Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, funded the WIV for dangerous gain-of-function research that makes viruses more lethal and transmissible. Dr. Fauci supports the theory that the virus that causes COVID-19 developed naturally in the wild. Dr. Robert Redfield, former head of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finds no evidence for that theory and told reporters he was “very rapidly sidelined, threatened because somehow I believed as a virologist that this virus may have come from the laboratory.”
Before his recent discovery of genetically altered material, Dr. Quay co-authored,  “The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak,” noting that the COVID-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint never observed in a natural coronavirus. “In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location,” Dr. Quay and co-author Richard Muller explain. “Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell.” The result of similar experiments “has always been supercharged viruses.”

Dr. Quan earned his MD and Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, served as a postdoctoral fellow in the chemistry department at MIT with Nobel Laureate H. Gobind Khorana, and spent almost a decade on the faculty of Stanford University. Dr. Quay is also the author of the manuscript, “A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived.”

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but his bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry. Dr. Fauci has reversed himself on many aspects of the pandemic and recently claimed that those who criticize him are “actually criticizing science.”

The post Wuhan COVID Patients Showed Genetically Modified Henipah Virus appeared first on The Beacon.

The university’s announced policy was that masks were recommended, but it was up to individuals to make that decision. That is in keeping with Governor Ron DeSantis’s executive order that bans mask mandates. My decision was not to wear one. I’m vaccinated, healthy, and willing to take that risk. I’m aware of the argument that I may increase the risk to others, who in this case are all college students. I am a senior citizen, so presumably more at risk than my students.

Yesterday I received an email signed by four high FSU officials, including outgoing President John Thrasher. Among other things, it says in bold type, We expect everyone to wear a face-covering or mask at all times when inside any FSU facility, even if you are vaccinated. My question is: should I wear a mask?

One interesting thing about the email is its authoritarian tone. It also expects other actions, including the expectation that everyone gets vaccinated. It’s not exactly a mandate, because that would directly violate the governor’s executive order, but it’s interesting that the message would be written in such an authoritarian tone when that message itself is anti-authoritarian by resisting the governor’s policy of letting individuals decide for themselves.

Some will be tempted to say I should follow the science, typically followed by a statement that the science says to wear a mask. But this is not a question for science, it is a public policy question. Science can provide information about the consequences of various actions but is insufficient to determine public policy.

For example, science can tell us that driving faster is more likely to result in accidents, serious injury, and death, but science cannot determine what is the optimal speed limit. Similarly, optimal policy to respond to COVID is not a question for science, even though science can provide information about the consequences of various policies.

The policy of the state of Florida is that whether to wear a mask is my personal choice. I work at a state university that is actively opposing the policy of those above them in the hierarchy of state government.

Should I yield to these anti-authoritarian authoritarians and wear a mask?

The post To Mask, Or Not? Should I Yield to Authoritarians Who Resist Authority? appeared first on The Beacon.

Los Angeles is reimposing its mask mandate, some New York legislators are proposing to follow Los Angeles by reimposing mask mandates, North Carolina is extending its COVID mandates, and talk of continuing or reimposing mandates is taking place nationwide. Meanwhile, in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, who has downplayed the increase in COVID cases, has been accused of killing people with his anti-mandate policies.

Mandate supporters must recognize that the mandates themselves have caused much of the harm, economic and otherwise, for the past year and a half. The economic aspects are obvious. Governments have forced businesses to close, prevented “unessential” workers from keeping their jobs, and disrupted the supply chains of businesses that were allowed to remain open. Meanwhile, people out of work have had more mental health problems, drug issues, and suicides.

The essence of the issue is not whether the benefits of mandates outweigh the costs. It is whether people should be free to decide for themselves how to respond to COVID rather than have government mandate what they must do.

One thing we must recognize is that COVID is never going to disappear completely. Like the flu or the common cold, the virus is likely to remain. What policies should remain to deal with it?

At this point, everyone in the United States (except young children) have access to a vaccine, so people can choose to get vaccinated and be highly protected. Sure, it’s still possible for vaccinated people to get the disease, but much less likely, and with much milder consequences. That’s why even though the number of new cases is spiking, the number of deaths is not. Many of the most vulnerable have chosen to get vaccinated.

