by Tony Wikrent
Strategic Political Economy
[The Lancet, via Naked Capitalism 5-8-2022]
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) May 28, 2021 guidance, which lifted masking recommendations for vaccinated people in most situations, exemplifies a troubling shift—away from public health objectives that center equity and toward a model of individual personal responsibility for health. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky emphasized that “your health is in your hands”, undermining the idea that fighting COVID is a “public” health responsibility that requires the support of institutions and communities. The social impacts of this scientific guidance, combined with the emergence of new variants, have exposed the fallacy of this approach, with most local mask restrictions lifted and infections rising dramatically among disadvantaged populations. Rapidly rising cases prompted the CDC on July 27th to recommend resuming indoor masking even for vaccinated people in “areas of substantial or high transmission” , but US policy continues to frame the pandemic largely as a matter of individual responsibility—to the detriment of public health. As public health professionals and advocates, we call for a renewed commitment to core public health principles of collective responsibility, health equity, and human rights.
Public health implicates government obligations to realize the health of populations, focusing on “what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy” . Securing public health does not merely reflect the health of many individual persons, rather a collective “public” good that is greater than the sum of its parts. Public health actions protect and promote the health of entire populations through multi-sectoral interventions to address underlying determinants of health.
TSA Covid Infections Have Jumped 50% Since The Mask Mandate Was Lifted
[Forbes, via Naked Capitalism 5-9-2022]
Public Health Theory and Practice in the Constitutional Design (pdf)
Lawrence O. Gostin [11 Health Matrix: The Journal of Law—Medicine, 265 (2001)]
This article views public health through the lens of constitutional law by exploring government duty and authority, the division of powers under our federal system, and the limits on government power. Part I examines constitutional duties, if any, imposed on government. It observes that the Supreme Court sees the Constitution in negative, or defensive, terms and argues that this provides a sterile, uninspiring vision of government obligation. Part II examines governmental powers under the Constitution. While the Court sees few affirmative obligations, it does acknowledge a broad governmental authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the population. This Part reviews the emergence of “new federalism” in Supreme Court jurisprudence, altering the power between the federal government and the states. In particular, it inquires whether the Rehnquist Court, by restricting the scope of national authority, is seriously thwarting public health policy and practice.
The carnage of mainstream neoliberal economics
Despite the Despair, It Was Great Seeing You
Mark Blyth, May 7, 2022 [Youtube]
At 28:29: It’s absolutely clear that this is not a monetary phenomenon… There’s a thing called the Milton dictum: inflation is always… a monetary phenomena and it’s this case is proving that it’s really not, it’s simply the fracturing of global supply chains.
That’s what’s driving all this, and you could say the pandemic spending, but then you’ve got to say yeah but the pandemic spending wasn’t actually a stimulus it was income replacement because the economy had shut down… The last of those checks went out 12 months ago and were spent nine months ago…that’s not powering the the price of goods anymore….
It’s not the fact that the Fed’s spending all this money because you don’t spend central bank money, you spend money that you get issued through the commercial banking sector. The banking sector’s making money hand over fist because everybody’s buying a bunch of stuff but as inflation goes up that will slow down. So it’s really not clear to me that, you know, let’s raise interest rates, is going to actually do anything about the fact that you’ve got 500 ships parked off of Shanghai and you can’t get any stuff because the city’s in a lockdown.
These things seem to be totally disconnected but as usual we’ve managed to whip ourselves up into a narrative whereby, well it’s inflation, so it must be about money; the Fed must do something and they probably spent too much — look at all that pandemic money. Just ignore the facts of the supply chain stuff you know or mention it but then immediately you know pivot towards a monetary explanation for no reason….
.
WP 01 Pavlina R. Tcherneva Three Lessons from Government Spending and the Post-Pandemic Recovery
Pavlina R. Tcherneva [EDI Resources Database, via Mike Norman Economics 5-9-2022]
The central lesson of the COVID-19 fiscal response is that money is not scarce. Without delay, governments around the world appropriated budgets that dwarfed any other postwar crisis policy. In 2020, Japan passed a stimulus package equal to 54.8 percent of GDP, while in the U.S., it was equivalent to 26.9 percent and in Canada to 20.1 percent. Italy, France, and Germany spent 10.1, 10.4, and 10.7 percent of GDP, respectively (Dziedzicki et al. 2021).…
How There’s More to Economics Than the Science of Scarcity
Nicholas Gruen [Evonomics, via Mike Norman Economics 5-8-2022]