January 2022 – Page 245

No Stay in Doe v. Mills, the Maine Healthcare Worker Vaccination Mandate Case

From Doe v. Mills, decided today by Chief Judge Jon Levy (D. Me.):

“‘A stay is an intrusion into the ordinary process of administration and judicial review,’ and is therefore ‘not a matter of right,’ but rather is an exercise of discretion.” The First Circuit has cautioned that “stays cannot be cavalierly dispensed: there must be good cause for their issuance; they must be reasonable in duration; and the court must ensure that competing equities are weighed and balanced.” “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” …

The Plaintiffs contend that good cause for a stay exists because the Supreme Court is likely to grant their petition for writ of certiorari, the case involves a substantial question of law that could be dispositive of the case, and a stay would prevent potentially unnecessary litigation on the merits. For reasons I will explain, these arguments are unpersuasive.

First, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Supreme Court is likely to grant the petition for writ of certiorari is unavailing. They argue that although only three Supreme Court Justices voted to grant the injunctive relief they sought in this case, two additional Justices who had concurred in the denial explained that they did not want to analyze the issues raised by the Plaintiffs’ request in the context of an emergency application from one case. The Plaintiffs argue that those two Justices will likely support review through the ordinary petition process now that similar litigation from the Second Circuit has also reached the Supreme Court through a petition for emergency relief.

The Plaintiffs’ argument fails to account for the fact that the two Justices who declined to grant the requested emergency injunctive relief indicated that they viewed the case as a poor candidate for a grant of certiorari. Justice Barrett cautioned against granting emergency relief where the applicant is unlikely to succeed on the merits because, “[w]ere the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take.” Justice Kavanaugh joined in this opinion. Although far from certain, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh’s stated reason for denying emergency injunctive relief suggests that they will not support a grant of certiorari review.

The Plaintiffs’ argument that good cause exists to stay the proceedings because a substantial question of law exists relies singularly on Justice Gorsuch’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s denial of their application for emergency injunctive relief. Justice Gorsuch wrote that “[t]his case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury.” The Plaintiffs characterize this statement as evidence that they are likely to be granted a writ of certiorari, and that good cause exists for this Court to grant a stay.

The Plaintiffs’ argument obscures the fact that Justice Gorsuch wrote in dissent. The Plaintiffs offer no support for the proposition that at least three additional Justices agree with Justice Gorsuch’s assertion absent the development of a trial court record. In addition, as this Court has previously observed, “[b]ased on sheer numbers, the likelihood that the United States Supreme Court will accept any case on certiorari is remote … especially in the absence of a conflict on the issue among circuit courts.” Here, the two Circuit Courts to address the issues presented here have aligned in rejecting the arguments put forth by the Plaintiffs. See Does 1-6 v. Mills (1st Cir. 2021); We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul (2d Cir. 2021).

The Plaintiffs also argue that because there were two similar New York cases pending review by the Supreme Court on requests for preliminary injunctive relief at the time the Plaintiffs filed their motion to stay proceedings, a merits review of their case is more likely. However, since the Plaintiffs’ filing of their motion to stay proceedings, the Supreme Court has denied injunctive relief in the New York cases. This argument, therefore, lends no support for a stay of this case.

Rather than showing that further development of this case at the trial court level would be unnecessary, the Plaintiffs’ arguments, considered in context, demonstrate that additional development of the record is needed for the full evaluation of the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims at both the trial and appellate levels….

Next, the Plaintiffs argue that because they sought expedited review of the petition for writ of certiorari, and because the Supreme Court will hold its next case conference on January 7, 2022, the delay in proceedings resulting from the grant of a stay would be minimal. However, on December 6, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for expedited review. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs’ petition will be considered during the January 7, 2022 case conference. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated, beyond mere conjecture, that a stay, if granted, would be for a reasonable duration….

The Plaintiffs argue that the equities weigh in their favor because granting a stay would benefit the Court and all parties by avoiding potentially unnecessary litigation costs.

In the context of evaluating a request for a stay of proceedings, “[l]itigation expenses, even a ‘substantial and unrecoupable cost,'” do not give rise to hardship or inequity requiring a stay in proceedings. “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of [the relevant precedent].” The Plaintiffs’ responsibility to pay foreseeable litigation costs associated with a civil action that they initiated does not, without more, give rise to unfair hardship or inequity.

