In the few studies where researchers did make the effort to include control groups, the true rates of Long COVID have been found to be very low. For kids, it is “lower even than the odds of getting seriously injured while playing sports,” two infectious disease physicians wrote for Stat. A large study in adults found that “physical symptoms persisting 10 to 12 months after the COVID-19 pandemic first wave may be associated more with the belief in having experienced COVID-19 infection than with actually being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
Lending credence to the notion that many cases of Long COVID are more likely attributed to understandable anxiety about the pandemic is the fact that, for up to half of long haulers, their symptoms rapidly improvedafter vaccination. A physiological mechanism could be at work, but just as likely an explanation is that the vaccine works as a positive placebo against Long COVID.
Symptomatic Covid-19 occurred in 8 of 3441 participants (0.2%) in the AZD7442 group and in 17 of 1731 participants (1.0%) in the placebo group (relative risk reduction, 76.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.0 to 90.0; P<0.001); extended follow-up at a median of 6 months showed a relative risk reduction of 82.8% (95% CI, 65.8 to 91.4). Five cases of severe or critical Covid-19 and two Covid-19–related deaths occurred, all in the placebo group.
It was a stupid decision and it set a terrible precedent. And I say this even though I agree that ineffective masks are … ineffective (as opposed to a properly fit N95), and the whole thing about wearing the mask most of the time but taking it off to eat doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Perhaps she deserves it? She was unqualified to be a judge when she was appointed, and this terrible decision demonstrates the consequences.
When a poor decision is handed down it is commonplace, and it is customary, for the losing party to request a stay. Such stays are routinely granted until a higher court has opportunity to rule. The losing party in this instance is the Biden administration.
Nota bene:
Neither the Biden administration, nor the CDC, has requested a stay in this case.
Granted there is an appeal in progress, but of course that will consume significant time. But absence of a stay request in this instance tells you what you need to know about how seriously this is viewed by Biden’s people. They are walking on eggshells. The Trump judge, bless her heart, got 'em!
The part of her decision that says the CDC doesn’t have the authority at all to issue a mask mandate on folks participating in common carrier interstate travel is indeed debatable. I have heard people on both sides of the aisle say that she was wrong on that and will likely be overruled upon appeal. But I have yet to hear a good case from anyone claiming the other part of her decision was incorrect. I am referring to her opinion that the mandate was invalid because the CDC did not follow its emergency masking order with the proper procedure to make it permanent (the notice and comment period). Do you have a good case to make in regards to that part of her opinion being wrong.
Does it? Or does it solidify the necessity of enacting rules and restrictions properly? Because if you disagree with the decision, it’s basically because you disagree with the laws that the government is suppose to be following. And the only solution to that is to change the laws (or find a better work-around), not simply ignore them.
That’s assuming that the decision was based in law and the government wasn’t following it. I don’t think that’s the case for CDC’s authority to issue a mask mandate.
There are literally two parts of her decision. Two. Not twenty. Not even five. Just two. While I can definitely see how someone could characterize one of those two parts as terrible, I can’t see it for the other. I assumed you were familiar with both parts because you are taking a strong stance on how terrible her decision was. I am not asking you to be familiar with every detail of the case. I am asking, if you are calling BOTH parts of her opinion terrible, or just the part that lots of other people are calling terrible.
Regardless of the fact that the Bar association thought she didn’t have enough trial experience under her belt to be a federal judge, she has WAY more experience in appellate court jurisprudence than you or I do. She’s a judge and I’m an accountant, so it makes perfect sense for me to assume the decision was based in law. Even the part of the decision many on both sides disagree with is based in law. It’s just poorly based. Think of a SCOTUS justice you don’t like (Thomas in your case, Sotomayor in mine). When they write an opinion (majority or dissenting) that you disagree with, do you say its not based in law/ the constitution, or do you say that they thought of the outcome they wanted first, then found a way to shape an opinion around the law/constitution that was able to lead them to the outcome they wanted. I usually see the latter. These judges aren’t stupid politicians.
I’ve been following this. I asked you a direct question about the part of her decision that mask mandate supporters haven’t been able to offer a good counter against. You seem to not even be aware of that part of the decision. Yet you are still trying to say her opinion doesn’t hold any weight. Why not take a few minutes and read about that other part of her decision that (I would guess) your favorite news sources aren’t covering because it’s rock solid and pretty damning to the CDC’s handling of the mask mandate.
I didn’t say that. Clearly it holds some weight now, since the opposing side didn’t ask for a stay. But there is an appeal and therefore there’s a chance that the appeal will succeed. So we can’ say it’s established, with a potential to be “unestablished.”
You’re right about one thing though – I am not in a position to judge her actual legal decision, and I should not have done that. I do not want to read the decision or any articles about it, because I’m not a lawyer or a judge and it’s not my job to figure out whether it was right or wrong. So I will grant you that while the decision itself may not have been terrible, the consequences of that decision appear to be terrible (I’m not really clear on whether it means the CDC does not have the power to impose a mask mandate or the CDC can do it if they just follow an established procedure). I hope that either the decision was wrong and will be overturned, or, if warranted by this decision, the laws are changed to give the CDC the power to impose temporary restrictions during a public health crisis.
I think the part of her decision saying (I am oversimplifying) - “the CDC can’t issue mask mandates because their authority includes “sanitation” and forcing people to wear masks isn’t sanitation” - will be overturned.
I don’t even know if the Biden admin is appealing the part of her decision saying - the CDC didn’t follow the proper procedure after issuing the emergency order. There isn’t much of a defense to that.
My problem is, and I’m not an expert here so I could be wrong, that the law as I understand it doesn’t require the CDC to have evidence that masking works in order to issue and keep in place a mandate.
Regardless of what the law requires, I hope the public health establishment (which nearly half of the country has lost complete faith in - imagine how sad it is that the general public has less faith in doctors than their local police) learns from this and actually makes decisions based on evidence AND shows people the evidence next time they try to pull this sort of thing that you want them so desperately to have the power to do.
With a fast-spreading pathogen there’s no time to gather the evidence. Doctors have been masking for like 100 years (or more? I don’t remember exactly). You’d think that by now we’d have figured out if it didn’t work. So yeah, I want them to have emergency powers to do this again without having to prove whether it does or does not work against some new strain.
Isn’t the issue how they relied on their “emergency” powers for over two years, which is plenty of time to have completed the proper process that includes evidence?
