Cafe HayekCafe Hayek - where orders emerge - Article Feed

///////////////////////////////////////////
Some Covid Links

Posted: 20 Apr 2021 03:11 AM PDT
[link removed]

(Don Boudreaux)




Tweet
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, UCLA medical-school professor Joseph
Ladapo rightly laments the epidemic of ‘Covid Mania’, correctly noting that
[t]he problem isn’t only the overreaction to the virus but the diminution
of every other problem. Two other slices:

The novel coronavirus has caused suffering and heartbreak, particularly for
older adults and their loved ones. But it also has a low mortality rate
among most people and especially the young—estimated at 0.01% for people
under 40—and therefore never posed a serious threat to social and economic
institutions. Compassion and realism need not be enemies. But Covid mania
crowded out reasoned and wise policy making.

Americans groaned when leaders first called for “two weeks to slow the
spread” in March 2020. Months later, many of these same Americans hardly
blinked when leaders declared that lockdowns should continue indefinitely.
For months Covid had been elevated above all other problems in society.
Over time new rules were written and new norms accepted.

Liberty has played a special role in U.S. history, fueling advances from
independence to emancipation to the fight for equal rights for women and
racial minorities. Unfortunately, Covid mania led many policy makers to
treat liberty as a nuisance rather than a core American principle.

..

Covid mania is also creating new conflicts over vaccine mandates. The same
people who assured the public that a few weeks of lockdown would control
the pandemic now argue that vaccinating children, for whom no vaccine has
yet been approved, is essential to end the pandemic. Children account for
less than 0.1% of Covid deaths in the U.S. Is enough known about vaccines
to conclude that their benefits outweigh potential risks to children?

“Yes” is the answer of a salesman, not a scientist. Mandating a vaccine for
children without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the risks is
unethical. People who insist we should press on anyway, because variants
will prolong the pandemic, should be reminded that a large reservoir of
unvaccinated people in the U.S.—and in the world—will always exist. We
cannot outrun the variants.

My colleague Bryan Caplan defends his ageless hypothesis against pushback
from Jeremy Horpedahl.

Robby Soave is rightly critical of many on the political left who are
addicted to Covid-19 panic porn. A slice:

Well, nope: COVID-19 deaths and cases continue to fall in Texas, even
without a mask mandate or capacity restrictions on businesses. The same is
broadly true of Florida, which relaxed its restrictions all the way back in
September and has managed to weather the pandemic more successfully than
super locked down states like New York and California.

This is good news! Its more evidence that warmer weather does make it
harder to spread COVID-19—in large part because the heat and sunshine allow
people to socialize outdoors, where there is a significantly lower risk of
transmission. It also shows that the vaccines are working. Fully vaccinated
people are essentially immune from serious disease or death, and according
to the latest data, they are very unlikely to carry or transmit COVID-19 at
all. The message to the unvaccinated should be: Go get vaccinated. The
message to the vaccinated should be: Rejoice! You can go back to normal
life.

But the frustrating truth of the matter is that Team Blue doesnt want to
hear this. Many people—predominantly liberals—who claim to Follow the
Science and Trust the Experts no matter what are nevertheless captivated by
pandemic panic porn. By asserting, for instance, that social distancing and
masks should be mandatory even for the vaccinated, they bizarrely fixate on
the minuscule risk of post-vaccination infection.

(DBx: No surprise here, alas. The reaction to Covid from the start has
rested on a lamentable inability to put risks into context. This inability
quickly led to the deranged supposition that no amount of risk of coming
into contact with SARS-CoV-2 is tolerable or, what is the same thing, that
no cost is too high to pay for even the most minuscule reduction in the
risk of coming into contact with SARS-CoV-2).

