Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The ‘expert class’ failed us on COVID. Now, people who failed spectacularly (and even vindictively) are gathering to foist a new federal layer of technocratic rule to make sure that all states and local jurisdictions follow the same bad policy when the next pandemic arrives (or anything that can be used as a pretext for a declared health emergency like obesity or guns). (See, The COVID Ratchett Shows Up on the indispensable Powerlineblog.com) The chutzpah of these people is truly stunning. The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a National Public Health System (no, I had never heard of them before, either) naturally calls for federal control of all health “issues” because even more centralized control by malignant, self-interested, partisan buffoons must always be the right answer.
If we are going to have such a gathering, shouldn’t we insist at a minimum that the participants are among those who got it right on COVID? We ought to clean house anyway. The data was available from the onset of the pandemic. Studies have been abundant. But many “experts” served the command-and-control zeitgeist instead and thus betrayed both science and the American people. Shouldn’t they learn to code or make lattes instead of policy? Should we fund organizations that keep such people on staff?
If one is a credentialed professional and a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, I think one is automatically eligible for whatever emergent government advisory confab takes place. For everybody else, I have prepared a simple screening protocol:
- Please provide copies of all public statements, social media content, and/or articles written or co-authored by you regarding:
- The efficacy of lockdowns, closures, and restrictions on public gatherings or movements.
- The efficacy of school closures
- The efficacy of masks as a general suppression measure
- The efficacy of vaccines as a spread reduction measure
- The likely cost-benefit of any of the measures listed in a, b, c, and/or d above.
- The advisability of legal or other sanctions against individuals who refuse vaccination or mask-wearing.
- The Great Barrington Declaration
- The phenomenon of seasonality with respect to the spread of COVID-19
2. If you ever endorsed lockdowns and/or restrictions on movement and commerce, what was the date you acknowledged that these measures were entirely ineffective? (Which material(s) provided pursuant to Item 1 above document that claim?)
3. If you ever stated that masks would be measurably effective as a general suppression strategy when did you first acknowledge that the data does not (and never did) support that opinion? (Which material(s) provided pursuant to Item 1 above document that claim?)
4. If you ever stated or implied that the position taken by the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration was wrong, what was the date on which you conceded that their recommendations were in fact correct. (Which material(s) provided pursuant to Item 1 above document that claim?)
5. If you ever took the position that the vaccines would work to reduce spread and that justified sanctions on the unvaccinated, what was the date upon which you amended, corrected, or reversed this position. (Which material(s) provided pursuant to Item 1 above document that claim?)
6. If you ever endorsed the practice of making school children wear masks or endorsed extended school closures, what was the date upon which you acknowledged that these measures were not effective and actually harmed children? (Which material(s) provided pursuant to Item 1 above document that claim?)
One can be a public health expert on a government panel if and only if one of those who got it right or made a demonstrable, timely effort to get it right, and like a true scientist, quickly admitted it when the data proved one’s position wrong. Maybe what really need is a federal agency in charge of putting permanent large mandatory asterisks next to M.D. or Ph.D. after the names of people who flunk the screening test above because they were spectacularly wrong on COVID.
Why shouldn’t fake scientists be “canceled”?
What would you add to the screening inquiry above?Published in