Paul Krugman on the end of the mask cult:
My two cents? I suspect Krugman, and many maskaholics desperately want this to be true.
Part of it is Berg’s Seventh Law – they need to project their behavior onto others.
Part of it is the need on the cultural left that’s become apparent in the past two years to, at best, feel they are part of some larger struggle; they are part of a generation that’s had no Omaha Beach, no Great Depression, no Civil Rights Movement. This is it for them, and they’re milking it for all they got.
At worst? They feel their sense of petty control slipping from their grasp, and they are not about to go gently.
He is right, wearing a mask could prompt some knuckle dragging idiot to do something stupid.
Kinda like wearing a MAGA hat might do the same.
A reminder that Krugman predicted that the PC would have no more effect on the economy than the fax machine, that he failed to foresee the financial crisis of 2008, predicted that Trump’s election would result in a global recession, and of course Krugman was a prominent supporter of the notion that the inflation we began to see in early 2021 was transitory.
Krugman is not only wrong, he is wrong about the very things he is supposed to know the most about. I took two semesters of economics at a community college, and my economic predictions have been more accurate than Krugman’s economic predictions.
FYI, Krugman now says that the worst of the inflation has passed.
The National Review has put up a timeline of Krugman’s comments on the current inflationary spiral:
Paul Krugman, June 21: “For those paying closer attention to the flow of new information, inflation panic is, you know, so last week.”
Paul Krugman, July 23: “Overheating is still possible, and the Fed should keep its eye on that possibility. But the big numbers aren’t as scary as they seem.”
Paul Krugman, August 12: “Anxiety about the inflationary impact of public investment just doesn’t make sense if you work through the numbers.”
Paul Krugman, September 10: “Companies aren’t acting as if they expect lots of future inflation, where they can hike wages without losing competitive advantage. They’re acting, instead, as if they see current inflation as a blip.”
Paul Krugman, November 11: “So yes, that was an ugly inflation report, and we hope that future reports will look better. But people making knee-jerk comparisons with the 1970s and screaming about stagflation are looking at the wrong history. When you look at the right history, it tells you not to panic.”
Whether it’s liberal extremists wearing masks as they dine outdoors, or conservative extremists wearing horns as they ransack the Capitol building, both sides have a bit of a costume problem.
off-krugman topic, but I do have a question re judge’s ruling against constitutionality of the face diaper mandate: if our constitutional rights were violated for two years, knowingly, willingly, maliciously and capriciously, who will go to jail? Shouldn’t someone go to jail? Shouldn’t someone ALWAYS go to jail for violating rights of the citizens? For not upholding a sworn oath to protect the constitution of these the United States of America?
^ The CDC overstepped its mandate by continuously extending mask polices, particularly in transportation, with no apparent end goal in mind. What’s striking is the inconsistent masking mandate/policy for transportation versus public gatherings, with no explanation provided by the CDC for the difference.
When I read Minneapolis Public Schools announced it was dropping its mask mandate, I figured some sensitivity sessions will be set up to instruct kids not to mock the sons and daughters of the Linden Hills moms who will make their kids wear masks forever.
The CDC does have a point.
It is an undeniable fact that wearing a face mask lowers the likelihood of becoming infected with Covid, even if that probability has a decimal point and several zeroes preceding it.
But then swaddling your children in bubble-wrap before sending them out to play undeniably lowers their risk of injury.
So what next? Will we see bubble-boys bouncing about school playgrounds?
It is not likely to happen, it is certain to happen.
Not just “incidents” but “many incidents.”
If it is not about freedom, what does Krugman think that it is about?
Given the state of our media, post Jusse Smollet, post “Russian Collusion,” and post Covington high school kids, if you read a news story about a MAGA guy tearing the face masks off of a bunch of sickly school children, would you believe it?
No doubt Krugman would.
I sincerely hope the reprobates never stop wearing their little maskies. It’s so nice to be able to recognize them at a distance.
It is an undeniable fact that wearing a face mask lowers the likelihood of becoming infected with Covid, even if that probability has a decimal point and several zeroes preceding it.
