Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

We dont know what were doing: Inside Boris Johnsons fractured Tory party – iNews

The dark cloud sitting over Boris Johnsons leadership lifted a little this week, but his party is splintering as factions compete over where it goes next.

Attention may have switched to Ukraine, and speculation over the number of backbencher letters of no confidence has subsided, with MPs back in their constituencies for the parliamentary break.

But the brief respite from the Downing Street soap opera has allowed a longer-term problem for the Conservatives to come into focus the party is wracked by division and doesnt know where it is heading.

MPs are split along a growing number of overlapping lines: big state v small state, Red Wall v Blue Wall, One Nation v libertarian right, pro or anti net zero, and Johnson loyalists v those who think its time for the PM to go in the wake of the partygate scandal.

Their leaders current vulnerability is accentuating the division. What backbenchers think suddenly matters, and Mr Johnson is finding himself besieged with requests to change tack to win their support.

Discussing the many fault lines criss-crossing the partys backbenches, one senior Tory source puts it: Boriss foundation is very wide but its not very deep, so if one bit starts to wobble the whole thing wobbles.

Thats why it can look stable one minute and chaos the next.

But this could end up saving the PM, as unlike Theresa May he is not facing a co-ordinated campaign to oust him driven by a large group of ideological bedfellows like the so-called Brexit Spartans.

Because its all these little groups, those wanting to oust Boris have to knit together so many competing interests, which is difficult, the source said.

And there is conflict between the factions, with accusations flying about some MPs exploiting the situation to force their own agenda.

Whether or not a leadership challenge comes key parts of this weakened PMs agenda are coming under pressure from different sections of the party.

In recent weeks there has been a concerted push by MPs led by right-wingers Craig Mackinlay and Steve Baker and with the backing of Mr Johnsons former Brexit minister Lord Frost for the Government to row back on its ambitious goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

It culminated in a letter to the Sunday Telegraph, signed by 29 MPs, demanding the PM lift the ban on fracking in order to harvest shale gas and bring down energy bills.

Even serving ministers are sceptical about the net-zero agenda, with one telling i it is the only thing the Government is doing.

Theres a bit of health and a bit of education when we decide to teach kids something but everything else is net zero.

We are on a hiding to nothing with it. The last 10 per cent (to get to net zero) is astronomically expensive.

Will Tanner, director of the influential Onward think tank, says his research suggests net zero could absolutely become a divisive culture war issue if not handled correctly and the Government should be under no illusions about the possibility of this turning into quite a difficult issue as people are reluctant to stomach the costs.

The idea of spending 10,000 on a heat pump or 30,000 on an electric car is both beyond the means and the political imagination of most voters, they see that as a stretch too far.

But there is also an enormous opportunity for the Government and the Red Wall voters it now serves that Tory critics largely ignore, he adds.

Mr Tanner says people in forgotten places such as Redcar, Teesside, are feeling for the first time in 30 years the benefits of highly skilled jobs associated with net zero through wind turbine manufacturing, carbon capture and other industries.

Those benefits particularly accrue to the types of areas levelling up is trying to support, he says.

Alexander Stafford, Tory MP for Rother Valley in South Yorkshire, sees the opportunity and is scathing about colleagues who want to return to fracking.

Its almost a lazy argument to say bring back fracking, he says. The more renewables we have, the more control we have over our own energy, the less control Russia and Saudi and other countries have, the less likely we are to be hit by global fluctuations in the gas price.

Mr Stafford says MPs are exploiting the leadership crisis to push against net zero, something he insists his voters care about.

There clearly is a concern that some elements of the party are using the current situation to try and force their own agenda, he says.

(The PM) actually cares about net zero, you cant fault his commitment to that and there is concern that if there is a leadership contest, others will not be as hot on it.

He implores colleagues: We cant be those Luddites smashing up spinning jennies, we want to be the country making the spinning jennies and selling them abroad.

The argument over net zero speaks to a wider battle for the soul of the party between Thatcherite libertarians who want tax cuts and a small state, and those who now see a role for big spending.

There has been a sustained campaign against plans to raise national insurance in April, which will raise the tax burden to its highest level in decades in order to increase funding for the NHS and social care.

Veteran Tory backbencher John Redwood complained of a tax attack, while Lord Frost once an apolitical diplomat but now a champion of Tory free-marketeers remarked this week that big government was not just wrong but in many ways comic.

The PMs allies have responded to this, with his new No 10 chief of staff Steve Barclay pledging to cut the size of government.