People who think it is prudent to shelter at home, to avoid large crowds, or to wear masks, are free to do so without government mandates. Meanwhile, the spike in cases is almost entirely among the unvaccinated, who have made their own choices. In one way they are doing everyone else a favor when they get the virus and help build herd immunity.

The spike in new cases is among those who have chosen to remain vulnerable. Everyone should not face mandates because some have made these choices. Meanwhile, those who are vaccinated face a very small risk. It’s not zero risk, but in pre-COVID times, people interacted with others and risked getting the flu, the common cold, and other communicable diseases. COVID risks are analogous, for the vaccinated.

Recognizing the COVID will never completely disappear, and that those who want to can get vaccinated to protect themselves from it, it is time to set aside “temporary” emergency policies.

A year and a half of restrictions on individual liberty is too long, has given the government too much power, and has set a bad precedent that is likely to have negative effects on our liberties down the road. Florida is one state that has taken the path of freedom over mandates. That’s one reason I’m happy to be a Floridian.

The post It’s Time to End the COVID Mandates appeared first on The Beacon.

What can we expect, looking ahead? From March to December of 2020 the CPI was up 1.6%, which means that if the CPI rises 1.6% for the rest of this year, inflation at year-end will be 4.2%. There’s a good chance that inflation for the remainder of the year will be higher than that, in which case even 5% inflation for 2021 would be a conservative estimate.

Looking at the table linked above, you can see that in most years inflation tends to run higher in the first half of the year compared to the last half, which weighs against my inflation prediction in the previous paragraph. But inflation was dampened last year by a reduction in consumer demand due to the COVID pandemic, and is likely to accelerate this year as the pandemic subsides and consumer demand picks up again. That’s what we saw in March. So I’m expecting more inflation.

Then there is the easy money policy of the Federal Reserve (Fed), which may be politically difficult to reverse. Adding to pressure on the Fed is the huge federal budget deficit which is pushing the Fed to buy government bonds, which creates money. In the 1960s and 1970s the Fed was very accommodating with its monetary policy, but shifted gears in the 1980s to focus on reducing inflation. The Fed’s policy has reversed in the twenty-first century, it appears that the negative consequences are starting to appear.

The inflation rate for all of 2020 was 1.4%, but that’s deceiving because of the big drop in prices due to the pandemic. The inflation rate from February 2019 to February 2020 was 2.3%, so at that point inflation was already picking up and was only temporarily delayed by the pandemic economy. I will be surprised if this year’s annual inflation rate is less than 5%. Look for more inflation ahead.

The post Inflation Facts appeared first on The Beacon.

The divisive issue was whether California’s regulation was one of general applicability treating religious conduct as well as the state treats comparable secular conduct. The majority found that the regulation did not treat religious conduct as well as comparable secular conduct. As a result, strict scrutiny (showing that the regulation is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest) was triggered.

The majority noted that “California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.” The dissent authored by Justice Kagan contended that the majority was not comparing apples to apples inasmuch as a hardware store open to the public is not comparable to at-home gatherings. Moreover, Kagan pointed out that California “adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike.” Thus, because a secular dinner party would be limited to three families, Kagan believed that the First Amendment was satisfied.

According to the petition for injunctive relief, the key to unlocking the comparability argument is California’s definition of gatherings which means “social situations that bring together people from different households at the same time in a single space or place.” Under California’s own definition of gatherings, at-home worship and commercial activity at a hardware store are “social situations that bring together people from different households at the same time in a single space or place.” The petitioners also pointed out that under exceptions to the gathering guidance they “could contract out their home to Netflix for the filming of Warrior Nun with dozens of stagehands and actors inside, they could not host a nun and two other people from different households for an ecumenical prayer meeting.”

This last point raised by the petitioners demonstrates why the Court properly granted the injunction. Petitioners have to show a likelihood of success on the merits. California’s exceptions to the gatherings guidance does not treat religious and secular activity equally. As we have seen in other cases, it is the myriad exceptions that government makes to laws that are otherwise generally applicable that gives them legal trouble. Hopefully, governments will eventually learn this lesson as they craft laws dealing with the pandemic.

The post Supreme Court Grants Injunction on California COVID Restrictions appeared first on The Beacon.