Sherelle Jacobs reports on the continuing grip of Covid Derangement
Syndrome in Britain. A slice:

The variant risk, then, is no more immediately terrifying than our
five-year NHS backlog or that cancer research now faces its biggest setback
in generations. And yet the Government seems captivated by the horror of a
mutant punishing us for a sinful orgy of summer freedom. This is only in
part explained by its fear that, after delaying the first lockdown, they
will be accused of failing to act again. It is, more disturbingly,
testament to the psychological power of the precautionary principle. Policy
makers have become bewitched by the potentially infinite damage from
existential risks, however remote or manageable they are in practice.

Over 40 years, the precautionary principle has mestasised from a fringe
worldview propagated by environmental lobbyists to a groupthink mantra
incorporated into everything from the Maastricht treaty to pesticide
control. Despite its unscientific principles, demanding a level of
certainty about safety that can never be reached and replacing trial and
error with the elimination of error by banning trial, a weird synergy with
predictive modelling has lent it academic credibility. Its intrusive
hyper-caution has an aesthetic appeal for big-state politicians.

Sarah Manavis also ponders the grip of Covid Derangement Syndrome.

How can anyone learn of Australias policy and not believe in the reality of
Covid Derangement Syndrome? Heres a slice from an essay by Annabel Fenwick
Elliott, who may never again see her father:

It is quite possible that I will never see my father or siblings again.
That’s the logic behind Australia’s ongoing Covid policy, the country in
which they live. Even if both he, my brother, sister, and I, are all fully
vaccinated. Even though we therefore pose close to a zero risk of spreading
the virus.

“If the whole country were vaccinated, you couldnt just open the borders,”
said Australia’s health minister Greg Hunt last week, dashing any hope that
international travel will recommence this year, as was previously
indicated. “Australia is in no hurry to open those borders, I can assure
you, its prime minister Scott Morrison confirmed yesterday.

The Australian government has also backed away from its promise to have its
entire population inoculated by October. Due to inevitable supply issues,
it looks like this won’t happen until 2022. Even then, it won’t allow
vaccinated foreigners to visit. Even its own citizens, some 40,000 of whom
are still stranded abroad, even if theyve had the jab too.

Thing is, this is infinitely more ridiculous than banning all cars
everywhere lest anyone die in a crash. It is drastically more insane than
forbidding families from hugging come next flu season, even if they’ve all
had the flu jab. It is further horrifying proof that democratic leaders are
in no rush to release this North Korea-esque grip on their own people:
No-one in. No-one out. No questions. Just obey.

Amidst all this bad news about Covid Derangement Syndrome, lets hope that
Jeffrey Tucker is correct that the lockdown paradigm is collapsing.

Phil Magness understandably wonders how many people caught covid because
Fauci disrupted the vaccine supply chain for over a week in order to put a
warning sticker about an extremely rare complication on the J&J box




///////////////////////////////////////////
Quotation of the Day

Posted: 20 Apr 2021 01:15 AM PDT
[link removed]

(Don Boudreaux)




Tweet
is from page 325 of Richard Epstein’s great 1995 book, Simple Rules for a
Complex World:

No one can expect miracles from a system of limited government but the
smaller the size of the government and the more disinterested its
administration of the laws, the more likely it is that diverse communities
can thrive under its rule. Communitarian values, rightly understood, are
best served by small governments, not large ones.

DBx: It’s worth pointing out that nor should anyone expect miracles from a
system of unlimited, or Progressive, government. Yet the belief in such
miracles is a staple among the crowd that is so oddly insistent on
applauding itself as grounded in reality and attuned to the science.

Progressives are self-unaware in their belief in miracles.




///////////////////////////////////////////
Ad Hominem Is a Fallacy, Not an Argument

Posted: 19 Apr 2021 10:57 AM PDT
[link removed]

(Don Boudreaux)




Tweet
In my latest column for AIER, I argue against ad hominem argumentation. A
slice:

An even weaker argument against the Great Barrington Declaration is the
observation that some people associated with AIER say, write, or tweet some
things that other people find to be beyond the pale.

I don’t wish here to assess, and much less to defend, everything ever said
or written by everyone affiliated with AIER. Undoubtedly, were I to survey
it all I’d find much with which I disagree. But the same is true for every
organization under the moon and stars.