On balance, I find that the public’s interest in the speedy and just determination of civil proceedings, particularly a civil proceeding presenting issues of great public importance, favors the denial of the Plaintiffs’ stay request. For reasons I have already explained, the path to the quickest and final resolution of those issues is the timely development of an evidentiary record by this court….

Noting that there is no specific rule that governs a petition to stay federal district court proceedings pending disposition of a petition for certiorari, the Plaintiffs also argue that a stay should be awarded in keeping with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(1), which applies to petitions to stay the mandate of a circuit court pending filing of a petition for certiorari. Under Appellate Rule 41(d)(1), the litigant seeking a stay “must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay.” The MaineHealth- Genesis Provider Defendants also suggest that the rule provides useful, nonbinding guidance for the exercise of this court’s discretion.

The Plaintiffs challenge Maine’s vaccine mandate on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the lack of religious exemption violates the Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights and that Title VII’s religious accommodation provisions preempt the vaccine mandate. In their petition for a writ of certiorari, the Plaintiffs seek review of the First Circuit’s affirmance of my denial of a preliminary injunction against Maine’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. Since the Plaintiffs’ petition for emergency injunctive relief was denied by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also rejected a request for emergency injunctive relief against a similar New York State vaccine mandate. In [that case], as in this case, the circuit court denied injunctive relief.

Accordingly, no circuit court has affirmed a preliminary injunction in a similar case, so there is no split of circuit authority that presents a substantial question for the Supreme Court to resolve. The Supreme Court’s decisions have made clear that, at least at the preliminary injunction stage, a majority of the Justices do not view the First Amendment issue presented here as raising a substantial question in need of immediate resolution. Additionally, as to the Title VII claims, the Plaintiffs have not argued that a substantial question exists….

The post No Stay in <i>Doe v. Mills</i>, the Maine Healthcare Worker Vaccination Mandate Case appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3EWDU9c
via IFTTT

Rand Paul Vows To Bring Fauci To Justice If GOP Wins Back Senate In Midterms

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Senator Rand Paul has vowed to directly go after Anthony Fauci and bring him to justice over repeated lies while under oath as regards his involvement in gain of function research that took place at Wuhan virology labs.

During a recent interview with his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, the Senator said that if the GOP wins, and he is once again elected, “I will be chairman of a committee in the Senate. We will use the subpoena power to bring forth all the records.”

“Right now they send us records. If we ask about their discussions, covering up where the virus came from, its origins in the lab, they white it all out,” Paul continued, referring to Democrats in power.

“They redact all the information and send us a blank piece of paper and they won’t tell us about their conversations,” the Senator further urged, adding that if power transfers back to Republicans, “We’ll get to the root of everything.”

Paul predicted that should this happen, Fauci will immediately retire and that it would be the “best thing right there for the country because he’s been so damaging.”

“All these blue state governors listen to him and think that it’s science to close a restaurant at 10 o’clock at night or to say that we have to have 25 percent of patrons,” The Senator explained, adding “There’s no evidence that any of the mitigation, any of the rules, and mandates changed the trajectory of the virus at all.”

If Republicans do win back the Senate, Paul is likely to be a front runner to take up the Chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).

Elsewhere during the interview, Paul warned that thousands of Americans are dying from COVID every month because Fauci is obsessed with pushing vaccines in place of therapeutic treatments that are effective in treating the virus.

Watch:

* * *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/04/2022 – 16:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32HMc7W Tyler Durden

No Stay in Doe v. Mills, the Maine Healthcare Worker Vaccination Mandate Case

From Doe v. Mills, decided today by Chief Judge Jon Levy (D. Me.):

“‘A stay is an intrusion into the ordinary process of administration and judicial review,’ and is therefore ‘not a matter of right,’ but rather is an exercise of discretion.” The First Circuit has cautioned that “stays cannot be cavalierly dispensed: there must be good cause for their issuance; they must be reasonable in duration; and the court must ensure that competing equities are weighed and balanced.” “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” …

The Plaintiffs contend that good cause for a stay exists because the Supreme Court is likely to grant their petition for writ of certiorari, the case involves a substantial question of law that could be dispositive of the case, and a stay would prevent potentially unnecessary litigation on the merits. For reasons I will explain, these arguments are unpersuasive.

First, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Supreme Court is likely to grant the petition for writ of certiorari is unavailing. They argue that although only three Supreme Court Justices voted to grant the injunctive relief they sought in this case, two additional Justices who had concurred in the denial explained that they did not want to analyze the issues raised by the Plaintiffs’ request in the context of an emergency application from one case. The Plaintiffs argue that those two Justices will likely support review through the ordinary petition process now that similar litigation from the Second Circuit has also reached the Supreme Court through a petition for emergency relief.

The Plaintiffs’ argument fails to account for the fact that the two Justices who declined to grant the requested emergency injunctive relief indicated that they viewed the case as a poor candidate for a grant of certiorari. Justice Barrett cautioned against granting emergency relief where the applicant is unlikely to succeed on the merits because, “[w]ere the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take.” Justice Kavanaugh joined in this opinion. Although far from certain, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh’s stated reason for denying emergency injunctive relief suggests that they will not support a grant of certiorari review.

The Plaintiffs’ argument that good cause exists to stay the proceedings because a substantial question of law exists relies singularly on Justice Gorsuch’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s denial of their application for emergency injunctive relief. Justice Gorsuch wrote that “[t]his case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury.” The Plaintiffs characterize this statement as evidence that they are likely to be granted a writ of certiorari, and that good cause exists for this Court to grant a stay.

The Plaintiffs’ argument obscures the fact that Justice Gorsuch wrote in dissent. The Plaintiffs offer no support for the proposition that at least three additional Justices agree with Justice Gorsuch’s assertion absent the development of a trial court record. In addition, as this Court has previously observed, “[b]ased on sheer numbers, the likelihood that the United States Supreme Court will accept any case on certiorari is remote … especially in the absence of a conflict on the issue among circuit courts.” Here, the two Circuit Courts to address the issues presented here have aligned in rejecting the arguments put forth by the Plaintiffs. See Does 1-6 v. Mills (1st Cir. 2021); We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul (2d Cir. 2021).

The Plaintiffs also argue that because there were two similar New York cases pending review by the Supreme Court on requests for preliminary injunctive relief at the time the Plaintiffs filed their motion to stay proceedings, a merits review of their case is more likely. However, since the Plaintiffs’ filing of their motion to stay proceedings, the Supreme Court has denied injunctive relief in the New York cases. This argument, therefore, lends no support for a stay of this case.

Rather than showing that further development of this case at the trial court level would be unnecessary, the Plaintiffs’ arguments, considered in context, demonstrate that additional development of the record is needed for the full evaluation of the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims at both the trial and appellate levels….

Next, the Plaintiffs argue that because they sought expedited review of the petition for writ of certiorari, and because the Supreme Court will hold its next case conference on January 7, 2022, the delay in proceedings resulting from the grant of a stay would be minimal. However, on December 6, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for expedited review. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs’ petition will be considered during the January 7, 2022 case conference. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated, beyond mere conjecture, that a stay, if granted, would be for a reasonable duration….

The Plaintiffs argue that the equities weigh in their favor because granting a stay would benefit the Court and all parties by avoiding potentially unnecessary litigation costs.

In the context of evaluating a request for a stay of proceedings, “[l]itigation expenses, even a ‘substantial and unrecoupable cost,'” do not give rise to hardship or inequity requiring a stay in proceedings. “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of [the relevant precedent].” The Plaintiffs’ responsibility to pay foreseeable litigation costs associated with a civil action that they initiated does not, without more, give rise to unfair hardship or inequity.

On balance, I find that the public’s interest in the speedy and just determination of civil proceedings, particularly a civil proceeding presenting issues of great public importance, favors the denial of the Plaintiffs’ stay request. For reasons I have already explained, the path to the quickest and final resolution of those issues is the timely development of an evidentiary record by this court….

Noting that there is no specific rule that governs a petition to stay federal district court proceedings pending disposition of a petition for certiorari, the Plaintiffs also argue that a stay should be awarded in keeping with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(1), which applies to petitions to stay the mandate of a circuit court pending filing of a petition for certiorari. Under Appellate Rule 41(d)(1), the litigant seeking a stay “must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay.” The MaineHealth- Genesis Provider Defendants also suggest that the rule provides useful, nonbinding guidance for the exercise of this court’s discretion.

The Plaintiffs challenge Maine’s vaccine mandate on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the lack of religious exemption violates the Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights and that Title VII’s religious accommodation provisions preempt the vaccine mandate. In their petition for a writ of certiorari, the Plaintiffs seek review of the First Circuit’s affirmance of my denial of a preliminary injunction against Maine’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. Since the Plaintiffs’ petition for emergency injunctive relief was denied by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also rejected a request for emergency injunctive relief against a similar New York State vaccine mandate. In [that case], as in this case, the circuit court denied injunctive relief.