During our conversation, my friend mentioned that he heard Black Americans are less likely to say they will get the vaccine. He questioned why, particularly since Blacks and Hispanics have been more likely to suffer major adverse consequences from the virus.

Without a doubt, what he said is true. According to the CDC, Black people are 3.7x more likely than whites to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 and are 2.8x more likely to die. Hispanic or Latino Americans are similarly 2.8x more likely to die from the disease and 4.1x more likely to be hospitalized.

Blacks are indeed less likely to want the vaccine. A recent Pew Research poll found that while over 60 percent of white and Hispanic Americans would “definitely” or “probably” get a vaccine for COVID-19 today (if available), only 42 percent of Black Americans responded similarly.

The question then is this—why the contrast?

You don’t have to look hard to find an answer.

Black Americans have consistently received worse care in the U.S. medical system than white Americans. A quick Google search yields a multitude of cases. Consider tennis star Serena Williams’ harrowing experience after giving birth in 2018. Despite her history of blood clots, her healthcare team dismissed her alarming symptoms. It was only after Williams’ insistence on a CT scan that doctors discovered a potentially fatal blood clot. Music icon Beyonce’s birth of twins received similar attention. Like Williams, her care was also inadequate. They are not alone. Black women are 2-3x more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women.

But the blame doesn’t fall squarely on the shoulders of the medical community. If we want to get at the root of vaccine hesitancy (and medical distrust more generally) among Black Americans, we need to take a long hard look at Uncle Sam. My coauthor Chris Coyne and I have written about a number of human rights abuses carried out against U.S. citizens by their own government. From testing biological agents to radiation experiments, the federal government has consistently abused several vulnerable populations, including communities of color.

Perhaps the best illustration of why many Black Americans are skeptical of the new vaccine can be summed up in a single word: Tuskegee. You know, the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” report? The study where from 1932 to 1972 the United States Public Health Service failed to receive informed consent from its “participants”? The study where officials failed to offer Black men adequate treatment for their curable disease? (The cure for syphilis, penicillin, was developed in the late 1920s.) The study that resulted in a $10 million settlement and was paying out survivors and their families until 2009? Yes, that Tuskegee.

Given the long history of medical mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government and health professionals, it should come as no surprise that some Black Americans are a little more than reluctant to trust officials when they tell them the new COVID-19 vaccine is safe.

The U.S. government is now reaping what it’s long sown. The adverse consequences that will come from Black Americans refusing or delaying vaccination are tragic and unsurprising. They are an unintended, though predictable, outcome of decades of government mistreatment.

The post Black Americans’ COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy? Blame Uncle Sam. appeared first on The Beacon.

Thankfully, drug producers Pfizer and Moderna have developed highly effective Covid-19 vaccines. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for both vaccines. Both producers began distributing millions of doses immediately after receiving FDA authorization.

With two vaccines in hand, many have turned their attention to debating who should be vaccinated first. Some argue that medical professionals, who risk their health by caring for Covid-19 patients, should have access before the general public. Others hold that the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, and others who face the most significant risk of dying if infected with Covid-19 should be vaccinated first.

Some, more radically, propose that race should be a factor in deciding who gets vaccine priority. As Harald Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics argues, “Society is structured in a way that enables them [white people] to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

Before deciding what factor should determine who gets vaccinated first, we should ask the more fundamental question of who should be tasked with distributing vaccines. So far, the responsibility has fallen on the government, and even this early in the process there have been several red flags.

Although the U.S. government provided more than $10 billion in funding to developing a Covid-19 vaccine, it does not have a specific plan on distributing it, which has caused widespread confusion and frustration from the vaccine producers.