Of relevance here is the irrelevance to the merits of the Great Barrington
Declaration of what AIER associates Mr. X and Ms. Y said or tweeted.

Had the Great Barrington Declaration been penned by individuals known
chiefly for their membership in the Libertarian Party, by Fox News interns,
or by Miss Grundy’s sixth graders as a class project, dismissing it merely
by pointing to the identities and affiliations of its authors would be
acceptable. But this Declaration is co-authored by world-renowned
scientists, each of whom is expert in the public-health challenges
presented by Covid-19. Furthermore, this Declaration has been endorsed by a
large number of other credible scientists. Under these circumstances, ad
hominem dismissals of the Declaration simply carry no credibility.

Substantively criticizing parts or the whole of the Great Barrington
Declaration is legitimate. Indeed, such criticism is welcome; it’s part of
the scientific process. But in far too many cases people dismiss the
Declaration with nothing more than ad hominem assertions and attempts to
establish guilt by association. The conclusion that I draw from these sorts
of dismissals is that those who offer them actually have no substantive
criticism of the Declaration. After all, because substantive criticisms
would carry more weight even with Miss Grundy’s sixth graders, anyone with
such criticisms to offer would present them front and center rather than
resort to ad hominem argumentation.

The greatest compliment paid to the Great Barrington Declaration,
therefore, is one wholly unintended: Many of its staunchest opponents offer
against it nothing beyond ad hominemattacks and accusations of guilt by
association. This Declaration must indeed be powerful!

..

George Leef e-mailed to alert me to a potential confusion in my remarks
above regarding members of the LP and sixth graders. I ought to have been
more careful in my wording.

Ultimately, the only legitimate argument against any claim (or set of
claims, such as the Great Barrington Declaration) is an argument that goes
to the substance of the claim. No claim has its legitimacy established or
debunked merely by pointing to the identity of those who put forth the
claim. But the identity of those who put forth the claim is nevertheless an
important source of information about whether or not its worthwhile to
spend scarce time considering the claim.

A Declaration on how to deal with Covid-19 put forth by Miss Grundys sixth
graders is so likely to be mistaken or vacuous as to justify a refusal to
spend scarce time considering it and debunking it (if it is indeed mistaken
or vacuous). But a Declaration written by eminent scholars such as Profs.
Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff cannot and ought not be dismissed so
easily. Grappling with the substance of what they offer is necessary.




///////////////////////////////////////////
Bonus Quotation of the Day

Posted: 19 Apr 2021 07:45 AM PDT
[link removed]

(Don Boudreaux)




Tweet
is from page 86 of the Second Edition (1999) of R.W. Grant’s The
Incredible Bread Machine:

Only upon the premise of individualism can a free society be built. In
fact, individualism was the implicit philosophical principle underlying the
American concept of government as servant rather than master. The real
significance of the American Revolution lay not in a military triumph (for
other nations have won independence only to lapse back into tyranny), but
in the partial triumph of the philosophy of individualism.

DBx: Today is the 246th anniversary of the shot heard round the world the
start in earnest of the American Revolution. I fear that the liberalism,
however imperfectly it was practiced, that motivated the American
revolutionaries’ cause is now in its death throes.

By the way, I cannot recommend highly enough Rick Atkinson’s 2019 volume,
The British Are Coming.




///////////////////////////////////////////
Some Non-Covid Links

Posted: 19 Apr 2021 06:47 AM PDT
[link removed]

(Don Boudreaux)




Tweet
Andrew Gutmann explains in this brilliant letter shared by Bari Weiss why
hes pulling his daughter from one of New York Citys elite private schools.
A slice:

I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by
Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where
Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned
systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression. Facile and
unsupported beliefs such as these are the polar opposite to the
intellectual and scientific truth for which Brearley claims to stand.
Furthermore, I call bullshit on Brearleys oft-stated assertion that the
school welcomes and encourages the truly difficult and uncomfortable
conversations regarding race and the roots of racial discrepancies.