Accordingly, no circuit court has affirmed a preliminary injunction in a similar case, so there is no split of circuit authority that presents a substantial question for the Supreme Court to resolve. The Supreme Court’s decisions have made clear that, at least at the preliminary injunction stage, a majority of the Justices do not view the First Amendment issue presented here as raising a substantial question in need of immediate resolution. Additionally, as to the Title VII claims, the Plaintiffs have not argued that a substantial question exists….

The post No Stay in <i>Doe v. Mills</i>, the Maine Healthcare Worker Vaccination Mandate Case appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3EWDU9c
via IFTTT

WTI Shrugs Off Major Product Builds Last Week, Big Crude Inventory Draw

Oil prices rallied today with WTI erasing all of the post-Omicron losses after OPEC+ agreed to revive more halted production as the outlook for global oil markets improved, with demand largely withstanding the new coronavirus variant.

Global fuel consumption continues to recover from 2020’s collapse. There’s rising traffic and factory activity across key Asian consuming countries and dwindling crude inventories in the U.S., buoying oil prices to nearly $80 a barrel in London.

“The monitoring and analysis show that despite the high level” of Covid-19 infections, “the level of hospitalization is quite low and it isn’t dampening demand,” Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said in an interview with state-run Rossiya 24 TV after the meeting.

As Bloomberg reports, OPEC+ has already restarted about two-thirds of the production they halted in the early stages of the pandemic. They are seeking to drip-feed the remainder at a pace that will satisfy the recovery in fuel consumption — and stave off any inflationary price spike — without sending the market into a new slump.

But for now, all eyes will be on API’s inventory data

API

Crude -6.432mm – biggest draw since Aug 2021
Cushing +2.268mm
Gasoline +7.061mm – biggest build since April 2020
Distillates +4.38mm – biggest build since June 2021

Shockingly large numbers from API last week with a big crude draw and major builds in products…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI was hovering around $77 ahead of the API print…

One thing of note is that the flotilla of LNG from the US has drastically slashed European NatGas prices but in oil barrel equivalents there is still demand for substitution…

The outlook is not all as one way as price and OPEC+ would seems to suggest as air travel saw significant disruption in the U.S. last week, with more than 1,300 flights canceled on Friday and 1,000 scrubbed for Saturday as carriers struggled with staff shortages related to coronavirus infections.
China, Asia’s biggest oil user, has shown signs of weakening fuel demand because of its relentless zero-Covid approach and tough line on pollution, according to road-congestion data from local providers like Baidu Inc.

Even if OPEC+ sticks with its modest increase, prices will likely remain capped at $80 a barrel, says Ipek Ozkardeskaya, senior analyst at Swissquote.

“Even with the idea that better days are ahead of us and recovery should support better demand in oil, the IEA has been warning of a larger global glut in the first months of the year,” she says.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/04/2022 – 16:39

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3EWdm83 Tyler Durden

Why Pandemic Promiscuity Is Out—And ‘Slow Love’ Is In

Last spring, only one thing seemed certain: After a year-plus of being socially distanced, single people everywhere were going to hit the streets—and the sheets—like some mixture of the pre-menopausal Sex and the City women and the randy castaways of Love Island. Everywhere you looked, experts and reporters were predicting a “slutty summer,” a “hot vax summer,” and an eruption of raw carnal desire not seen since the heyday of the sexual revolution.

But those predictions fizzled faster than a horrible first date. “There’s a bar on every single corner in New York City, not everybody’s an alcoholic,” explains Helen Fisher, an anthropologist and author of many books on love and sex, including Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. “Just because things are available, people don’t change who they are and what this pandemic did was it just made all these singles grow up. They are really, as you were just saying, they’re now looking for something stable. Yes, looks still count, but not the way they did.”

Fisher is the chief science adviser to the dating site Match.com, a senior fellow at the Kinsey Institute, and one of the authors of Singles in America, an annual survey of 5,000 representative people of all genders, races, ages, and sexual orientations. Over its 11 years of collecting data, Singles in America has charted the growth of what Fisher calls “slow love,” or an extended vetting process in which people, especially women, are far more choosy and intentional in picking romantic partners. The hot vax summer didn’t happen, says Fisher, because for decades, we’ve been trending away from bad boys and crazy girls and more toward stable, serious relationships that fit in with work commitments.