But among the newer cohort of Conservative backbenchers, however, most have been more keen to secure Government spending in their seats. And, with some influential voices suggesting that prosperous Southern seats could be sacrificed to preserve a Red Wall-based majority, might Mr Johnson have changed his party forever?

One MP says: Im not a libertarian, its more important to strengthen public services than cut taxes.

The shift in attitudes towards public spending is perhaps most clearly seen in the new Tory approach to welfare, with many MPs recently campaigning, unsuccessfully, to keep the pandemic-linked 20 universal credit uplift.

One MP says Covid-19 has helped drive a sea change from the austerity era, and spark a recognition that government has a role to play in helping people to help themselves.

They added: Obviously there is a strong libertarian free market element [in the Conservative Party] but I think theres a recognition that there is an umbilical cord between the British people and our health service, and there is a push from lots of colleagues for spending on education, individual seats, schools and new hospitals and roads, which would probably not have happened in the past.

It isnt just pork barrel, its a kind of belief we need a mixed economy. Its not about big government or small government, its about good government.

Mr Tanner says tension is inevitable when Mr Johnson is pursuing economy-changing agendas such as net zero and levelling up, but he stresses: We are not in the 1980s.

And Mr Baker, the maverick ex-minister known for his campaigning nous, has partially admitted defeat in his bid to drive the party back to its small-state instincts.

Addressing activists recently, he said: I am a free-market Conservative who must compromise every day. There is not a libertarian caucus in the party.

Others believe levelling up and a small state are achievable together but stress Mr Johnson should put the brakes on spending for now given the 400bn black hole in the public finances and high tax rates.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the powerful Tory backbench 1922 Committee, says: After spending 400bn on Covid, you cant run before you can walk, you can only spend what youve got.

Elsewhere, Mr Johnsons forays into right-wing populism such as his false claims about Sir Keir Starmer are going down badly among One Nation MPs, with at least two submitting letters of no confidence in him criticising the remarks.

One MP says there is a definitely a tension between those MPs facing Labour and those MPs facing the Lib Dems, and with generally different demographics.

They say: This comes back to the leadership you need someone who can unite both. At the last election Boris managed to straddle those two camps but the question is who is going to straddle the camps now?

They suggest the Tories may have to do some really clear thinking about which seats to target in future, as it may be impossible to keep all of the current voter coalition happy.

One minister suggests sacrificing well-off southern seats that face a Liberal Democrat challenge.

It would be better to just put the other guys [Labour] in and let them f*** it up and come back with more of an idea of what we want to do, they said.

We dont need a majority of 80, we need a majority of 40 you cant keep hold of Chipping Barnet and Blyth valley.

But the minister also has a bleak assessment of his partys position: We dont have any [ideological] mooring, we dont know what were doing.

Read more:
We dont know what were doing: Inside Boris Johnsons fractured Tory party - iNews

Libertarian Vs Liberal – What Is The Difference? Johnny …

The biggest difference between libertarian and liberal is their belief in how involved government control should be in our societies. They both are forms of distinct political ideologies during the late 20th century.

The former belief is in a political philosophy that addresses freedom of choice and free will. In contrast to later whose primary goal is to use diplomacy to meet global peace.

They have some similarities due to which people consider them as synonyms of one another. Both the terms safeguard the rights of citizens and should not be forced into arbitrary groups. Their major differences have cropped up after the year 1800.

But, despite the above-mentioned similarities, this article will teach you the difference between libertarian and liberal. Lets look at Libertarian Vs Libertarian individually first.

Libertarianism wants little or no intervention from the Central or state government for their affairs. It aims to maximise political freedom and autonomy with voluntarism and freedom of association. It embraces the vision of political liberty and calls it a revolutionized state.

It is a close mix of modern economies, and its theories. The principles of libertarianism have their roots in the Enlightenment. The term Enlightenment was a tradition older than human civilization. It deals with natural rights that have nothing to do with any third party, individual, or group.

They believe that politics is making society worse for the sake of money and power.

According to libertarianism, acquiring wealth from economic means is a crucial aspect of a moral society. Moreover, they solve the problems with peaceful interactions with no violence.

Pure libertarians believe that the government should not interfere in the issues based on social and economic principles.

Liberalism deals with a political philosophy that supports individual liberty and self-determination. The thinkers believe that they have the right to choose any society they wish to live in without the governments interference.

They have a more sort of fiscal policy rather than the business.

