“As the greatest inflation spike of the last 50 years occurs, the utter failure of economists, their models, and many pundits to foresee what was coming is worth highlighting. Of course, the biggest malfunction in the story was that of the Federal Reserve itself, which had a clear mandate to keep prices stable and seems surprised by their lack of stability.
It’s no understatement to say that the Fed failed to properly anticipate the inflation surge. On Feb. 8, 2021, Raphael Bostic, the president of the Atlanta branch of the Fed, said, “I’m really not expecting us to see a spike in inflation that is very robust in the next 12 months or so.” A few days later, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren echoed this sentiment, noting that he would be “surprised” to see broad-based inflation sustained at a level of two percent before the end of 2022.
As the saying goes, problems often start at the top. When testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in February 2021, Fed Chair Jerome Powell predicted that it might take more than three years to hit the two percent inflation goal.
Around the summer of 2021, inflation became hard to ignore. Yet Fed officials insisted that it wasn’t yet time to roll back their temporary policies because they weren’t responsible for the rise in prices. The main villain was identified as supply-chain restraints. Once resolved, we were told, inflation would prove to be transitory. Testifying in June of last year before a House subcommittee, Powell said:
“If you look…at the categories where these prices are really going up, you’ll see that it tends to be areas that are directly affected by the reopening. That’s something that we’ll go through over a period…then be over. And it should not leave much of a mark on the ongoing inflation process.”
During a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, last August, Powell again echoed this sentiment. He also noted that “longer-term inflation expectations have moved much less than actual inflation or near-term expectations, suggesting that households, businesses, and market participants also believe that current high inflation readings are likely to prove transitory.”
But as Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane has been reminding us all along, long-term inflation expectations are notoriously poor predictors of inflation. Sadly, few listened, and team “transitory” was born.”
“Laboratory studies indicate that masks, especially N95 respirators, can help reduce virus transmission. But as Flam notes, “the benefits of universal masking have been difficult to quantify” in the real world, where cloth models predominate and masks may not be clean, well-fitted, or worn properly.
The strongest real-world evidence in favor of general masking comes from a randomized trial in Bangladesh, which found that the use of surgical masks reduced symptomatic infections by 11 percent. That’s not nothing, but it’s a pretty modest effect, and it was achieved with surgical masks worn by adults in conditions that encouraged proper and consistent use. The same study found that cloth masks did not have a statistically significant effect.”
…
“Given the situation during the omicron surge, there are additional reasons to doubt that mask mandates, even with perfect compliance, had much of an impact. While mandates required shoppers to don masks before entering supermarkets, for example, the risk of transmission in such settings is low, given the amount of time customers usually spend in them, the size of the air space, and typically wide distances between patrons. Conditions in bars and restaurants are more conducive to virus transmission, since customers spend more time there in closer proximity to each other, often while talking. But since people were allowed to remove their masks while eating and drinking, requiring them to cover their faces upon entry was more a symbolic gesture than a serious safeguard.
Beyond the question of how effective masking is in practice, there is the question of what impact mask mandates have on behavior. Even if masking works, that does not necessarily mean mandates do.
An Annals of Epidemiology study published last May found that mask mandates in the United States were associated with lower transmission rates from June through September 2020. “The probability of becoming a rapid riser county was 43% lower among counties that had statewide mask mandates at reopening,” the researchers reported. But the study did not take into account other policies or voluntary safeguards that may have differed between jurisdictions with and without mask mandates. Nor did it look at actual mask wearing, as opposed to legal requirements.
Based on data from various countries and U.S. states from May to September 2020, a preprint study published last June found that general mask wearing was associated with a reduction in virus transmission. But the researchers found no clear relationship between mask mandates and mask use. “We do not find evidence that mandating mask-wearing reduces transmission,” the authors reported. “Our results suggest that mask-wearing is strongly affected by factors other than mandates.”
An August 2021 systematic review of 21 observational studies found that all of them “reported SARS-CoV-2 benefits” from mask mandates “in terms of reductions in either the incidence, hospitalization, or mortality, or a combination of these outcomes.” But “few studies assessed compliance to mask wearing policies or controlled for the possible influence of other preventive measures such as hand hygiene and physical distancing.”
Like the debate about lockdowns, the debate about mask mandates will continue. Because there are so many variables to account for, it is very difficult to isolate the impact of any given policy. But it seems clear that anyone who takes it for granted that mask mandates have played a crucial role in controlling the spread of COVID-19 is making a series of assumptions that are not justified by the evidence.”
“Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has declared all medical treatment of transgender minors to be child abuse and says that his office could prosecute parents of transgender children, as well as “mandatory reporters” who fail to report medical treatment of transgender children to the state. In tandem, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has urged state officials to begin investigating any families that may be giving their trans kids puberty-blocking drugs or hormones, or allowing them to undergo surgical treatments.”
…
“This, apparently, is not just a friendly suggestion from the state’s attorney general. On Tuesday Gov. Abbott sent a memo to the commissioners of the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services summarizing Paxton’s memo and ordering the agency to investigate any parents found providing transgender medical care to their children. He threatens criminal penalties for anybody who fails to report it to the government.
What about the rights of patients? And of parents? Paxton’s memo argues that the Texas “Legislature has not provided any avenue for parental consent, and no judicial avenue exists for the child to proceed with these procedures and treatments without parental consent.”
Apparently, it’s impossible to consent to your child receiving medical care without the Texas Legislature passing a new law. That’s an interesting version of conservatism.”
“For nearly a decade, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been trying to lift some of the secrecy cloaking the operations of the federal court that oversees foreign intelligence warrants. But in November, the Supreme Court declined to consider an ACLU petition arguing that the public has a First Amendment right to see the court’s classified decisions.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approves electronic surveillance, physical searches, and demands for business records targeting “a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.” Agencies seeking warrants have to claim that the collection of foreign intelligence is a “significant purpose” of their investigations and follow “minimization” procedures aimed at limiting collection of information about U.S. citizens or legal residents.
Since 2013, the ACLU has been seeking the release of FISC opinions, redacted as necessary, regarding the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ telephone records and online data. That practice, which was revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, was based on a controversial interpretation of PATRIOT Act provisions that expired in 2015. The USA FREEDOM Act, which Congress approved that year, renewed those provisions but imposed new restrictions on bulk collection of telecommunication metadata.
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISC is supposed to protect Americans from unjustified federal snooping. But it is hard to assess how well the court is doing that without seeing its rulings. Because those opinions are classified, the Justice Department argues, only the executive branch has the authority to release them.
When the Supreme Court declined to hear the ACLU’s petition, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, noting that “FISC evaluates extensive surveillance programs that carry profound implications for Americans’ privacy and their rights to speak and associate freely.” Gorsuch took a dim view of the government’s argument that the courts have no authority to approve the release of FISC opinions.
“This case presents questions about the right of public access to Article III judicial proceedings of grave national importance,” he wrote. “Maybe even more fundamentally, this case involves a governmental challenge to the power of this Court to review the work of Article III judges in a subordinate court. If these matters are not worthy of our time, what is?””