Oh. That’s news to me, Greg. Please cite the peer reviewed, controlled clinical study that concluded little cloth and paper surgical maskies do anything to stop the spread of any virus. I’ll wait.
I don’t think that you can say with confidence that wearing a mask in real-world conditions decreases your likelihood of contracting covid, Greg.
The celebrated Bangladesh study has methodological problems, including self selection by members of the control and test groups. Besides, the numbers were small enough to be in the noise. The study had over 200,000 subjects, and the number of subjects who tested positive for covid in both groups was around 1,500, almost exactly evenly split between the control and the test groups.
Do medical personnel wear n95 masks to protect themselves or patients from respiratory viruses? That’s not why surgeons wear them when they are operating on patients.
No one has ever been able to tell me if the mask is supposed to prevent me from getting covid, or prevent me from passing it along to others.
If I have been out and about wearing a mask all day, should I assume the inside or outside of the mask is contaminated? “The inside,” “the outside,” “both,” and “neither” all seem to be useless responses.
Masks are the modern equivalent of wearing religious medallions during the plagues of the Middle Ages; a matter of faith.
I read that many travelers, upon hearing that the mandate was lifted, said they were going to keep wearing their masks to be safe. But masks were said to keep you from spreading the virus to others, not to keep others from giving it to you. Wearing a mask – especially if you don’t have COVID – doesn’t keep you from catching the virus.
I find this incomprehensible:
https://twitter.com/ValerieJarrett/status/1516451750852575243?s=20
Does Jarret think that Judge Mizelle’s vacating the CDC’s public transport mask mandate affects individuals in their car? Or that it banned individuals from wearing a mask? Or that Judge Mizelle’s finding was based on science rather than the law?
Typical liberal “reasoning.”
It’s never enough. Cases will never be zero. There will never be an acceptable amount of risk for some.
But Night Writer, the Mask Up Minnesota campaign says that you wear a mask to “protect yourself and others”!
I hear that there is chaos in parts of the US which still have local mask mandates, because, for example, while Uber and Lyft have lifted their mask mandates, some of the areas in which they operate still have mandates. To make matters worse, most of the remaining local mandates still reference the CDC rule that has been vacated.
What it would take to end the confusion is a little leadership from the Biden administration, one way or the other, but the Biden administration has not sought a stay on judge Mizelle’s order pending word from the CDC which may be weeks away.
Biden himself, when asked about masking after Judge Mizelle’s order gave a shrugged “it’s up to them” response.
It really doesn’t matter if Biden is senile moron. His administration would not behave any differently if it was.
If you leave out the original, Delta, Omicron and BA.2 surges, Covid infection is less dangerous than driving.
Strange how almost all of the mask-related violence and intimidation stories that I’ve heard about to date have been some self-appointed defender of the “vulnerable”, harassing a mother of small children who aren’t masked, or pursuing a maskless woman around a Target, repeatedly violating the 6-ft separation rule. I’ve seen at least one account of somebody who got hostile to a property owner asking him to mask up. Strange how such stories get regional if not national coverage, despite the anti-mandate crowd often repudiating such behavior.
It seems Krugman wants such people on the “anti-” side to be the rule rather than the exception. The reality is that there’s a strong libertarian streak in the anti-mandate crowd, so logically it follows we don’t give a flying expletive about the personal choices of others. The pro-mandate crowd, on the other hand, have shown their strong authoritarian tendencies. To them, it seems no personal choice, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, is without impact. Follow their reasoning to its logical end, and the ones more honest with themselves will acknowledge, if they haven’t done so already, that there is no such thing as a “personal choice” in their world.
1) Citing a “probability with a decimal point and several zeroes preceding it” shift the discussion well away from science into a realm known as satire. I thought that was self-evident.
2) “Peer review” is not an indicator of quality, since in most cases, it would be better labeled as “pal review”.
3) Oh, just for the hell of it. A good summary of the science of face masks can be found here ->COMMENTARY: What can masks do? Part 1: The science behind COVID-19 protection
It is kinda why surgeons wear a mask when they bend over your body to cut you open.
Does this mean I wear a face mask to prevent Covid? Not on your life. Despite all the “science”, face masks are of marginal utility.