It is a person who tries to uphold the importance of liberty with wide support. It is done by following some of the following groups of principles.

The followers of classical liberalism may promote civil rights, democratic societies, gender, and equality.

According to John Locke, all individuals are free to head the right to life. They are only in a view to promoting democracy as it is the only alternative to absolute monarchy.

There is a huge contrast between the modern-day Libertarian vs. Liberal communities in the history of modernization. The differences between the ideologies are as follows

Libertarians believe that the government should not interfere with the monetary transactions between the two parties. They favor big and established companies over startups.

Liberals favor government control in the economic area to determine the income and expenditure of the people. It can lift some people out of poverty. By doing this, they tend to create more equality and remove the class barriers from society.

Libertarians pay attention to words of individual freedom and ability. We cannot mistreat the process of training and treating people for any social or economic reason. They believe in peace because violence causes destruction and widespread death.

Liberals believe that there is a huge importance of sending foreign aids, not for opposing democratic rules, but for helping out.

According to the Libertarians, people should not be sent to jail for drug consumption as the government has to see what substances people use. Also, penalties for crimes and assault should be changed.

Liberals see such people as a threat to society and its inhabitants who must be eradicated as they are threatening the freedom of other people as a whole.

Conservatism sees criminals as threats to society who must be eradicated because they threaten everyone elses freedom.

Liberalism takes a softer approach and tries to see the good in everyone. Whereas, Conservatism sees criminals as threats to society who must be eradicated.

Libertarians believe that all citizens must have the right to move their products and services across the world. This should be done without imposing unnecessary tariffs and duties as it will lead to more international trade. The less the government interferes with trade, the more opportunities for individuals to build their wealth.

On the contrary, the Liberals feel that one should have no right or control over what comes and goes from the country.

Libertarians believe that it is the right of an individual to choose their treatment provider. Keeping in mind the harsh regulations by the companies and medical labs, they believe that aproper system should protect the malpractices.

So, Liberals leave the medical procedure in the hands of the government. This is because of inflated prices and monopolization consequences of individual medicines. They want complete government control over their medical procedures.

Libertarian society wants certain rights in the society regardless of their social standing in the group. Some of the rights include:

In contrast to the Liberals, they feel that everyone can do what their heart desires. But, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce and overlook the whole situation so that it cannot be mistreated.

This is how libertarianism argues that they should be left alone without heavy political influence from the government.

Both ideologies believe in preserving the rights and liberty of all individuals. They both remove the influence of powerful authorities to fight for modern battles.

Have you seen the root cause and difference between the Libertarian vs. Liberal? Both the terms are different, with some fundamental beliefs supporting their differences.

Link:
Libertarian Vs Liberal - What Is The Difference? Johnny ...

This time the draw for Javier Milei was won by a libertarian: "He played on our side" – Then24

The new right-wing deputy Javier Milei, raffled this Thursday his second salary as a legislator. On this occasion, the raffle was won by Jonatan Lewczuk, an audiovisual producer who works for the City Government.

Like some Pro leaders, Lewczuk sympathizes with Mileis ideas. Im following you to death, he told her when the deputy called him to inform him that he had won the award.

This time I play on our side, Milei told the press. The winner will take the sum of 369,828.99 pesos.

It should be noted that, a month ago, Federico Nacardo had won the first draw that Milei orchestrated. Far from having sympathy for the far-right leader, Nacardo had signed up for the contest at the insistence of his partner and assured that he will use a large part of the money to pay off debts.. We will continue to feed the financial system, he closed on that occasion, before a stunned Milei.

After the existing doubts about the management and protection of personal data requested by the economist to be able to register for his salary draw, weeks ago an anonymous user assured to put the sale the database of more than a million participants in an internet forum, allegedly from hackers, in exchange for little more than 10 thousand dollars.

The protagonist of the new chapter in the novel by the legislator of Avanza Libertad is H4ck3rArgentino, a user who at 3 oclock in the morning on Wednesday offered for sale Argentinian Deputy Milei database (database of the Argentine deputy Milei): according to what he assured, the ID and number of the candidate, names and surnames, email and document number of all the people who signed up. That is to say, 1,040,622 people, according to the post made in the same forum that, days ago, published the sale of data from the National Registry of Persons (ReNaPer). The alleged data package is offered in exchange for $10,500.

Sources from the computer security sector assured Page 12 that the supposed leak generates a series of doubts. On the one hand, the required cost per user was too high and the user who made the offer had been created just a few hours before publication.