“It’s amazing how Americans are so dedicated to their career,” says the 76-year-old researcher, especially younger people. “I’m calling them the new Victorians. I mean, they have much less sex than we did in my generation.”

Fisher says that as women have gained equality in education and the workplace, they’ve started to exercise much more discretion when it comes to pairing off and deciding whether to have children. “This year in the Singles in America study, we asked, are you ready to settle down right now? Forty-two percent of men said yes and 29 percent of women said yes. Women spend much more time raising tiny babies before the age of four. So they’re the picky sex.”

The Singles in America survey finds that men overwhelmingly want a partner with an equal or superior career. That’s the so-called Clooney Effect, named for the Oscar winning actor whose wife Amal is a highly regarded human rights lawyer.

In other words, a more libertarian world in which men and women have many more options due to dating apps and much more equality due to social and economic changes, is turning out to be less libertine. Fisher stresses that, as an anthropologist, she isn’t in the “good-bad business,” but she’s convinced that the contemporary world is one that allows for greater individual fulfillment.

“Women aren’t stuck in the home,” she says. “Men aren’t stuck with sole responsibility for the good economic health of the family. We live in a world now where you can really be who you want to be. You can jump class, get yourself an education, move into the job market at a different level. This is all good. We’re living longer! It’s a more exciting time than any time on the planet.”

Editing by Regan Taylor, interview by Nick Gillespie

Photos: KEYSTONE Pictures USA/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; In-house publicity still, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Jack Sexton, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons; Jakub Porzycki/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Matrix/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Artvee; Internet Archive Python library 1.8.1; Joe Russo/imageSPACE/Sipa USA/Newscom; UK Mission to the UN Ne, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Prelinger Archives, Internet Archives

Music: “Lover Please Stay,” by Shtriker Big Band

The post Why Pandemic Promiscuity Is Out—And 'Slow Love' Is In appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zqffZq
via IFTTT

They Said They Would Slow The Spread

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

It’s been the most astonishing two weeks for American public life, with so many prescient changes, from new censorships, admissions, backtracks, experts speaking out, public outrage, and what strikes me as a progressive unraveling of every orthodoxy imposed nearly two years ago.

Not even the influential and powerful are in a position to defend what has happened to us. They seem to be gradually pulling away from public life, unable to say things that connect to what everyone knows.

Above all else, what’s remarkable right now is the undeniable arrival of Covid to a degree to which hardly anyone could have imagined all that time ago, when so many experts set out to deploy their fabulous new system for stopping the spread of a disease.

There was a goal (stop cases). There was a method (state compulsion). And there was a test (cases were supposed to go down and go away). There would be a war on a virus and the state would win! And now we look around and see the evidence of failure so pronounced, so impossible to deny, that we must face that which so many have worked so hard to deny for so long.

The best way I can describe this is by observation. In the Northeast of the US, and in many other parts of the country, everywhere you go, right now, you see sick people milling around. They don’t admit it and they don’t talk about it with strangers simply because there is such shame attached to having Covid. They complain of a cold, of a flu, or just suffer in silence. But there it is.

After nearly two years of work to control the spread, after brutal shutdowns of the whole country – shutdowns that happened two years too early, as judged by actual case trends (but of course lockdowns never should have been considered in the first place) – Covid is here. Not just here. It is everywhere. The case counts are beyond anything anyone on the planet could have imagined a year or two ago. The spikes make everything that came before look like child’s play.

Here is the global chart.

And we are talking really sick. Not so much death. Not even out-of-control hospitalization. We are talking about being sick in bed or walking around with misery. The nasty bug lasts maybe two days, maybe two weeks, maybe longer but it is vexing and wicked, not like a cold or flu but something more electric and strange.

Which variant? Two weeks ago, the CDC wanted to blame it all on Omicron. That is no longer possible. Perhaps that constitutes 20%; we just do not know for sure because tracking is so weak. Most of it is evidently Delta, meaning very sick but with no serious loss of taste and smell. Most everyone eventually gets well, and that’s what happens here.

We get to endemicity perhaps in a month or so and life will move on, my experts tell me, at least in some areas of the country. What’s striking and truly shocking is that all of the efforts, all of the propaganda, all of the astonishing spending and compulsion – the shutdowns, masking, size limits, travel restrictions, vaccination requirements, the track and trace, the endless testing, the enforcement, the intimidations, the censorship – and what do we have to show for it?

