One might shrug this off by saying, "well, he served under Trump, so it's not surprising that he'd disagree with Biden." But that would misread the stature, motives, and reputation of Dr. Scott Gottlieb (whom we quoted earlier today as well). Yes, he ran FDA under Trump, but he's extremely well-respected and mainstream. He's been a fixture on CBS News's "Face the Nation" throughout the pandemic, for instance, and he seems to command the respect of many major voices on public health issues, Right and Left. He will occasionally break with the elite consensus by telling certain hard but welcome truths, but he also lands firmly within the expert class establishment.
Which is why this analysis seems noteworthy:
Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb: the downside of Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate will outweigh any benefits pic.twitter.com/B8UERTnoSO
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 12, 2021
“I don't think we have to reach down to the level of small businesses with 100 or more employees and put a federal requirement on it,” @ScottGottliebMD says. “I don't think the federal government should be dictating this.” pic.twitter.com/nXpsoV7mlk
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) September 12, 2021
Not exactly a stinging critique – Gottlieb is unfailingly measured – but a serious one. Note that he and anchor Margaret Brennan aren't discussing the constitutional questions that are very much at play here, but practical and pragmatic ones. Is it legal for the federal government to impose these types of requirements on private businesses? Interesting points here from Allahpundit:
Biden’s mandate is legally dubious twice over. First, it’s an attempt to use the Commerce Clause to exercise a police power over public health that the Tenth Amendment grants to the states. (Worse, it’s being shoehorned into the OSHA statute instead of deriving from a discrete act of Congress.) And second, Biden’s interpretation of the OSHA statute doesn’t add up. He said the mandate is needed to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, but the vaccinated are at little risk of severe illness. The truth, which Biden won’t admit, is that the mandate aims to protect the unvaccinated from the consequences of their own poor choices. Is it a proper exercise of the commerce power to protect people from a risk they’ve willingly assumed?
As I argued on Friday, Biden's "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" argument doesn't hold water (there are maddening, utterly senseless and fully avoidable exceptions to this overall point) and actually undermines faith in the vaccines. I also think that more serious discussions about realistic endgames are in order. Zero COVID is not going to happen. We are not going to eradicate this virus. But we can get to a point where it's basically a cold or flu for people with immunity via vaccines and/or previous infection. We're already more or less there, aren't we – at least to a large extent? And speaking of natural immunity, Ron DeSantis asked a good question when responding to the president's endless barbs directed at him (starting around the 1:30 mark):
Gov. DeSavage CLAPS BACK at Biden for his tyrannical vaccine mandates, says what we're all thinking:
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) September 10, 2021
"It's not based on science. He's saying he's losing patience with people?... We don't live with a one-person rule in this country. We live in a Constitutional system." pic.twitter.com/xBYVza8v7P
Why should an essential worker who didn't have the luxury of staying home, and who has already contracted and recovered from COVID, not be allowed to work unless they comply with this new Biden mandate? One major study indicated that natural immunity is much more powerful than vaccine-induced immunity (though combining the two is exceptionally powerful)? Dr. Fauci was asked about this and I'll let you decide if you think his answer is satisfactory:
Recommended
Dr. Fauci on why Americans who’ve previously been infected should get vaccinated despite studies showing it’s unnecessary: “I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that” pic.twitter.com/Y1CH2Wh6nk
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 10, 2021
Seems like something that the government should probably have carefully considered, no? Perhaps workers are entitled to a "firm answer" to this question before Joe Biden imposes requirements on them that could threaten their employment. I'll leave you with AP explaining why Fauci's answer isn't just a dodge on a really important question, it's also factually incorrect.