The draw generated the National Directorate for the Protection of Personal Data open a process to investigate if the organization had taken measures to guarantee the privacy of the data of the participants, as well as to determine if there was a violation of Law 25,326 on the Protection of Personal Data.

See the original post:
This time the draw for Javier Milei was won by a libertarian: "He played on our side" - Then24

Investigation: What can Youngkin do about the annual aggravation known as the personal property tax? – WAVY.com

RICHMOND, Va. (WAVY) Its the tax that never goes away: Virginias infamous personal property tax.

For years down the road, you continuously pay for it, year after year after year, said Robert Dean, chair of the Tidewater Libertarian Party. Dean wants the levy often referred to as the vehicle tax or the car tax to go away.

I am so glad that you brought this subject up because nobody else has been talking about it other than the Youngkin administration, Dean said during a recent interview.

(Dean has registered the entity name Tidewater Libertarian Party with the State Corporation Commission, however the Libertarian National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Virginia disavow any connection with Dean.)

Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) talked about reducing or eliminating taxes as one of his key promises during his campaign. 10 On Your Side made repeated attempts to discuss the subject with Youngkin or a member of his administration. On Friday, as part of an interview on a separate topic, he told us he wants to empower taxpayers when it comes to tax increases.

A big initiative for us is to give Virginians the ability to review whats happening with their personal property taxes, Youngkin said, in the form of a potential referendum.

Not all states have the personal property tax on vehicles, and Virginia is at or near the highest rate among the 27 states that do have it. Twenty-three states including Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, plus Washington D.C. have no annual vehicle tax at all.

It seems to me that if they can do it without all the infusion of federal dollars such as the military brings into this area from the Department of Defense, Dean said, then we should certainly be able to phase it out.

Tax rates vary in the seven cities of Hampton Roads. Virginia Beach has the lowest rate at 4%, or $4 per $100 of valuation. Chesapeake is next at $4.08, followed by Suffolk ($4.25), Norfolk ($4.33), and Hampton and Newport News (both at $4.50). Portsmouth has the highest rate at $5 per hundred. (Municipalities also offer some measure of car tax relief on the first $20,000 of valuation.)

Its over $30 million in our budget. Its a significant amount, said Portsmouth Commissioner of the Revenue Franklin Edmondson. He says the funds are vital to keeping Portsmouth competitive not only for city services but attracting quality job candidates.

We dont want the last and the least to come to Portsmouth. We want the best and the brightest. We want to offer a fair employment package, he said.

Virginia Beach currently generates about $172 million from the tax. Chief Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Eric Schmudde says it can afford to charge a lower rate because of a bigger tax base with more vehicles to tax.

The rate and the value will dictate how much revenue is raised. I think some of it could be the value of the vehicles in Virginia Beach are just a little higher than those in Portsmouth, he said.

Pleasure boats are taxable too, but at a far lower rate. A millionth of a cent, Schmudde said. Because the tax is in the Virginia Constitution, local governments must charge something. But they can also set the rate, and it creates a massive disparity between the tax charged on a car and a boat.

For example, if your cars assessed value is $25,000 in Virginia Beach, youll pay about $640 a year with current discounts. If your pleasure boat is assessed at 10 times that value a quarter of a million dollars your personal property tax bill is essentially three cents a year.

Office equipment is also subject to the tax. Any equipment used in the operation of an office such as computers, desks, chairs, etc. is taxed at the same rate as a vehicle. However, if youre a manufacturer in Virginia Beach, you get the same low rate as a pleasure boat owner, a millionth of a cent.

Dean says the time is now to put pressure on Richmond to consider eliminating the tax over time or reducing it.

I think theres a great opportunity here to phase it out and I would love to see Youngkin work with all of us, he said.

Dean says he will take his campaign to get rid of the personal property tax to the board of his Libertarian Party as well as the Tea Party, Republican womens groups and the Democratic Party of Virginia Beach.

Download the WAVY News App to keep up with the latest news, weather and sports from WAVY-TV 10. Available in both the Apple and Google Play stores.

Read the rest here:
Investigation: What can Youngkin do about the annual aggravation known as the personal property tax? - WAVY.com

Economists Are Fueling the War Against Public Health – Foreign Policy

A new report that has grabbed headlines on Fox News and other Murdoch-owned news outlets claims that regulations aimed at curtailing spread of the coronavirus through mandatory masking, lockdowns, and school closures in 2020 only reduced deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infections by 0.2 percent. The 62-page study, much-hailed by leading Republican politicians, has grabbed mainstream media headlines, as well. But closer scrutiny reveals that it is an example of motivated reasoning, indulging in scientific cherry-picking to prove a preferred thesis about public health.

