The PHSA’s context, she wrote, “indicates that ‘sanitation’ and ‘other measures’ refer to measures that clean something, not ones that keep something clean. Wearing a mask cleans nothing,” she argued. “At most, it traps virus droplets. But it neither ‘sanitizes’ the person wearing the mask nor ‘sanitizes’ the conveyance.”
Despite the obvious counter-argument that a mask cleans exhaled air by trapping and thus removing virus droplets injurious to health, she concludes that the mask mandate “falls outside” the scope of the PHSA.
“The Court accepts the CDC’s policy determination that requiring masks will limit COVID-19 transmission and will thus decrease the serious illnesses and death that COVID-19 occasions,” she wrote. “But the finding by itself is not sufficient to establish good cause.” Elsewhere she lamented that “the CDC failed to articulate that reasoning” and “identify specific reasons.”
“In sum, irrespective of whether the CDC made a good or accurate decision, it needed to explain why it acted as it did,” she wrote.
I have often said that doing something good for the wrong reasons is still doing something good, and doing something bad for the right reasons is still doing something bad. This judge seems to take the opposite view.
I think the judge is entirely on the side of doing something bad for the wrong reasons. Apparently they think that being prevented from flying without wearing a mask is equivalent to being detained.
One could wonder why the same logic doesn’t apply to, say, being prevented from flying without having all your posessions scanned. Or being prevented from flying while carrying a gun. Or…
The CDC has straightforwardly interpreted “sanitation” and “other measures” to include masking because masks promote “sanitation” as it’s currently defined: “the promotion of hygiene and prevention of disease by maintenance of sanitary conditions.” However, Mizelle sought a definition of “sanitation” from around 1944, when the PHSA was drafted. She referenced the 1946 edition of Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary , which defined sanitation as “the removal or neutralization of elements injurious to health.” She dubiously argued that the PHSA’s use of “sanitation” was intended to mean " active cleaning."
(idiomatic, law) A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.
7:45 pm ET update : The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided to appeal a Florida judge’s ruling Monday that abruptly vacated the federal travel mask mandate. The Department of Justice said Tuesday that it would appeal the ruling if the CDC determined that the mask mandate was still necessary.
In a media statement late Wednesday afternoon, the CDC said it determined that masks are necessary and told the DOJ to proceed with the appeal. “It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health,” the statement said. “CDC will continue to monitor public health conditions to determine whether such an order remains necessary. CDC believes this is a lawful order, well within CDC’s legal authority to protect public health,” the agency added.
For now, the federal mask mandate for transit remains lifted. However, the CDC continued to urge travelers to wear a mask on planes, trains, buses, subways, taxis, rideshares, and transit hubs. “As we have said before, wearing masks is most beneficial in crowded or poorly ventilated locations, such as the transportation corridor,” the agency said. “When people wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over their nose and mouth in indoor travel or public transportation settings, they protect themselves, and those around them, including those who are immunocompromised or not yet vaccine-eligible, and help keep travel and public transportation safer for everyone.”
And now we get to see whether higher courts are willing to twist themselves into pretzels to get rid of the mandate…
Our town recently decided to end its contract with the paramedic/ambulance service after over 50 years. It’s replacing it by putting the fire department in charge of two ambulances, with only one paramedic and one EMT, but they are planning on training one more assistant to work part-time. To handle “more than 1,300 medical calls last year”. Plus all the medical transports, etc. that the ambulance company does.
An insider tells me the people at the hospital are pissed. And so are the people at the ambulance place, because nobody told them, they heard it from the news first.
I was supposed to have an appointment with my spinal pain specialist a month ago, but it was cancelled for assorted reasons.
Today, I tried to rebook it. This usually involves a lengthy delay as the Melbourne-based specialist only visits Tasmania occasionally. But today I was in luck; they had a free slot tomorrow.
Then they told me that they couldn’t make the appointment because my referral from the GP had expired. So, call the GP in Beaconsfield to get it renewed.
Whereupon the receptionist at the GP tells me that (a) my doctor has quit, and (b) the sole remaining doctor is run ragged, has not taken on the patients of the retiring doctor and is not accepting new patients.
So there is no way to get the referral renewed, and getting a referral from a different doctor would require finding a GP willing to accept new patients.
Which, as far as I can tell, do not exist north of Launceston.