Lockdown architect Carter Mecher promised us as follows:

“If you got everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn’t let them talk to anyone, you would not have any disease.”

They attempted a version of that, experimenting on the human population in ways without precedent. And let’s say that is true (it probably isn’t). That is not life. That is not society. That is not freedom. That is something else unimaginably horrific.

It was unsustainable. They pushed their theory without regard to the history of public health or, really, the whole of human experience. And now, the true pandemic finally arrived. And what is it? There are a ton of sick people. People are calling in sick because they cannot come to work. Institutions are having to shut down, not because government closed them but because people are too sick to come to work. This is the normal course of events – exactly what one would expect in a pandemic.

And it’s not just Covid. The head of an Indiana life insurance company reports that deaths among people aged 18-64 are up 40%, an astonishing increase. It’s suicide, drug overdoses, and every other manner of horror. And that’s just death. Many others are just sick from other things.

I personally know dozens and they each know many dozens of more people in the Northeast right now who are down for the count, miserable and pathetic, but still testing negative for Covid. Why would this be? It’s because immune systems have decayed over two years. The lack of vitamin D, the lack of exposure to normal germs in life, the isolation and depression, the overconsumption of liquor and drugs – it’s all been a terrible drain on health.

Meanwhile, the actual pandemic of Covid has certainly arrived. And it is far worse than the data indicated. Look at Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, any of these states, and including some Southern and Midwestern states, and what you find is increases of 500-1,000% in cases. And keep in mind that these are just cases as discovered by official testing spots.

Go to any CVS or Walgreens and you find long lines of people buying testing kits. If they are available. If they are not, the wait is weeks. They are $23 a kit and people are buying as many as possible. Why? Partially it’s because employers and schools are demanding negative tests, but it is also just curiosity. People are sick as dogs and want to confirm their illnesses.

People are estimating that real cases are 50x to 100x what the official data say.

But let’s talk now about a real scandal. When you are sick, you need treatment. Every competent medical professional I know is pretty darn sure that the best hope for dealing with Covid is a combination of Zinc, Vitamin D, and (sorry to mention the dreaded name) Ivermectin. This is not ideological. This is what experienced doctors are saying right now. I’m on many email lists with serious medical professionals and they are all saying the same thing. We can add HCQ to the list if you catch it early enough.

But here’s the kicker – and let me be clear that I’m NOT giving ANY medical advice here, merely just reporting the sense of the community out there.

What’s remarkable is that people are having a very difficult time getting these basic therapeutics.

Vaccines are everywhere but things to make you well once the virus penetrates the vaccine? Those are hard to come by.

There is a problem getting a prescription because state medical boards are actually barring people and preventing them from serving patients if they prescribe HCQ or Ivermectin, as incredible as that sounds. But once you get the prescription – if you have a doctor brave enough to risk it – finding a pharmacy to fill it is another challenge.

Most people in the UK today are getting their therapeutics from India. Americans get them from Mexico. And some are shipping to the US and they are being distributed via gray markets for anyone who is lucky enough to have a contact. It’s a speakeasy nation but this time for distributing basic therapies.

I feel like I’ve seen horrible things for almost two years now, and you feel the same way. But of all the scandals, and there are so many, this one seems to top the list, namely that once the real pandemic has arrived, there are no effective medicines that are widely available. Doctors are actually being blocked from doing their jobs.

Beyond belief. But you know this. I’m sure you have your own stories. I suspect that many of our readers have encountered this virus for the first time in the last two weeks and have dealt with the horrors of just getting basic medicines to get through this.

The NIH has funded almost no serious trials of these generic drugs. It is not in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to fund them either. As a result, we are truly at a loss – nearly two years into a pandemic at a time when people need meds more than ever.

Meanwhile, the FTC is spending its time cracking down on pharmacies that advertise that they have therapeutics available for people. They are sending cease and desist letters all over the country as a way of intimidating providers. I’ve seen these letters. They have invited me to post them but I’ve declined in the interest of keeping people out of trouble.

One merciful upside to all of this is that there is no more talk of lockdowns. At last, even the experts are saying that society must function. Lockdowns are not even being considered. The whole country is fed up with the phony baloney enterprise of virus control. It did not and cannot work.

Nearly two years ago, they deployed a new experiment in stopping a pathogen. It was a plan that was 15 years in the making, hatched by fanatics who imagined that state policy could outwit a virus.