Described as a Johns Hopkins study, the report was in reality published online by the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University, an academic enterprise tightly linked to the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. The institute is separate from the famed medical institution and school of public health affiliated with the university. It is co-directed by one of the authors of the new report, economist Steve Hanke, who also directs the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute.

The other two authors of the report are Scandinavian economists Jonas Herby and Lars Jonung. Herby advises the Center for Political Studies, in Copenhagen, a self-described independent, liberal, free-market think tank in Denmark that strongly opposes coronavirus lockdown policies across the Nordic region and is generally anti-regulation. He is also tied to the American Institute for Economic Research, where he has written in favor of the Swedish governments very loose pandemic policies in 2020 that resulted, by the end of the summer of that year, in death rates more than five times higher than in neighboring Denmark, over 9 times greater than in Finland, and more than 11 times worse than the toll in Norway. Herby wrote that Swedens huge mortality was due to a mild flu season in the country in 2019, which left too many dry tinder vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, who burned up with coronavirus infections.

A new report that has grabbed headlines on Fox News and other Murdoch-owned news outlets claims that regulations aimed at curtailing spread of the coronavirus through mandatory masking, lockdowns, and school closures in 2020 only reduced deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infections by 0.2 percent. The 62-page study, much-hailed by leading Republican politicians, has grabbed mainstream media headlines, as well. But closer scrutiny reveals that it is an example of motivated reasoning, indulging in scientific cherry-picking to prove a preferred thesis about public health.

Described as a Johns Hopkins study, the report was in reality published online by the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University, an academic enterprise tightly linked to the libertarian Cato Institute think tank. The institute is separate from the famed medical institution and school of public health affiliated with the university. It is co-directed by one of the authors of the new report, economist Steve Hanke, who also directs the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute.

The other two authors of the report are Scandinavian economists Jonas Herby and Lars Jonung. Herby advises the Center for Political Studies, in Copenhagen, a self-described independent, liberal, free-market think tank in Denmark that strongly opposes coronavirus lockdown policies across the Nordic region and is generally anti-regulation. He is also tied to the American Institute for Economic Research, where he has written in favor of the Swedish governments very loose pandemic policies in 2020 that resulted, by the end of the summer of that year, in death rates more than five times higher than in neighboring Denmark, over 9 times greater than in Finland, and more than 11 times worse than the toll in Norway. Herby wrote that Swedens huge mortality was due to a mild flu season in the country in 2019, which left too many dry tinder vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, who burned up with coronavirus infections.

Lars Jonung is retired from the Lund University Department of Economics in Sweden, where he for decades favored conservative financial policies. Since the pandemic emerged, Jonung has argued that the Swedish constitution renders such actions as mask mandates and business closures illegal.

Now the trio of economists claims, in a meta-analysis of allegedly thousands of coronavirus studies, to show that none of the nonpharmaceutical measures taken by governmentslike mask wearing, social distancing, bar closures, virtual school, and stay-at-home ordershave had any clear benefit in reducing the burden of death in the pandemic. Their lengthy literature review has not been peer-reviewed or submitted for review to a major journal.

The effect of border closures, school closures and limiting gatherings on COVID-19 mortality yields precision-weighted estimates of -0.1 percent, -4.4 percent, and 1.6 percent, respectively, they wrote. They added that lockdowns, compared to no lockdowns, also do not reduce COVID-19 mortality.

They reached this conclusion by culling though Google Scholar anda coronavirus economic research website affiliated with the University of Cambridge for papers about the spring 2020 lockdowns in Europe and North America. They said they found 18,590 relevant papers. The first 13 pages of their study explains how and why they decided that only 34 of those 18,590 papers merited inclusion in their analysis. They tossed out studies that fail to provide what they deem as high quality and long-term evidence of association between specific anti-COVID nonpharmaceutical policies and deaths. Though few public health interventions can typically be credited with averting specific deaths, that is what they are demanding.

By this measure, studies that show, for example, that measles vaccination in Africa decreased child death rates during famines would be tossed out for lack of a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the vaccine and a subsequent comparative resilience of a child against starvation. In the case of COVID, the authors reject studies that point to declines in deaths due directly to diabetes or suicide, though it is clear that lowering the pandemic burden on urgent care facilities allows health care providers time and resources to address other medical issues.