Note for those who do not understand satire: My comments above satirized both the marginal utility of face masks to prevent covid as well as the marginal utility of swaddling children in bubble wrap to prevent injury.
c’mon Greg, see what happens when you forget to use the sarcasm tag?
Biden himself, when asked about masking after Judge Mizelle’s order gave a shrugged “it’s up to them” response.
Who knew that Hot Mess Walensky was actually running the country!
One kinda wonders why the CDC fails to recommend and the Biden administrator fails to mandate that women (birthing people) not wear high heels given that they are proven to be a safety hazard, with a risk of serious injury and possible fatalities.
See Injuries from high heels on the rise
Inquiring minds want to know… Does Karen wear high heels?
Not to stir the pot, Greg, but
“Citing a “probability with a decimal point and several zeroes preceding it” shift the discussion well away from science into a realm known as satire. I thought that was self-evident.”
We’re talking about the bat flu and the Dempanic here. There is absolutely nothing self evident and the whole issue should have an “/s” behind it.
“Peer review” is not an indicator of quality, since in most cases, it would be better labeled as “pal review”.
True, but it’s what I have to work with. It’s still a step above “Fauchi said” because there are names tied to it, which will be handy when it comes to any mocking necessary later.
“Oh, just for the hell of it. A good summary of the science of face masks can be found here ->COMMENTARY: What can masks do? Part 1: The science behind COVID-19 protection”
“Commentary”…I have comments, you have comments, Fauchi has comment. We’re awash in comments; I’m looking for that Science ™ everyone is believing.
“It is kinda why surgeons wear a mask when they bend over your body to cut you open.” Well, yeah. It is helpful to wear a mask if you drool, or are losing hair.
“Does this mean I wear a face mask to prevent Covid? Not on your life. Despite all the “science”, face masks are of marginal utility.”
For preventing viral transmission, they have zero utility. And, I *do* have some peer reviewed, controlled studies that prove that.
No harm, no foul.
I’m betting Krugman is rAT’s go-to guy for financial advice…it’s how he finances his lux Lakeside Estate ™, and his BeRKie trainings.
Also, I’ve taken notice that Krugman’s market insights sound just like rAT’s.
Probably best to differentiate between wearing masks in general and mask mandates. The mask does change the pattern of exhalation and thus has been demonstrated to reduce infection rates. Mask Mandates, on the other hand, have been demonstrated to have little or no effect on infection rates.
Question #3 is whether it’s smarter for the non-vulnerable population to reduce infection rates, or to just get the disease and (99.99% of the time) simply get on with life. I’m leaning towards just getting the disease being the smarter option, i.e. “Camp COVID” for kids.
And Krugman? Odd that a guy with sometimes good insight into economics–his Sveriges Riksbank theory does explain a lot of things–would say such strange things at other times, including about economics.
Saw earlier today a report that Milwaukee public schools are reinstating a mask mandate. I believe there are other areas with the same delusion. For those of you keeping score at home, Minnesota has recorded eight deaths in the 0-19 year age group allegedly caused by Covid in the past two years. In 2020, the number of auto accident related deaths in the same age group was 45. What to do? Kids can’t ride in cars?
“Camp COVID” for kids
Like that. Beats Camp Trannie or Camp LearnToMasturbateWithTheCounselor for kids.
Good call, golfdoc. Maybe it’s just the exercise of power that’s the important part.
Just heard a commentary in support of Judge Mizelle’s ruling, that states with the mask mandates, had infection rates that were on par with those that didn’t mandate them. The irony is that WuFlu death rates, were slightly higher in the states with mandates. I missed where it came from, due to the intensity of the rain on my car roof.
The mask does change the pattern of exhalation and thus has been demonstrated to reduce infection rates.
Well, I can see where that’s true. Depressed respirations and prolonged Hypoxia would probably keep you from spraying bugs as far as you would otherwise.
Saw earlier today a report that Milwaukee public schools are reinstating a mask mandate.
The tykes can probably take them off during oral application of male condoms, and use of dental dams 101. Or maybe they just cut some holes in them, idk.
Big differences between comments and scientific commentary. The commentary I referenced has footnotes ™ that cite actual studies. The authors back up what they are saying….quite well.
