SSeveral Democrats and public health officials are now calling for an end to most pandemic restrictions, including rules requiring indoor and outdoor masking.
Yet, not so long ago, these same COVID-19 zealots were banging on the “wear a mask, mouth-breathing grandma” drum.
The “science,” according to CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen. That’s not true, but his cynicism knows no bounds.
“Science has changed,” she said this week during an interview with presenter Anderson Cooper. “There was, and still is, a time and a place for pandemic restrictions. But when they were put in place, it was always with the understanding that they would be removed as soon as possible. And, in this case, the circumstances have changed.
She added, “responsibility should shift from a government mandate imposed by the state or local school district…it should shift to an individual responsibility of the family, who can always decide that their child can wear a mask. if necessary “.
This is a remarkable and sudden about-face for one of the biggest proponents of top-down and excessive COVID-19 restrictions.
Last fall, Wen said the United States was “far from” ready to lift school mask mandates. She said that day would only come when all school children were vaccinated.
Later, in December, she said, “We should demand masks that are most effective in preventing disease transmission. Everyone, including children, should wear at least a 3-ply surgical mask indoors and around others with unknown vaccination status.
Incidentally, when she said in December that we needed to triple the masking rules, citing “high levels” of COVID-19, daily cases averaged around 168,500. Daily cases are currently in average of about 253,782. Why this change of heart, even despite the high number of cases?
Even more recently, just three weeks ago to be exact, Wen excitedly announced, “BREAKING: CDC is finally updating mask guidance for the highest quality mask that can be worn consistently. . We have been known for [more than a year] that COVID-19 is airborne. At present, N95/KN95 are expected to be widely distributed and required in crowded indoor public places. »
Today, she recommends the exact opposite.
On Tuesday, Wen tweeted, “Before there were 2 camps, for and against the pandemic restrictions. Now there’s a 3rd: pro-restrictions earlier but acknowledging it’s a different time now. This group wants to move from vitriol and division to nuance and compromise.
“Division”? “To nuance”? “Compromise”? This from the same “medical expert” who suggested last summer that life “must be tough” for the unvaccinated? This from the medical “expert” who said last September that unvaccinated people should not be allowed to leave their homes?
If you find Wen’s sudden, inexplicable pivot both shameless and infuriating, know that she has company.
Reliable blue strongholds including New York, New Jersey and even California have announced plans to relax their onerous COVID-19 regulations – just like that, with case numbers virtually unchanged, and just weeks after haranguing their residents to comply with pandemic protocols. In response to news that Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom plans to ease the state’s pandemic restrictions, Democratic Representative Ted Lieu of California responded with praise.
“Democrats like Gavin Newsom are leading the way to safely get America back to normal,” the congressman said.
Oddly enough, not too long ago, Lieu tweeted: “Please get vaccinated when you can, wash your hands frequently and wear a mask in public.
The reason the difference between these two posts is curious is this: Lieu’s memo urging everyone to mask up came when California’s case count was a tenth of its current level. Cases in California are much higher now than they were then, but the congressman is pushing for a loosening of the guidelines.
The number of cases is a weak metric that doesn’t really tell us much about the state of the pandemic. We have been above that. However, in the event of an about-face on COVID-19 restrictions, that’s beside the point. The point is this: Lieu, Wen and other pandemic zealots have used case numbers to inform public policy. Why, then, are they applauding the easing of restrictions when case numbers are essentially unchanged from this time last year, when these were aggressively pro-pandemic regulations?
Well, as Wen said, science, blessed be its most holy name, has changed.
Political science, that is.
the New York Times reports this week (emphasis ours):
The easing of New York’s pandemic restrictions on businesses comes as Democratic-led states from New Jersey to California announced similar measures this week, in a loosely coordinated effort that is the result of months of planning. public health, behind-the-scenes discussions and political discussion groups which began in the weeks following the November elections.
It was Governor Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey who started the effort last fall, weeks after he was stunned by the energy of right-wing voters in his blue state, who nearly ousted him from his seats. duties in what was widely expected to be an easy re-election campaign. Holding a series of focus groups across the state to see what they had missed, Murphy’s advisers were struck by the results: Overall, voters shared frustrations with the measures to public health, a sense of pessimism about the future and a deep desire to regain some sense of normality.
Public polls suggest the Democrats are headed for a bloodbath in the 2022 midterm elections. One can only imagine what their internal poll looks like.
So, in case you were wondering where this sudden pivot came from, now you know. For some “scientists”, politics is everything.