mayer

The New York Times‘ ‘1619 Project’, and the critical reaction to it, has drawn attention here at WEIT a number of times. The diversity of the sources of criticism has been notable, ranging across the traditional political spectrum from left to right. In another salvo from the right, conservative political commentator George Will attacks the project in a new column in the Washington Post. The occasion of Will’s critique is that, incredibly, the lead writer of the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has been awarded a Pulitzer Prize! (As Brian Leiter notes, the Pulitzer people have not covered themselves with glory in their awards for “Commentary”.)

As his headline (in the title above) shows, Will attacks both the historical account given by the project, and its motivations. He selects “three examples of slovenliness, even meretriciousness, regarding facts”. The examples chosen are the significance of a…

Since I’ve never smoked or vaped, I have no personal interest in the the regulatory battle over vaping and e-cigarettes.

That being said, I started writing about this issue back in 2016 because it involves several important principles.

1. The libertarian argument that people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies
2. Whether the “administrative state” should be able to unilaterally grab more regulatory power.
3. The degree to which “harm reduction” or “zero tolerance” should guide government policies.

From a public health perspective, the third point is most important.

It’s a fight between those who want the Food and Drug Administration to use its self-anointed regulatory authority to ban e-cigarettes (because vaping is worse than not vaping) and those who explain that e-cigarettes are helpful (because vaping is far less risky than smoking).

This fight has a September 9 deadline. The Food and Drug…

The great comedian Jerry Stiller, who often performed with his wife Anne Meara, passed away this morning at age 92. Reporting on his life and comedy, NBC News finished the report with these words:

“Meara passed away five years ago. Now this legendary pair is laughing together again.”

Now if that isn’t a paean to togetherness in the afterlife, you tell me what it is. You might be able to confect a tortuous interpretation, like a Sophisticated Theologian®, but I see the words as a sop to the religious.

We are constantly inundated by these nods towards religion and religionists, and this is one of them. It sounds good, doesn’t it? But it’s a lie.

Let’s just watch them laugh together when they were alive. Here they are on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964, with Meara trying to kiss off her ardent boyfriend.

The New Zealand Government recently lifted its “Level 4” COVID-19 restrictions. Significant restrictions, including coercive powers restricting basic liberties, remain active. Parliament’s Epidemic Response Committee is now planning to issue summonses for the production of legal advice given to the Government for these extraordinary measures. This advice is covered by legal professional privilege, which can be waived by the Government. This note explores the current context of scrutiny of the lawfulness of New Zealand’s lockdown measures, and what could (and should) be done by Parliament, if the Government refuses to waive its privilege.

New Zealand’s lockdown and questions about its lawfulness

The legal status and lawfulness of New Zealand’s lockdown restrictions has recently been discussed on this Blog by Professors Andrew Geddis and Claudia Geiringer. In summary, the Government acted under legislation covering national epidemic and emergency responses, to activate emergency powers, including those conferred to medical officers under…

Having already written several dozen columns on public policy and the coronavirus, it’s time to add my two cents to the debate over Sweden’s (comparatively) laissez-faire approach to the pandemic.

If nothing else, it’s remarkable that the nation Bernie Sanders praised for socialism (albeit incorrectly) is now the poster child for (some) libertarians.

What makes Sweden special, as depicted in this graphic from CNN, is a more lenient attitude about letting ordinary life continue.

Did Sweden make the right choice?

Let’s review several analyses, starting with Hilary Brueck’s article for Business Insider.

In Sweden, bars and restaurants are open to the public, you can go get a haircut, and primary school is in session. …life goes on. …If anyone can have success with such a low-enforcement disease-fighting strategy, it may be Sweden. …The Swedish prerogative asks citizens to act like adults, and then trusts that, left…

By Nic Lewis

Introduction

A study published in March by the COVID-19 Response Team from Imperial College (Ferguson20[1]) appears to have been largely responsible for driving government actions in the UK and, to a fair extent, in the US and some other countries. Until that report came out, the strategy of the UK government, at least, seems to have been to rely on the build up of ‘herd immunity’ to slow the growth of the epidemic and eventually cause it to peter out.