Most of the selected 34 papers were written by economists, rather than public health experts, and only 22 of them have been peer-reviewed. After all of this cherry-picking, the trio further discounts contrary findings by declaring that the methodology of some of these 34 papers are of low quality, according to their vague standards, or cannot be reconciled with higher forms of analysis. This conveniently leaves only a handful of solid papers from which they draw the conclusion favored by right-wing and libertarian politicians: Public health restrictions to curb the spread of the coronavirus are a sham.

There are many reasons, both methodological and analytical, why the new report is wrong, which have been noted elsewhere. But the most obvious evidence that lockdownshowever authoritarian or heinous they may bestop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and prevent associated mortality is China. Though the pandemic started in Wuhan in late 2019 and the coronavirus spread widely across the nation of 1.4 billion people, the zero COVID policy pushed by President Xi Jinping, which entails the worlds most aggressive lockdowns whenever and wherever a handful of cases are found, leaves it with one of the lowest death rates on earth.

The United States, by contrast, imposed among the longest periods of school closures of any country in part to make up for its failure to stringently enforce other public health interventions. The difference in results is stark. The United States has suffered around 2,690 deaths per million people. The rate in China has been around 3 deaths per million. (Among OECD nations, the United States has the highest death rate, by far.)

Chinas policies have, of course, been brutal, shutting entire cities of 14 million or more people off from the rest of the nation when fewer than a dozen suspected cases have been identified, and placing hundreds of thousands of households under quarantines so strict that families faced starvation as they were prohibited from shopping.

But less despotic lockdowns surely help explain why New Zealand has had only 11 deaths per million people, South Korea at 132, and Japan at 150. (The authors also dont acknowledge that strict border closures imposed by countries like New Zealand, Australia, and China may have played a role in limiting the spread of the coronavirus.) By excluding all Asian nations from their analysis, the trio ends up comparing measures in the dismally-mortality-stricken United States and the similarly hard-hit European Union, which has 2,150 deaths per million.

In the United States, multiple studies show markedly higher mortality rates in counties that voted Republican in the 2020 presidential election, where regulatory actions to address the pandemic are less likely to be in place, compared to counties that voted Democrat. Similarly, getting vaccinated, wearing masks, and taking the debunked ivermectin treatment for COVID all follow partisan lines in the United States.

A new study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and California health authorities found that people in that state who wore any type of masks when among others in indoor settings reduced their odds of infection by 56 percent. If they wore N95 or K95 masks their risk dropped by a whopping 83 percent. Imposing mask-wearing guidelines in this pandemic appears to spare millions of infections and related deaths.

The appalling pseudo-science produced by Herby, Jonung and Hanke can be easily dismissed by public health advocates and scientists. But that will not be the end of it. The enemies of public health measures in the West are already using the study to fuel their ire. From Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson to Alex Jones and Senator Rand Paul the message is loud and clear: All community precautions aimed at stemming the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are violations of our libertiesand do not work to boot.

For months, Republican leaders have attacked all forms of public health mandates across the United States, both nonpharmaceutical and vaccine-based. Republican governors led the charge against Biden administration efforts to impose vaccine mandates on large employers, an effort overturned by the Supreme Court in a partisan vote. In December, one faction of the Republican Party threatened to shut down the federal government to block mandates. They were eventually overruled by Senator Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders.

Rand Paul, whose father, Ron, led the Libertarian Party and named his son after libertarian icon Ayn Rand, has for two years led Republican opposition to wearing masks, outdoor dining orders, and social distancing measures, and insists that millions of Americans are, like himself, naturally immune after having COVID. He also supported the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates allowing SARS-CoV-2 to spread freely and spawn herd immunity that would allegedly lead to disappearance of the coronavirus. As with this new report, the herd immunity claims drew accolades from right-wing media, and led President Donald Trump to bring advocate Scott Atlas into his White House pandemic response team.

With more than 900,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States, the most in any nation, and the pandemic nearing its third year, Americans are understandably fed up and vulnerable to messages that direct their rage while providing justification for abandoning disease control measures. This Johns Hopkins report is easily cast aside as bogus science, but it will nevertheless live on, exacerbating partisan divides and casting doubt on the Biden administrations COVID response. It should not. It is mere disinformation.

Link:
Economists Are Fueling the War Against Public Health - Foreign Policy