I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country
without aid from government or from whites. Brearley, by adopting critical
race theory, is advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should
forever be regarded as helpless victims, and are incapable of success
regardless of their skills, talents, or hard work. What Brearley is
teaching our children is precisely the true and correct definition of
racism.

I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when
presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna. These sessions, in
both their content and delivery, are so sophomoric and simplistic, so
unsophisticated and inane, that I would be embarrassed if they were taught
to Brearley kindergarteners. They are an insult to parents and unbecoming
of any educational institution, let alone one of Brearleys caliber.

Also shared by Bari Weiss is this powerful essay by Paul Rossi, a teacher
at Manhattans Grace Church High School. A slice:

Every student at the school must also sign a “Student Life Agreement,”
which requires them to aver that “the world as we understand it can be hard
and extremely biased,” that they commit to “recognize and acknowledge their
biases when we come to school, and interrupt those biases,” and accept that
they will be “held accountable should they fall short of the agreement.” A
recent faculty email chain received enthusiastic support for recommending
that we “‘officially’ flag students” who appear “resistant” to the “culture
we are trying to establish.”

When I questioned what form this resistance takes, examples presented by a
colleague included “persisting with a colorblind ideology,” “suggesting
that we treat everyone with respect,” “a belief in meritocracy,” and “just
silence.” In a special assembly in February 2019, our head of school said
that the impact of words and images perceived as racist — regardless of
intent — is akin to “using a gun or a knife to kill or injure someone.”

Imagine being a young person in this environment. Would you risk voicing
your doubts, especially if you had never heard a single teacher question it?

While I disagree with some of what Georgetown University law professor Lama
Abu Odeh writes here, much of it is correct and important. A slice:

The progressoriat are unable to talk about their impending demise because
they have already used their own institutional power over decades to drive
away conservatives. They turned their academic institution into a partisan
echo chamber. Residing in an echo chamber only increases your moral
certitude. Now they are being given a taste of their own brutal medicine.
Meantime, the new elite is acting ruthlessly and impatiently and is only
happy with declarations of complete submission. Any sign of hesitation on
the part of a signatory—”Maybe we should talk about free speech too?”—is
met with expressions of exasperation by the all-powerful members of the
victim minority faculty. No hesitation or nuance is allowed: nothing but
unequivocal loyalty oaths. The progressoriat can only repeat, “I believe in
the cause. I believe. I believe. Believe me I believe.”

If this echoes a Maoist take-over, that’s because it is. It passes the
sniff test.

John Cochrane writes a letter to Janet Yellen.

Also from John Cochrane is this post on inflation expectations.

Pierre Lemieux reports on Hitlers version of MMT.

GMU Econ alum Alex Salter, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explains
that Keynesians have it backward: Growth is driven by production, not
consumption. Another slice:

Mr. Biden’s plan also largely directs resources away from uses that would
increase productivity. Improvements in roads and bridges may boost how much
companies can produce, and hence growth, by making it easier to move labor
and goods across the nation. But that’s a minority of the bill’s spending;
other expenditures will have the opposite effect. Take the proposal to
invest in expanding clean energy and electric-vehicle charging stations.
This is a rather elastic interpretation of infrastructure, and a
wealth-wasting one besides.

The government is not good at picking investments. President Obama promised
smart green projects. What we got was the Solyndra debacle, which consumed
hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars while producing little of value.
Those dollars are resources that could have been invested elsewhere. What
Mr. Biden proposes amounts to a great many Solyndras. That’s an enormous
amount of productive capital to squander.

In affirming his support for the protectionist Jones Act, Joe Biden
polishes his Trumpian credentials as he harms the environment about which
he, apparently falsely, claims to care.

Heres David Henderson on Canadian banking compared to U.S. banking.

Peter Earle predicts the demise of woke capital.




--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Cafe HayekCafe Hayek - where
orders emerge - Article Feed."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now:
[link removed]

Email delivery powered by Google.
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States