For every mainstream article advocating masking or vaccination to prevent or minimize COVID-19, a group or individual is attacking it. The science seems crystal clear – to the proponents on either side. Even more, than advocating for “scientific might,” individuals claim the political right to decide which conduct or treatment they favor under the mantra of “liberty.” But when a disease as contagious as COVID affects more than the individual, some independent arbiter needs to make over-arching public health decisions. Supposedly, that would be the state government – entrenched under the law in time-honored state constitutions. But of late, that bastion seems wobbly.
When someone does something inexplicable and out of the blue, my husband’s mantra is to ask qui bono. Who benefits?  So why would Emily Oster, an economist without public health or legal training, propose a forgiveness program for COVID disinformation? Why propose not only doing a reset but creating an amnesty program for something that may be a legal wrongdoing?
I was supportive when governmental institutions told me to social distance and mask up. I bristle when they tell me that there should be no medical or surgical management for gender dysphoria for those under 18, even with parental consent. The science for both is unclear and unsettled. Are my feelings driven by politics or something else?