Since a lot of ppl are reading this, lemme be clear: COVID-19 is real and dangerous, but the CDC itself, only a few days ago (& based on data), said schools cld be reopened w real & rigorous precautions (masking, distance, etc). And plenty of schools have done just this. (ctd)
To now tie reopening to funding for broader, longstanding issues - issues unrelated to the immediate, urgent need to reopen & that have not stopped many other schools from reopening safely - is a big problem (assuming, of course, that's what they're doing).
Happy to see a clarification that shows this was just poorly written or worded. Otherwise, it's bad, bad, bad.
This is... definitely not the clarification I was hoping for (and is, in fact, probably worse)
Why not wait till the funding is there and things are perfect? Thread:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Scott Lincicome

Scott Lincicome Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @scottlincicome

27 Jan
🚨My latest @CatoInstitute paper is out today🚨: "Manufactured Crisis: 'Deindustrialization,' Free Markets, and National Security" cato.org/publications/p…

It is VERY chart/data-rich (partially intended to be a longer-term resource).

Quick summary to follow (thread): /1
Both the left & right increasingly justify protectionism & industrial policy not on economic grounds, but on "national security" or "resiliency" ones - especially re China and COVID-19. Notable targets are semiconductors & medical goods, but there are plenty of others too /2
The usual claim: “free markets” & a lack of govt support for US manufacturing crippled the industrial base’s ability to supply “essential” goods during war, pandemic, or other emergency. We thus need big new govt actions (tariffs, subsidies, 'Buy American,' etc) to rebuild mfg /3
Read 17 tweets
24 Jan
What am I going to do with this puppy? Image
Not a lot of harsh disciplinarians on Twitter, I see. Too bad I rule with an IRON FIST.
Rosie is getting a bath. She's not happy abt it. Will report back.
Read 4 tweets
24 Jan
As Pfizer and Moderna churn out incredible vaccines on US soil (due in large part to globalization), the Biden admin is apparently worried about our trade deficit in pharmaceuticals. 🙄
wsj.com/articles/biden…? Image
There are legitimate complaints abt pharma IP rules in US trade agreements. But worrying abt goods trade balances is absurd, esp given the current vaccine situation.
Me: these incredible, life-saving vaccines relied on the free flow of capital, labor, goods, services, & knowledge, and millions of doses are being made on US soil
Them: but the trade balance is bad and workers or something
Me:
Read 4 tweets
24 Jan
How'd they do it? Quick summary: pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/01/21/wes… Image
And, no, this doesn't mean they're ignoring second doses (see right column). They're just really efficient. (Source: dhhr.wv.gov/COVID-19/Pages…) Image
Read 4 tweets
2 Dec 20
ICYMI: COVID-19 caused a BIG spike in self-employment & new business formation as workers adjust to the "new normal". It's especially surprising since business creation/destruction ("dynamism"), which drives productivity/growth/jobs, has been declining for decades. HOWEVER... /1
There are a lot of federal/state/local policies that inhibit business formation & burden self-employed workers in many occupations. In fact, the USA ranks poorly in "ease of starting a business"... AND /2
We've been besieged in recent years by state occupational licensing rules, which increased from 5% of occupations a few decades ago to 20-30% & have been shown to harm entrepreneurship - esp in "low income" fields, many of which are part of that "COVID entrepreneur" surge /3
Read 5 tweets
30 Nov 20
"Pfizer agreed to front BioNTech’s development costs and manage the clinical trials, manufacturing and distribution. BioNTech agreed to pay Pfizer back out of any profits, which would be split." nytimes.com/2020/11/21/us/…
"The government was ready to foot much of the development bill, guide the clinical trials and even deliver supplies to factories.

Dr. Bourla was not interested. As one of the world’s top vaccine producers, Pfizer did not need federal help in developing a new product"
"Pfizer signed a $1.95B agreement in July to sell the federal government 100 million doses of its vaccine if it was successful, guaranteeing it a buyer... It also called on the Trump administration a few times to get access to manufacturing supplies. Otherwise it was on its own."
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!