What is peer-review other than comments? Have you been through the process? It is nothing but comments. Some the author and editors take seriously, others not.
Peer review works okay for mundane science, but for controversial subjects, it is pure gate-keeping and little more.
Really?
You have studies that cite the statistical result of 0.0? I have never seen such a thing. I doubt that anyone else has. Anyone who has read the literature has seen things like “statistically insignificant”, “below the margin of error”, “outside the error bars” and “marginal at best”, but 0.0? Please send me the citations.
The efficacy of masks to reduce respiratory viral transmission by way of aerosols has been well documented for over a century. Viruses and bacteria do not travel on their own out of the respiratory system. They are transported within and on aerosols, both very small and very large. Simple cloth masks do inhibit the broadcast range of all aerosols and prevent large one from escaping…..at least a little bit.
The better the mask, the smaller the aerosols are filtered.
ie. masks work.
The question is, do they work as an effective tool to prevent the spread of covid in a large population. The answer to that is no, but that is a hell of a lot different than do they work.
I mean, hell, chop sticks work too, but I wouldn’t shovel my driveway with them.
The Commentary podcast features a round table of east coast neocon (almost) #nevertrumpers. Three months ago they uniformly endorsed mask regimes mandates as common sense, other than in public schools where a mask mandate hurt children with no appreciable benefit.
They seemed to expect that with the growing challenges to mask mandates the CDC would finally produce and vigorously defend the science behind mask mandates for adults in public places.
These days they all believe that mandates are useless political posturing. What seems to have driven them to this about-face is the inability of the CDC to address the issue of mask mandates in a consistent and science-driven way despite the demand from citizens and politicians for them to do so.
The efficacy of masks to reduce respiratory viral transmission by way of aerosols has been well documented for over a century.
So, there must be a mountain of research on it. Sweet! I’m ready for the download. As I’ve said, I’m a lad who is always ready to learn something.
The better the mask, the s
BTW…we’re talking strictly about surgical and cloth maskies (with or without sequins or sortsball logos) here. Not SCBA.
What seems to have driven them to this about-face is the inability of the CDC to address the issue of mask mandates in a consistent and science-driven way
From day 1
Gonna pile on a it, here….because I should.
Big differences between comments and scientific commentary.
Fauchi relies on his Scientific ™ background to warrant claims that have been thoroughly trashed since his AIDS debacle. There are a steaming heap of government funded Scientists ™ that have opined on the imminent demise of the Earth from:
Global Warming
Global Cooling
Global Climate Change
CFC’s
Alien invasion
Over population
Sunspots
Carbon Monoxide
White Supremacy
Whale extinction
The “China syndrome”
It’s been 40 years for a lot of this; I’m still waiting.
“Over population”…lol I crack myself up
^^ Number of Twitter tender offers today: 0
Still waiting for Elon’s tender offer — maybe 4:20 PST?
Two years ago, when this snowball from Hell started rolling down hill, I had access, through my work, to basically every scientific paper that had ever been written. I saw politicians in the state I lived in then (Hawaii) install mask and social distancing mandates while claiming that it was beyond question that this was the response that scientific research demanded.
So I looked up the science on the utility of cloth face masks preventing the spread of aerosol viruses.
There wasn’t much written about the topic back in the Spring of 2020. The most relied upon study was done by the Aussies and it studied pilgrims on haj to Mecca from Australia. Apparently that is a cross social class, multi-national event and a lot of Muslims wear a cloth face covering in the belief that it would prevent them from catching (not from spreading) airborne viruses.
The Australian study said that, number one, it was very difficult to rigorously study the effect of masks to prevent the spread of airborne viral diseases for technical reasons, and, number two, the bad methodology that the researchers had to deal with had led the them to conclude that masking offered no measurable protection from contracting or spreading an airborne virus.
I am exasperated by the irrational belief in mask mandates. There is a very narrow range of human problems that are actually a matter that can be addressed by science. This is one of them. And people who call themselves “scientists” ignore the science?
Jpa’s 7:49, nailed it. The judge did not lift the mask mandate because masks are ineffective. The judge lifted the mandate because the mandate was illegally adopted.