(Lincoln’s Second Inauguration Address)

Recently I read Ted Widmer’s new book LINCOLN ON THE VERGE: THIRTEEN DAYS TO WASHINGTON.  In Widmer’s narrative he explores a number of Abraham Lincoln’s most important speeches given during his odyssey across America to his first inauguration in 1861.  When I came across Edward Achorn’s equally new book EVERY DROP OF BLOOD: THE MOMENTOUS SECOND INAUGURATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN I expected the author to focus more on Lincoln’s iconic speech in March 1865.  Much to my disappointment the book focuses on events, personalities, and the politics surrounding Lincoln’s effort in addition to a narrative that focuses in minute detail on the prevailing attitudes that existed in Washington for the twenty four hour period leading to the speech and the state of the city during that time as opposed to Lincoln’s development of the speech.  I was also somewhat disappointed in that much of what…

Introduction

The American Civil War captured the rapt attention of our Fathers of Confederation during the Confederation Debates in 1864 and 1865, and the prospect of another American invasion into Canada (a repeat of the War of 1812), as remote as it might have been, and the Fenian incursions into New Brunswick in 1866 spurred the British North American colonies to unite into one federation for their common defence. Thomas D’Arcy McGee, who had lived in Boston for several years before settling in Montreal in 1857, warned repeatedly that the most committed American Manifest Destinarians had long set their sights on Canada. George Brown, who had also spent some time in New York before settling permanently in Toronto, similarly warned that the United States would annex Rupert’s Land and British Columbia.

Matt Ridley writes at the Spectator We know everything – and nothing – about Covid.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

It is data, not modelling, that we need now

We know everything about Sars-CoV-2 and nothing about it. We can read every one of the (on average) 29,903 letters in its genome and know exactly how its 15 genes are transcribed into instructions to make which proteins. But we cannot figure out how it is spreading in enough detail to tell which parts of the lockdown of society are necessary and which are futile. Several months into the crisis we are still groping through a fog of ignorance and making mistakes. There is no such thing as ‘the science’.

This is not surprising or shameful; ignorance is the natural state of things. Every new disease is different and its epidemiology becomes clear only gradually and in retrospect.

The public health strategy in Sweden and its rationale are explained in an interview with the State Epidemiologist published in Nature ‘Closing borders is ridiculous’: the epidemiologist behind Sweden’s controversial coronavirus strategy. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images. H/T Tony Heller

Anders Tegnell talks to Nature about the nation’s ‘trust-based’ approach to tackling the pandemic.

As much of Europe imposed severe restrictions on public life last month to stem the spread of the coronavirus, one country stood out.

Sweden didn’t go into lockdown or impose strict social-distancing policies. Instead, it rolled out voluntary, ‘trust-based’ measures: it advised older people to avoid social contact and recommended that people work from home, wash their hands regularly and avoid non-essential travel. But borders and schools for under-16s remain open — as do many businesses, including restaurants and bars.

The strategy’s architect is Anders Tegnell, an epidemiologist at Sweden’s Public…

Erik Angner & Gustaf Arrhenius

Stockholm University & Institute for Futures Studies

It is still too early to determine which national responses to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic worked, and which ones did not. It is not too early to explore the differences in local strategies, as well as the context within which they are set. Much of this seems missing from the debate, even though history, tradition, legal and social norms, and so on, should be expected to matter greatly.

This gap is perhaps most evident in most of the commentary around the Swedish response to the pandemic. Sweden’s approach is getting a great deal of attention, in part because it is often framed as going against the mainstream. The differences may be overstated but they certainly exist. They are also instructive for everyone who cares about how best to deal with the crisis.

Sweden’s democratic system of government…