The wreckage was astonishing, and yet what was the payoff? Here we are today with a wave of sickness that defies every prediction, and with collateral damage beyond even the worst predictions (including my own). And the truth of this is all over the data that anyone can see and the stories that anyone can hear.

The country is right now sicker than it has ever been in our lifetimes.

What a stunning repudiation of state policy – the worst failing of public health and public policy perhaps in the history of the US if not the entire world. We are right now living in its last days. Remember these days, my friends. They are legion and mark what is likely the end of the great fiasco.

And yet it is not really the end. There will be decades of hell to pay for what has happened to us.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/04/2022 – 16:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3sYoQWb Tyler Durden

Why Pandemic Promiscuity Is Out—And ‘Slow Love’ Is In

Editing by Regan Taylor, interview by Nick Gillespie

Music: “Lover Please Stay,” by Shtriker Big Band

The post Why Pandemic Promiscuity Is Out—And 'Slow Love' Is In appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zqffZq
via IFTTT

Bond Bloodbath Batters Big-Tech, Sparks Bid For Banks

2022’s bond bloodbath continued today with 30Y smashing up to 2.10%…

Source: Bloomberg

This is the biggest 2-day surge in yields since the chaos in March 2020 amid the bailouts. It was all going so well…

30Y Yields blew through their 50-, 100-, and 200-DMAs…

Source: Bloomberg

Banks have been manically bid on the bear-steepening curve as big tech was dumped…

Source: Bloomberg

As rates continued to soar, long-duration growthy stocks were clubbed like baby seals… most especially unprofitable tech stocks tumbled to their lowest since Oct 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

Nasdaq was the day’s biggest loser, erasing all of yesterday’s gains. The S&P was unchanged and Dow was the biggest winner on the day…

Intraday, Nasdaq bounced back above its 50-DMA

But as Real Yields rise, Nasdaq (growth heavy) has a lot further to fall relative to Small Caps (value heavy)

Source: Bloomberg

For the second day in a row, ‘recovery’ stocks ripped higher at the open, then faded relative to ‘stay at home’ stocks…

Source: Bloomberg

Yesterday’s short-squeeze was unwound today…

Source: Bloomberg

Overall, it was a mixed day for bonds with the long-end significantly underperforming and more bear-steepening (2Y -1bps, 30Y +6bps)…

Source: Bloomberg

The yield curve has steepened all the way back to the Powell Pivot…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin started the day off to the upside but rejected its 200DMA once again and dived to its lowest ‘close’ since Oct 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar managed modest gains today, finding support at its 50DMA once again…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices rallied ahead of tonight’s API inventory data, erasing all the post-Omicron losses…

Finally, in case you were wondering why mega-cap Tech is suddenly puking, Bloomberg notes that the P/E ratio of the S&P 500’s 10 largest stocks is trading near a level that marked the implosion of the dot-com bubble two decades ago.

Source: Bloomberg

Elevated valuations combined with a potential rise in bond yields and risk of slowing growth make equities more vulnerable to corrections. And with the S&P 500 Index’s top 10 biggest companies comprising nearly a third of the gauge’s total weighting, any retreat in these market behemoths could fuel a dip in the entire market.

Additionally, bond vol is at its highest relative to stock vol since 2019…

Source: Bloomberg

So where is the safe-haven?

Is Byron Wien going to be right about gold in 2022?

And it wouldn’t be fair if we didn’t show this…

Is omicron “nature’s vaccine”?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/04/2022 – 16:02

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3HyWyph Tyler Durden

Live and Learn

One of my favorite exchanges, from the otherwise largely forgettable Burn After Reading:

GARDNER CHUBB (CONT’D)
… What did we learn, Palmer.

PALMER
I don’t know, sir.

GARDNER CHUBB
I don’t fucking know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.

PALMER
Yes sir.

GARDNER CHUBB
Although I’m fucked if I know what we did.

PALMER
Yes sir. Hard to say.

The post Live and Learn appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31tsmwu
via IFTTT

Live and Learn

One of my favorite exchanges, from the otherwise largely forgettable Burn After Reading:

GARDNER CHUBB (CONT’D)
… What did we learn, Palmer.

PALMER
I don’t know, sir.

GARDNER CHUBB
I don’t fucking know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.

PALMER
Yes sir.

GARDNER CHUBB
Although I’m fucked if I know what we did.

PALMER
Yes sir. Hard to say.

The post Live and Learn appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31tsmwu
via IFTTT