As one Business Insider article headlines, “Pfizer said it had millions of doses of vaccine sitting in a warehouse because the federal government hadn’t told it where to send them.” The article also noted,“Illinois, Washington, California, Georgia, Hawaii, and Nevada are getting about half the doses they expected.”:

Some errors in conducting a vaccination program of this size are unavoidable. However, the government’s woeful track record of providing and distributing urgently needed goods during the pandemic shows that such mistakes are the norm, not the exception. We should recall:

• When Covid-19 first reached the United States, the FDA and CDC stifled the development and distribution of Covid-19 test-kits so severely that only about 1,200 patients were tested between late January and mid-March. The FDA-permitted Covid-19 test during this time was developed by the CDC, and it frequently produced false-negative results due to manufacturing errors.
• Last March, the Trump administration offered Transportation Security Administration employees a stockpile of 5 million respirator masks. This was during a period when air travel had decreased 55 percent, and many hospitals faced crippling shortages of personal protective gear.
• President Trump sent a naval hospital boat with a 1,000 patient capacity to help hospitals in New York City overwhelmed with Coivd-19 patients. The vessel left a month later, after treating 182 patients (30 percent of whom did not have Covid-19).
• With federal support of $660 million dollars, the US Army Corp of Engineers constructed large-scale field hospitals across the country to prepare for hospitals becoming overwhelmed with Covid-19 patients. Unfortunately, “there wasn’t enough planning to make sure these field hospitals could be put to use once they were finished.” Many field hospitals remain empty, even when local hospitals are overwhelmed.
• After the drug remdesivir received emergency use approval to treat severe cases of Covid-19, the U.S. government purchased almost half a million doses (a nearly three-month global supply) to distribute to hospitals across the country. However, numerous articles report some hospitals to have a severe shortage of the drug (even driving them to ration who receives treatment) while other hospitals have an unhelpful surplus.

The arrival of a Covid-19 vaccine provides hope that we may reach herd immunity without endangering millions of lives. But utilizing this pioneering medical breakthrough and truncating the length of the pandemic depends on how well the vaccines are distributed. So far, not so good.

The post Early Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution Troubles Add to a Long List of Government Pandemic Failures appeared first on The Beacon.

But 2020 has also been the year of “Anti-Racism” or, more accurately, a brand of obsessive race-think that contrasts sharply with the classical liberal tradition of anti-racism. The latter extols individual freedom and justice. The former views everything through the eyes of racial grouping. Classic liberals value equality under the law, while Anti-Racists demand equity through unequal treatment under the law. If any policy has a disparate impact on minorities, the Anti-Racists assert, that policy is ipso facto racist. Anti-Racist guru Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to be an Anti-Racist, contends that “there is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy.” In this view, every policy must be implemented with the explicit racial aim of achieving equity and “leveling the playing field.” This means discriminating in favor of minorities to remedy past discrimination.

In prioritizing who gets the COVID vaccine first (and who must wait), equity-minded activists have called for distribution that would not save the maximum number of elderly. What could be wrong with saving lives? The “problem” is that the elderly are too white. Harald Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics states:

“Society is structured in a way that enables them [white people] to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

Schmidt and others argue that millions of essential workers should instead receive the vaccine because they are disproportionately “people of color.” Maximal distribution of the vaccine to the elderly might save many lives, these activists concede, but the loss of life is offset by the benefits of “leveling the playing field.”

This isn’t idle theorizing: CDC guidelines include race as a metric for deciding who gets the vaccine. Several states are also using “equity metrics” to channel the vaccination to blacks rather than the elderly. The reasoning is that blacks are somewhat more likely to die of COVID than whites. And, yet, those age 65-74 (excluded from this round of vaccination) are 90 times more likely to die than younger people.

It gets worse: far more elderly blacks will die as a result of this policy. What sense does it make to vaccinate a 25 year old African American teacher instead of a 65 year old African American retiree? If the latter dies, what consolation is it that his younger counterpart has helped the African American community achieve an equitable share of vaccinations? (The CDC is also setting the USA on an exceptional path: the WHO recommends vaccinating medical workers and the elderly first and other developed nations are doing just that).

If you thought that race preferences might be limited to college admissions or employment decisions, think again. The logic of affirmative action apparently knows no bounds. The slippery slope is upon us.

“Ideas have consequences,” tweets Coleman Hughes of the Manhattan Institute:

“The CDC is recommending the vaccine be given to essential workers before the elderly, even as they acknowledge that this choice will result in more deaths. Why? Because the elderly are less racially diverse.”

“If this doesn’t dissuade you from the notion that race-obsessed ‘social justice’ is a moral improvement over MLK-style color-blindness, then nothing will.”

The post COVID-19 Vaccine: Should We Let People Die to Achieve “Race Equity”? appeared first on The Beacon.