Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.
On April 18, 2022, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a federal district judge in Florida, struck down the CDC mask mandate on public transportation. The analysis was highly problematic since it second-guessed the agency’s judgment on public health, ignored existing precedent and the natural meaning of the statute interpreted, and implied that COVID-19 is not a serious issue, discounting hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of cases of serious illness. It also analyzed the procedural framework in a way, not in line with the usual operation of administrative law.
It is a strong example of judicial aggressive second-guessing of the political branches’ choices. And doing so in a way that will, literally, kill and harm people – and goes again the majority preferences. In any way, shape, and form it is a failure to fill the judicial role.
The anti-lockdown COVID-19 deniers are pushing a study from the respected Johns Hopkins University because it seems to indicate that lockdown rules didn’t work. Once you dig into the study, you find that there’s not much there. Of course.
I have this rule that whenever someone quotes evidence by saying it’s from the “Harvard study,” or “Yale study,” or “Johns Hopkins study,” I tend to turn up the sensitivity of my skeptical radar because they’re employing the Argument from authority. In this case, the authority is a respected research institution.
However, as I keep saying, it’s not who or what says something, only the evidence matters. And in this case, even though this “Johns Hopkins lockdown study” seems legitimate, once you did into the study, you will find that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting their claims. It’s a terrible study.
Let me get it right out there – I am wearing my attractive (not really) COVID-19 face masks even after being fully Moderna vaccinated. I wear them any time I’m at risk of being close to other human beings. And I intend to wear them until the day Dr. Anthony Fauci quits wearing his.
In the USA, wearing COVID face masks with or without vaccination was based on the honor system, and if there’s one defining characteristic of Americans who reject science, they aren’t honorable. So I don’t want to risk catching some new variant that arises in unvaccinated people who think it’s their right to breathe their contaminated breath on others.
I’m going to continue wearing my face mask for quite a long time, and here are my reasons.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has decided that the ubiquitous COVID face mask is no longer required anywhere IF you are vaccinated. Since the CDC does not make laws or regulations, some states may still require it.
Here’s the thing – it’s based on the honor system, and if there’s one defining characteristic of Americans who reject science, they aren’t honorable. Why on earth does the CDC think that Americans are so honorable that they would wear a COVID-19 face mask if they aren’t vaccinated? Does the CDC have some secret scientific evidence that would convince anyone that Americans would follow these rules?
Today represents the first anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes, it was around for a few months before this, but many of us heard the same thing about SARS and MERS, ironically, both related coronaviruses, Ebola, Zika, and other diseases over the past few decades. I think many of us just sighed, shrugged our shoulders, and repeated the mantra that the flu killed more people.
In the days that led up to March 11, 2020, I think we were becoming much warier, if not concerned. A few counties in California, probably the first in the USA, decided to shut down and limit gatherings to no more than 1000 people. Yes, 1000 people. Today, we think that’s outrageous and frightening.