Thank you for this. It is not just the internal inconsistencies/contradictions, it is their complete disregard for studies-since 2021/2022 that showed viral load and transmission was the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and that at the very least vaccinated individuals were transmitting symptomatic or asymptomatic. They seem particularly deaf to international studies though they ignored US as well.A timeline with published papers dated alongside would show what they ignored.. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v2
Something I've wondered a lot, and wish a lawyer could explain, is whether there can ever be grounds for a court to consider the *substantive merits* of a regulation in cases where the relevant authority (which normally gets deferred to) is unambiguously wrong - e.g. contradicting itself as seen here.
Most of the successful Covid-era lawsuits have been procedural, about what power different agencies do and don't have. Or constitutional, when they infringe on a core right like free practice of religion. But is there really no limiting principle at all, for a regulation that is issued with proper procedure/jurisdiction but utterly meritless?
If that's the case, what legislative steps could be taken to rein it in? Could (a Republican) Congress demand that all CDC actions be backed up with a stated rationale than can survive "rational basis" scrutiny, or something like that?
Thank you for this. It is not just the internal inconsistencies/contradictions, it is their complete disregard for studies-since 2021/2022 that showed viral load and transmission was the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and that at the very least vaccinated individuals were transmitting symptomatic or asymptomatic. They seem particularly deaf to international studies though they ignored US as well.A timeline with published papers dated alongside would show what they ignored.. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34320281/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014281?via%3Dihub
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w
Thanks for compiling this.
Something I've wondered a lot, and wish a lawyer could explain, is whether there can ever be grounds for a court to consider the *substantive merits* of a regulation in cases where the relevant authority (which normally gets deferred to) is unambiguously wrong - e.g. contradicting itself as seen here.
Most of the successful Covid-era lawsuits have been procedural, about what power different agencies do and don't have. Or constitutional, when they infringe on a core right like free practice of religion. But is there really no limiting principle at all, for a regulation that is issued with proper procedure/jurisdiction but utterly meritless?
If that's the case, what legislative steps could be taken to rein it in? Could (a Republican) Congress demand that all CDC actions be backed up with a stated rationale than can survive "rational basis" scrutiny, or something like that?