For two years, we’ve been living under an illegal rule. What are we going to do about it?
Krugman’s fretting about backlash reminds me of every Liberal after a Muslim terrorist attack.
Sent too soon.
Krogman’s fretting about backlash reminds me of every liberal after a Muslim terrorist attack. There damn well should be backlash in this case, not against mask wearers, but against the people who gleefully imposed the Mandate. Because the Mandate was never about the science, it was about control, and opposition to the mandate was always about the freedom.
Three minutes on DuckDuckGo revealed the following tip of the iceberg peer-reviewed studies. I am sure that ten minutes might be enough to convince one that masks are more than 0.0 effective at filtering out the aerosols that carry bacteria and viruses (like covid).
Would one use these studies to rationalize wearing a mask while driving alone down a remote rural road? Probably not.
Could one use these studies to rationalize mandating mask wearing for the general public? Absolutely not.
There is a huge difference between saying masks work for inhibiting aerosols and mask mandate are effective or wise policy.
Evaluation of Cloth Masks and Modified Procedure Masks as Personal Protective Equipment for the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Filtration Efficiency of Hospital Face Mask Alternatives Available for Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks
Abhiteja Konda,†⊥ Abhinav Prakash,†‡⊥ Gregory A. Moss,§ Michael Schmoldt,†§ Gregory D. Grant,‡ and Supratik Guha
Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Leung et all
Can someone please tell me what is wrong with these headlines (emphasis mine)?
White House: Legal Defense of Mask Mandate Necessary to Preserve CDC Power
CDC GIVES DOJ GREENLIGHT TO APPEAL RULING THAT ENDED MASK MANDATE
Who is in charge? Who is writing the script? Am I the only one who is on to this insanity? How did we get to this point, so fast?
My guess is that the CDC will lose in the SC, if it gets that far. It may take down, along the way, a lot of state and federal laws that were intended to give gov’t agencies extra-constitutional power in case of a real emergency where it is literally impossible to follow the constitution and survive.
MP, I disagree. No matter the case, goobernment agencies have to act on the direction of the elected officials – ie WH and Congress, not the other way around. So, the takedown is long overdue. Else, when EVERYHTING is an emergency, non-elected, not-accountable vermin and scum like Fauxchi will weld a face diaper on your face and you will have no recourse. When a hung toenail is considered a national emergency and is a reason to circumvent constitution, what good is the constitution in the first place? We survive precisely because some of us still believe in the Constitution and enumerated powers. So, no! It is not just literally possible to follow the constitution and survive in case of a real emergency, it is imperative we do so.
I agree with you, mostly, JPA, the trick is that real emergencies that would require suspension of constitutional rights would, by definition, be vanishingly rare. They could not be a routine method of enacting policy, which is what some governors (and feds) want them to be.
” . . . real emergencies that would require suspension of constitutional rights . . . ”
I can’t help but notice the Founding Fathers did not include an emergency exeption in the Constitution. I realize I’m something of a Founding Fathers Fanboy so my thinking on this may be skewed, but maybe that’s because they were smarter than to do that?
Maybe they studied history well enough and suffered under an absolute monarch long enough to conclude an exception would be an open invitation for every would-be tyrant to declare an emergency at whim, with nobody to check or balance him? Maybe they concluded the loophole would consume the rule and freedom would be lost, possibly never to be recovered as the never-ending emergency continued? Two weeks to flatten the curve, two semesters to learn from home, two years of wearing masks . . . .
An emergency which justifies suspending the Constitution. I’m trying to think of one. Let’s make it an absurd example: make it an emergency which justifies declaring the 13th Amendment is suspended and every person having one drop of Black blood must report to cental authority to be assigned as slave to a new master. Help me out, please. What would that emergency look like?
What, we can’t turn Blacks into slaves but we can close your house of worship, ban political assembly, shutter your place of business, place an entire state under house arrest? Why is one constitutionally protected fundamental inviolable in an ’emergency’ but others are not?
I’m seeing a slippery slope, here.
Slippery slope? It is certified double black diamond and we halfway down the mountain! Remember Habeas Corpus?